Atheism Ridicule - Beliefnet: "“The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.” ~Harlan Ellison"
Noted by Kodiakman
Superman music
1 day ago
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Celebrating the Miracle of Birth
The Biblical Self-Destruct Clause - Beliefnet
I have always liked the allegorical interpretation of the nativity passages as referring to the miracle of the live birth of every child. Sure, none of us get novas, and wise men and gifts, and hosannas sung by angels and shepherds, but we all deserve them don't we. After all, countless generations of survivors all coming together in the birth of a new human is certainly a miracle. The a priori odds are ridiculous."
So by the power of myth, what Truth is conveyed by Matthew I & II???
BillWitt
I have always liked the allegorical interpretation of the nativity passages as referring to the miracle of the live birth of every child. Sure, none of us get novas, and wise men and gifts, and hosannas sung by angels and shepherds, but we all deserve them don't we. After all, countless generations of survivors all coming together in the birth of a new human is certainly a miracle. The a priori odds are ridiculous."
Mythology and Fiction
The Biblical Self-Destruct Clause - Beliefnet
WTFGAS. I have already mentioned that this was a myth that was important enough to Q and Matthew to dress it up a bit. Whether or not there was a man resembling Jesus preaching in the Middle East around 33 CE affects the myth not at all. It was important enough that a few literate people attributed an oral tradition, a myth, to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, a different version to John, and for a charlatan to base a whole religion on. Not too shabby for a ancient fictional story, eh?
All of the above speaks loudly and clearly to me of the truth of the overall myth even though some of the details may be fictional. By the way fictional does mean false, it simply means that the story has been distorted enough to avoid defamation lawsuits, or in earlier times to make it easier to remember."
And where did you get all this information about Jesus which you consider true? By any chance did it come from some ancient fictional story of mythology??
BillWitt
WTFGAS. I have already mentioned that this was a myth that was important enough to Q and Matthew to dress it up a bit. Whether or not there was a man resembling Jesus preaching in the Middle East around 33 CE affects the myth not at all. It was important enough that a few literate people attributed an oral tradition, a myth, to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, a different version to John, and for a charlatan to base a whole religion on. Not too shabby for a ancient fictional story, eh?
All of the above speaks loudly and clearly to me of the truth of the overall myth even though some of the details may be fictional. By the way fictional does mean false, it simply means that the story has been distorted enough to avoid defamation lawsuits, or in earlier times to make it easier to remember."
Owning Your Own Shadow - Science & Religion - Beliefnet Community
Owning Your Own Shadow - Beliefnet
Yes, there is such a thing as human nature and a human spirit, although not a spirit entity separate from the human. I suspect I also define spirit quite differently from you. Human nature as I see it is a highly evolved social nature that is altruistic and puts the welfare of the family and the tribe however that is defined above all else including self except as self contributes to the welfare of family and tribe.
This is both the good news and the bad news. If the welfare of the tribe is corrupted by a powerful leader or mediator for God, Hell awaits the whole tribe. This is not the fault of a sinful human nature, it it the result of the failure of the leaders to accept the responsibility for their actions on behalf of the tribe. Please note this is a failure of the leader to comply with herm human nature, not the human nature driving the failure.
The human spirit is the reward mechanism built into the mind/brain to provide the incentive to do more than our share for ourselves, our family, and our tribe, using tribe in the larger sense of those that are important to us in the world. In a modern world the tribe may be distributed over a whole country or even the whole world. It may contain members we will never meet, but whose activities contribute to our own spiritual development and whom we may perchance affect with our own activities for the welfare of the tribe."
As I was reading the posts, I began equating the 'shadow' with the human spirit / our human nature. If this is true, I wondered if you recognize a human nature / spirit entity within your being?
iamachildofhis
Yes, there is such a thing as human nature and a human spirit, although not a spirit entity separate from the human. I suspect I also define spirit quite differently from you. Human nature as I see it is a highly evolved social nature that is altruistic and puts the welfare of the family and the tribe however that is defined above all else including self except as self contributes to the welfare of family and tribe.
This is both the good news and the bad news. If the welfare of the tribe is corrupted by a powerful leader or mediator for God, Hell awaits the whole tribe. This is not the fault of a sinful human nature, it it the result of the failure of the leaders to accept the responsibility for their actions on behalf of the tribe. Please note this is a failure of the leader to comply with herm human nature, not the human nature driving the failure.
The human spirit is the reward mechanism built into the mind/brain to provide the incentive to do more than our share for ourselves, our family, and our tribe, using tribe in the larger sense of those that are important to us in the world. In a modern world the tribe may be distributed over a whole country or even the whole world. It may contain members we will never meet, but whose activities contribute to our own spiritual development and whom we may perchance affect with our own activities for the welfare of the tribe."
Owning Your Own Shadow - Science & Religion - Beliefnet Community
Owning Your Own Shadow - Beliefnet
One common undercurrent in all of the above was Catholic and traditional Protestant Christianity. Upper Midwest educated middle class with some overlap in both directions basically eliminated fundamentalist Christianity from my world. As this was largely unconscious in the believers, I needed to study their religion to understand it so I could respond appropriately. They were the big dogs in the morality department, largely because it was unconscious for them.
Very early I was puzzled by the fact that so many of my friends 'wasted' so much time and energy on their religion. My church was a social group, duh, but the religion was do it yourself, and optional. I read the bible straight through at an early age, and found very little to work with. I learned much more studying the mass and religious music, as these sources were condensed versions of what made the faithful work. Requiems in particular gave an incredible look inside the Christian religion. Certainly my study helped me interpret the music, but it was just as important to me to solve that intellectual puzzle of belief systems.
I never did find one that worked for me. But I gradually came to understand why they worked for many friends."
You posted that you are well acquainted with The Bible and Theology, because of your study of The Bible and Theology books.
iamachildofhis
One common undercurrent in all of the above was Catholic and traditional Protestant Christianity. Upper Midwest educated middle class with some overlap in both directions basically eliminated fundamentalist Christianity from my world. As this was largely unconscious in the believers, I needed to study their religion to understand it so I could respond appropriately. They were the big dogs in the morality department, largely because it was unconscious for them.
Very early I was puzzled by the fact that so many of my friends 'wasted' so much time and energy on their religion. My church was a social group, duh, but the religion was do it yourself, and optional. I read the bible straight through at an early age, and found very little to work with. I learned much more studying the mass and religious music, as these sources were condensed versions of what made the faithful work. Requiems in particular gave an incredible look inside the Christian religion. Certainly my study helped me interpret the music, but it was just as important to me to solve that intellectual puzzle of belief systems.
I never did find one that worked for me. But I gradually came to understand why they worked for many friends."
Motivations.
Owning Your Own Shadow - Beliefnet
"The society in which I was brought up acceptance and participation in the society was determined not by a belief system, but by how one treated the others who were a part of it. There were many religions represented, mainly Christians, but some Jews and some of no discernible religion. The earliest moral lessons I remember were lessons on stealing and fair value exchange issues. Starting at about 5 or 6. It was not a matter of bad or good, but one of trust. One had to build a trustworthy reputation and it was easy to destroy it. Examples of untrustworthy people were all around and were not considered one of 'us' whoever 'us' was.
It is important that there never was a 'them.' The rest of the world was simply not 'Our kind of people.' The different strokes for different folks was the attitude that was basic to my upbringing. The next door neighbors were Catholic in everything they did. It was clear that they were not one of 'us.' They were good people, nice neighbors, the kids were acceptable playmates, but they didn't share the values that defined 'us.' The first time I heard the second great commandment I knew that Jesus was talking not about my next door neighbor but all of my neighbors.
My motivation was complex, I moved in a variety of groups, each with different values and it was important to be aware of those values and at least know why I violated some of them. In general because they conflicted with other values that I considered more important. As an example many of the groups I participated in due to athletics had a rather crude sexual morality. I was brought up to consider sexuality was a relationship first issue. The love 'em and leave 'em of the athletic and cheer leading world was of no interest to me.
But in all cases I was intensely aware of the fact that there was only one person in the world that was responsible for any hurt feelings or worse that I caused, and that was me. No confession booth, no cross to nail things to, just me. I couldn't even blame my parents, they would just laugh at me and say you got yourself into this, lets see how you get yourself out. This does not mean they were not supportive or helpful, but it was my problem not theirs.
In high school and college I played with the big dogs in a bunch of packs, moving smoothly between them as necessary. The mores of each pack were different. The team sports had one, the individual sport group had another. The choral groups another. The science geeks a different one. The UU youth was wildly different. In college the philosophy and religion group yet another but basically a continuation of the UU youth. The social and party group, there was only one I could afford to play with, was again quite different.
Not at all. Just like religions all groups had things that contributed to my character development. Those that were useful I adopted, but I never felt the need to "buy into the group package." At my college, the student football cheering section was a mandatory Saturday afternoon social function. I was not particularly interested in spectator sports, and the team sucked. But drinking the frozen orange drink, and socializing with friends, many of which shared my distaste for the game and the team was worth my time and energy. The football enthusiasts who cheered each half way decent play, and booed the refs, were part of the group, but I did not share their enthusiasm, just their company.
In order to work well in all these groups I had to be aware of the mores and how I would respond to them. No subconscious responses allowed, they would bite me on the rear cheek every time.
Not at all. I like to think that I integrated the best of all those groups into a coherent self image. The lessons from all those groups have served me well as a productive adult responsible for my own life. I have totally changed the direction of my life three times, each time moving into a completely different work and life style. It was very useful to be able to join a group as an observer and know how to spot the important things for being a part of the group.
Golf was very instructive for me in the mores department. Very early I was a competent golfer thanks to an ex pro instructor in my father. It is ridiculously easy to cheat in golf. But choosing to do so even in a practice round will very quickly insure that you will never get a money round. There is no way to repair the damage to the reputation of a golfer that cheats. Further it is assumed that a golfer that cheats in golf will cheat whenever hesh thinks hesh can get away with it. Politicians always cheat in golf."
It seems from your posts, that you have been very meticulous in maintaining your achieved righteousness / no shadow. I ask, 'Why have you done so?' What is your motivation for doing so? At what age did you become cognizant of your decision to do so? Was it a continuation of your home environment?
iamachildofhis [iama is apparently a Dispensationalist, a literalist fundamental Christian]
"The society in which I was brought up acceptance and participation in the society was determined not by a belief system, but by how one treated the others who were a part of it. There were many religions represented, mainly Christians, but some Jews and some of no discernible religion. The earliest moral lessons I remember were lessons on stealing and fair value exchange issues. Starting at about 5 or 6. It was not a matter of bad or good, but one of trust. One had to build a trustworthy reputation and it was easy to destroy it. Examples of untrustworthy people were all around and were not considered one of 'us' whoever 'us' was.
It is important that there never was a 'them.' The rest of the world was simply not 'Our kind of people.' The different strokes for different folks was the attitude that was basic to my upbringing. The next door neighbors were Catholic in everything they did. It was clear that they were not one of 'us.' They were good people, nice neighbors, the kids were acceptable playmates, but they didn't share the values that defined 'us.' The first time I heard the second great commandment I knew that Jesus was talking not about my next door neighbor but all of my neighbors.
My motivation was complex, I moved in a variety of groups, each with different values and it was important to be aware of those values and at least know why I violated some of them. In general because they conflicted with other values that I considered more important. As an example many of the groups I participated in due to athletics had a rather crude sexual morality. I was brought up to consider sexuality was a relationship first issue. The love 'em and leave 'em of the athletic and cheer leading world was of no interest to me.
But in all cases I was intensely aware of the fact that there was only one person in the world that was responsible for any hurt feelings or worse that I caused, and that was me. No confession booth, no cross to nail things to, just me. I couldn't even blame my parents, they would just laugh at me and say you got yourself into this, lets see how you get yourself out. This does not mean they were not supportive or helpful, but it was my problem not theirs.
In high school and college I played with the big dogs in a bunch of packs, moving smoothly between them as necessary. The mores of each pack were different. The team sports had one, the individual sport group had another. The choral groups another. The science geeks a different one. The UU youth was wildly different. In college the philosophy and religion group yet another but basically a continuation of the UU youth. The social and party group, there was only one I could afford to play with, was again quite different.
: Did you feel like a chameleon?
iama
Not at all. Just like religions all groups had things that contributed to my character development. Those that were useful I adopted, but I never felt the need to "buy into the group package." At my college, the student football cheering section was a mandatory Saturday afternoon social function. I was not particularly interested in spectator sports, and the team sucked. But drinking the frozen orange drink, and socializing with friends, many of which shared my distaste for the game and the team was worth my time and energy. The football enthusiasts who cheered each half way decent play, and booed the refs, were part of the group, but I did not share their enthusiasm, just their company.
In order to work well in all these groups I had to be aware of the mores and how I would respond to them. No subconscious responses allowed, they would bite me on the rear cheek every time.
After living through / with your school, college, university "groups," did you ever wonder who you really were?
iamachildofhis
Not at all. I like to think that I integrated the best of all those groups into a coherent self image. The lessons from all those groups have served me well as a productive adult responsible for my own life. I have totally changed the direction of my life three times, each time moving into a completely different work and life style. It was very useful to be able to join a group as an observer and know how to spot the important things for being a part of the group.
Golf was very instructive for me in the mores department. Very early I was a competent golfer thanks to an ex pro instructor in my father. It is ridiculously easy to cheat in golf. But choosing to do so even in a practice round will very quickly insure that you will never get a money round. There is no way to repair the damage to the reputation of a golfer that cheats. Further it is assumed that a golfer that cheats in golf will cheat whenever hesh thinks hesh can get away with it. Politicians always cheat in golf."
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Goldman Sachs or Boobies?
BusinessWorld Online: :
"AMSTERDAM/BOSTON -- Did you hear that Goldman Sachs made the Iceland volcano erupt? It did pretty well shorting airlines."
This is much more believable than the Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi Boobquake theory.
"AMSTERDAM/BOSTON -- Did you hear that Goldman Sachs made the Iceland volcano erupt? It did pretty well shorting airlines."
This is much more believable than the Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi Boobquake theory.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Perfection
Owning Your Own Shadow - Beliefnet
I don't agree. But I frequently thank those, mostly dead now, that brought me up without a shadow and taught me how not to internalize shadow making criticism. I thank them not for them, but for me. I can still put names to those who taught critical lessons in responsibility. If someone tells me I screwed up, I have two choices, I can say yes, I did, and do what I can to repair the damage, or I can 'consider the source' and say no it is your problem, I don't need to even consider it, and I certainly don't need to make it my problem."
I actually strive to achieve perfection in my ethical behavior and my moral relationships. It is not really that hard as all moral and ethical behavior is considered, and misjudging another's reaction is technically their problem not mine, although perfection would be taking that into consideration.
You are perfect.
Wendyness
I don't agree. But I frequently thank those, mostly dead now, that brought me up without a shadow and taught me how not to internalize shadow making criticism. I thank them not for them, but for me. I can still put names to those who taught critical lessons in responsibility. If someone tells me I screwed up, I have two choices, I can say yes, I did, and do what I can to repair the damage, or I can 'consider the source' and say no it is your problem, I don't need to even consider it, and I certainly don't need to make it my problem."
I actually strive to achieve perfection in my ethical behavior and my moral relationships. It is not really that hard as all moral and ethical behavior is considered, and misjudging another's reaction is technically their problem not mine, although perfection would be taking that into consideration.
Are You Wrong?
Owning Your Own Shadow - Beliefnet
"You will have to define wrong: Morally, socially, intellectually?
Since I have neither a shadow nor a God to blame for any transgressions, and the arrow of responsibility always points back to me, I try not to be willfully wrong in any situation. I do not always succeed sometimes due to a social misunderstanding, sometimes a simple screw up. But in any case I am the damage repair crew. That does make thinking about what one is doing a lot more important."
Are you ever wrong?
Wendyness
"You will have to define wrong: Morally, socially, intellectually?
Since I have neither a shadow nor a God to blame for any transgressions, and the arrow of responsibility always points back to me, I try not to be willfully wrong in any situation. I do not always succeed sometimes due to a social misunderstanding, sometimes a simple screw up. But in any case I am the damage repair crew. That does make thinking about what one is doing a lot more important."
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
What is Free Will?
Belief of No Free Will... - Beliefnet
"The problem I have with the experiment in the OP and this thread in general is that free will is ultimately a religious concept in the sense that free will must come from something, presumably God. The concept is that God provides a bunch of rules and constraints on behavior, then 'Gives' free will to obey or disobey those constraints. One may choose to obey a directive or not in the larger sense but the directive is assumed to be absolute.
A much more useful way of looking at things is the source of the constraints on behavior that we choose to accept. This assumes that unconstrained choice is the natural state of human cognition, and it is the constraints on acting out the choices which are the important considerations.
This changes the whole picture. Free will is not a gift or an option it is the natural state of the human mind. We can and do think about all sorts of behaviors that might be expressed. However, as a part of being socialized as a child and to a lesser extent as an adult member of a society, and perhaps partly instinctual as a social animal, there are certain behaviors that may not be expressed. Once internalized as a constraint, we have no 'free will' to express the behavior. At the very least our self-image as a moral and ethical member of our society will prevent the expression of the thought as behavior. Of course fear of Hell or jail may reinforce the decision. but ultimately it is the internalization of the constraint which determines the control of the behavior. Free will has nothing at all to do with it."
the question of whether free will exists -- and, in particular, whether people believe it exists -- has some solid real-world repercussions.
Consider, for example, the following 2008 social psychology experiment. Researchers Kathleen Vohs, an associate professor of marketing at the University of Minnesota, and Jonathan Schooler, professor of psychology at University of California-Santa Babara, put subjects in front of a computer and asked them to read either a neutral passage or else a passage arguing that free will does not exist and claiming that most scientists agree.
Don't_Be_Captious
"The problem I have with the experiment in the OP and this thread in general is that free will is ultimately a religious concept in the sense that free will must come from something, presumably God. The concept is that God provides a bunch of rules and constraints on behavior, then 'Gives' free will to obey or disobey those constraints. One may choose to obey a directive or not in the larger sense but the directive is assumed to be absolute.
A much more useful way of looking at things is the source of the constraints on behavior that we choose to accept. This assumes that unconstrained choice is the natural state of human cognition, and it is the constraints on acting out the choices which are the important considerations.
This changes the whole picture. Free will is not a gift or an option it is the natural state of the human mind. We can and do think about all sorts of behaviors that might be expressed. However, as a part of being socialized as a child and to a lesser extent as an adult member of a society, and perhaps partly instinctual as a social animal, there are certain behaviors that may not be expressed. Once internalized as a constraint, we have no 'free will' to express the behavior. At the very least our self-image as a moral and ethical member of our society will prevent the expression of the thought as behavior. Of course fear of Hell or jail may reinforce the decision. but ultimately it is the internalization of the constraint which determines the control of the behavior. Free will has nothing at all to do with it."
Monday, April 19, 2010
Spiritual Bullying.
Bully Believers - Beliefnet
"Intellectual capacity and conceptual reasoning can be as important to spiritual discernment as any other input including God and religion. Spiritual discernment is necessarily personal, and paraphrasing Heinlein: one person's spirituality is another person's belly laugh. Neither the laughter or the spiritualist are bullying. If the spiritually is not strong enough to stand up to the belly laugh, maybe there is something wrong with the spirituality. The belly laugh is not bullying, but claiming that the spirituality is protected because it is 'Religion' is."
This is the asymmetry of the religious in the public sphere. They can knock on my door to peddle their God, but if I ridicule it or even suggest there are other ways of looking at the issue, I am being a bully and trashing their sacred concepts. Somehow because God is involved I am supposed to roll over say "that is nice," take a tract and say have a nice day. Not likely. I would just as soon have an pusher knock on my door and say "Want a hit?" At least hesh wouldn't be offended if I said "no, and the next time I call the cops." Why does God give Herm pushers special protection in the real world? Hesh doesn't of course but the pushers think they have it. The First Amendment gives them the right to push their shit, and it also gives me the right to call what they are pushing shit.
Intellectual capacity and sophisticated concepts have little to do with spiritual discernment. One may be able to penetrate deeply into spiritual realities but lack the means to adequately express interpret it. This is attacked by critics of religion as an “unreasoned basis for belief.” Such critics are indeed 'bullies.'
Merlin
"Intellectual capacity and conceptual reasoning can be as important to spiritual discernment as any other input including God and religion. Spiritual discernment is necessarily personal, and paraphrasing Heinlein: one person's spirituality is another person's belly laugh. Neither the laughter or the spiritualist are bullying. If the spiritually is not strong enough to stand up to the belly laugh, maybe there is something wrong with the spirituality. The belly laugh is not bullying, but claiming that the spirituality is protected because it is 'Religion' is."
This is the asymmetry of the religious in the public sphere. They can knock on my door to peddle their God, but if I ridicule it or even suggest there are other ways of looking at the issue, I am being a bully and trashing their sacred concepts. Somehow because God is involved I am supposed to roll over say "that is nice," take a tract and say have a nice day. Not likely. I would just as soon have an pusher knock on my door and say "Want a hit?" At least hesh wouldn't be offended if I said "no, and the next time I call the cops." Why does God give Herm pushers special protection in the real world? Hesh doesn't of course but the pushers think they have it. The First Amendment gives them the right to push their shit, and it also gives me the right to call what they are pushing shit.
Understand the Universe.
Critique of Christian morality - Beliefnet
"With the Hubble and other instruments I can see, and with a little help from my friends, understand the workings and even the very beginnings of the universe. With an electron microscope, and some help from my friends I can see and understand the fundamental workings of the cell. As a human, with some help from my friends I can see and understand anything I want to. I can look at those parts that are interesting and meaningful to me and let my friends worry about those things that aren't.
God(s) are limited to what they could see 2-3000 years ago, through the eyes of people that generally never left their village. According to all accounts the elephant looked a lot like a sheep.
Why should I exchange my ability to look wherever I want to in the universe and all that is contained within it, at any scale I care to, for a God that can't see beyond the Middle Eastern desert?"
Unless a person can somehow break out of his/her limited frame of reference they cannot know what the elephant is supposed to look like.They will be forever trapped with a leg, ear, trunk, tusk, tail, ect. and they will never come to see the big picture.
It is my contention that religion is the vehicle that God(s) use to convey the big picture of what the elephant is supposed to look like.
Kodiacman
"With the Hubble and other instruments I can see, and with a little help from my friends, understand the workings and even the very beginnings of the universe. With an electron microscope, and some help from my friends I can see and understand the fundamental workings of the cell. As a human, with some help from my friends I can see and understand anything I want to. I can look at those parts that are interesting and meaningful to me and let my friends worry about those things that aren't.
God(s) are limited to what they could see 2-3000 years ago, through the eyes of people that generally never left their village. According to all accounts the elephant looked a lot like a sheep.
Why should I exchange my ability to look wherever I want to in the universe and all that is contained within it, at any scale I care to, for a God that can't see beyond the Middle Eastern desert?"
Synoptic Problem?
Expelled! - Beliefnet
"As I never believed anything in in the Bible or ascribed any special significance to it I could use logic to solve the 'Synoptic Problem:'
Jesus as a normal 30+ male of his time probably had a female companion who was with him during his ministry. Illiterate as nearly all women of the time she created an adoring oral history embellished as all oral histories are for mnemonic as well as story telling reasons. This oral history was picked up by the disciples who as tradespeople of the time were probably also illiterate. At some point literate followers of the cults generated by Jesus were induced to write down the various oral histories, three of which were canonized along with John's commentary. The rest were destroyed, lost, or in the case of the Gnostics buried for posterity.
I have no problem extrapolating the Synoptics back to the original oral history and stripping the mnemonics and worship to get to the radical theistic humanism of Jesus. It is no wonder his ministry was repudiated by Paul and the local authorities, and the true followers of Jesus persecuted to extinction."
According to this theory, different Gospel authors relied on different lists to weave their stories--Mark used Peter's, the author of Matthew used Matthew's, and so on, giving rise to the 'Synoptic Problem.'
amcolph
"As I never believed anything in in the Bible or ascribed any special significance to it I could use logic to solve the 'Synoptic Problem:'
Jesus as a normal 30+ male of his time probably had a female companion who was with him during his ministry. Illiterate as nearly all women of the time she created an adoring oral history embellished as all oral histories are for mnemonic as well as story telling reasons. This oral history was picked up by the disciples who as tradespeople of the time were probably also illiterate. At some point literate followers of the cults generated by Jesus were induced to write down the various oral histories, three of which were canonized along with John's commentary. The rest were destroyed, lost, or in the case of the Gnostics buried for posterity.
I have no problem extrapolating the Synoptics back to the original oral history and stripping the mnemonics and worship to get to the radical theistic humanism of Jesus. It is no wonder his ministry was repudiated by Paul and the local authorities, and the true followers of Jesus persecuted to extinction."
Saturday, April 17, 2010
The Trouble with the Catholic Church
Sign, sign, everywhere a sign. - Beliefnet
"Is there any more that can be said?
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers
ASquidley
"Is there any more that can be said?
And After the Ashes?
Owning Your Own Shadow - Beliefnet
"It is a tradition in our family to distribute the ashes at the Celebration of Life ceremony to those present to be spread to significant places for the deceased. My sister's ashes are in the Mississippi River with her parents, on a beach in Hawaii frequented by her still living best friend, on Chopin's grave (shhh, don't tell the caretakers), on several pianos of those who loved her playing, in the well used and fondly remembered by all fire pit in her back yard spilled intentionally during the distribution, and many other places of significance to those who think of her often.
As to what happens after, like you, my sister is ready and eager to accept each new challenge as it comes, to crawl under the ropes around the piano in the mall and draw a crowd. If it was God who put the ropes around the piano, Hesh will smile and say 'They are for everybody but you, Janet, please continue.' Chopin will be leading the ovation."
What is the 'real' earth? Ashes to ashes, dust to dust, this is what becomes of us, our bodies return to the earth, after that no one knows, but some suspect it is a very big cosmos, inner and outer.
Wendyness
"It is a tradition in our family to distribute the ashes at the Celebration of Life ceremony to those present to be spread to significant places for the deceased. My sister's ashes are in the Mississippi River with her parents, on a beach in Hawaii frequented by her still living best friend, on Chopin's grave (shhh, don't tell the caretakers), on several pianos of those who loved her playing, in the well used and fondly remembered by all fire pit in her back yard spilled intentionally during the distribution, and many other places of significance to those who think of her often.
As to what happens after, like you, my sister is ready and eager to accept each new challenge as it comes, to crawl under the ropes around the piano in the mall and draw a crowd. If it was God who put the ropes around the piano, Hesh will smile and say 'They are for everybody but you, Janet, please continue.' Chopin will be leading the ovation."
Friday, April 16, 2010
The Significance of Humans
Atheism is life-affirming - Beliefnet
"The human race is the result of countless generations of living organisms that succeeded in staying alive long enough to reproduce. The human race is the currently most successful step in that process. After 3+ billion years or so I would suggest that the step is not insignificant.
If in some small or big way in my life I can contribute to helping my fellow humans not only stay alive but want to do so and enjoy the process while they are alive, then I share in the significance of that step in the process. In a real sense I am a significant step in that 3+BY process. Probably a very small one, but a step nonetheless.
I don't need to inflate my ego by thinking some infinite God gives a shit about me. Available evidence indicates that in the unlikely event that God exists, Hesh is as blind, pitiless and indifferent to me as is the universe. This bothers me not a whit. If I have made a difference in someone's life and been a good role model in doing so I am content. I have done my part to make my tiny step useful."
If with respect to the human race, then the importance and value of what I do in my life are insignificant unless the human race is somehow significant.
Lavengro
"The human race is the result of countless generations of living organisms that succeeded in staying alive long enough to reproduce. The human race is the currently most successful step in that process. After 3+ billion years or so I would suggest that the step is not insignificant.
If in some small or big way in my life I can contribute to helping my fellow humans not only stay alive but want to do so and enjoy the process while they are alive, then I share in the significance of that step in the process. In a real sense I am a significant step in that 3+BY process. Probably a very small one, but a step nonetheless.
I don't need to inflate my ego by thinking some infinite God gives a shit about me. Available evidence indicates that in the unlikely event that God exists, Hesh is as blind, pitiless and indifferent to me as is the universe. This bothers me not a whit. If I have made a difference in someone's life and been a good role model in doing so I am content. I have done my part to make my tiny step useful."
Infinite Ripples
Atheism is life-affirming - Beliefnet
"If you have interacted with another human favorably in the course of your life, that is made that person's life on this earth a little more comfortable or pleasant, and that person 'Pays it Forward' in Heinlein's words, the ripple is potentially infinite. I would rather bet on that infinity than some God rescuing some part of me to endure in some wonderful place somewhen if I have said the right prayers and chosen the right God.
Jesus while he was human said 'Love your neighbor [the Samaritan] as yourself.' His disciples and perhaps even the scribe that asked the question paid it forward and today one could argue that it makes Jesus immortal whether or not you believe the God myth.
Not all of us can have that big an impact, but if we can make the world just a little better for those around us, I think we have paid our dues for being alive and our importance and value will survive."
If with respect to me, and my death is extinction, then the importance and value vanish with my death.
Lavengro
"If you have interacted with another human favorably in the course of your life, that is made that person's life on this earth a little more comfortable or pleasant, and that person 'Pays it Forward' in Heinlein's words, the ripple is potentially infinite. I would rather bet on that infinity than some God rescuing some part of me to endure in some wonderful place somewhen if I have said the right prayers and chosen the right God.
Jesus while he was human said 'Love your neighbor [the Samaritan] as yourself.' His disciples and perhaps even the scribe that asked the question paid it forward and today one could argue that it makes Jesus immortal whether or not you believe the God myth.
Not all of us can have that big an impact, but if we can make the world just a little better for those around us, I think we have paid our dues for being alive and our importance and value will survive."
Funerals
The Bright Line - Beliefnet
"I have been to many atheist 'Celebrations of the Life Of .....' There is no mourning. Death is the bookend that says the person's active contribution is over, but those who knew and loved herm remember and celebrate all of the contributions the deceased has made to their lives and celebrate the Legacy of the deceased.
I have been to many Christian funerals, where mourners sing sad songs and hope against hope that somehow their prayers will help the dead avoid Hellfire and damnation. And also secretly hope that when they die they will also avoid Hellfire and damnation.
The 'High point' in a Requiem Mass is always the Dies Irae. The day of wrath and anger when the trumpets will sound and the dead will be judged. It is always scary music: Pay attention sinners! Get right with God or Hell awaits! Kind of fun to sing, but I wouldn't want to be a believer in that wrathful God. I particularly like the Tuba Mirum from the Berlioz Requiem The brass blares from the four corners of the hall "You are Damned" the chorus responds musically "I have hope?" The horns repeat, louder. "NO WAY." The chorus tries again. Again the horns deny. Finally the chorus gives up and joins the horns in the damning chord.
It is for this that we gather at the death of a friend? No, thank you! I much prefer the celebration of a friend's Legacy. To contemplate all those volumes on the bookshelf that we can remember at will and share with others when appropriate or necessary."
hopefully I will never, ever attend a atheist funeral... and there hear someone speak words to those who mourn without hope...
Leight
"I have been to many atheist 'Celebrations of the Life Of .....' There is no mourning. Death is the bookend that says the person's active contribution is over, but those who knew and loved herm remember and celebrate all of the contributions the deceased has made to their lives and celebrate the Legacy of the deceased.
I have been to many Christian funerals, where mourners sing sad songs and hope against hope that somehow their prayers will help the dead avoid Hellfire and damnation. And also secretly hope that when they die they will also avoid Hellfire and damnation.
The 'High point' in a Requiem Mass is always the Dies Irae. The day of wrath and anger when the trumpets will sound and the dead will be judged. It is always scary music: Pay attention sinners! Get right with God or Hell awaits! Kind of fun to sing, but I wouldn't want to be a believer in that wrathful God. I particularly like the Tuba Mirum from the Berlioz Requiem The brass blares from the four corners of the hall "You are Damned" the chorus responds musically "I have hope?" The horns repeat, louder. "NO WAY." The chorus tries again. Again the horns deny. Finally the chorus gives up and joins the horns in the damning chord.
It is for this that we gather at the death of a friend? No, thank you! I much prefer the celebration of a friend's Legacy. To contemplate all those volumes on the bookshelf that we can remember at will and share with others when appropriate or necessary."
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Theist vs Atheist
Can a cohesive community become our higher self? - Beliefnet
"A concise explanation of the fundamental and irreconcilable difference between a theist and an atheist view of God."
You speak as if God existed He would have to be contained within religion ...
It is my understanding that God created creation and put in place all of the laws, both physical and spiritual, for His creation to operate ...
Seefan
"A concise explanation of the fundamental and irreconcilable difference between a theist and an atheist view of God."
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Sexual Morality.
Science can answer moral questions - Beliefnet
"Substantive lying to anybody is wrong. It injures the other and is a disaster for self image. One can't hurt self or society much more grievously.
Adultery is a different issue. There are many workable forms of parenting. And to a greater extent marriage without the intent of children. Consensual open marriages. Open mistresses and concubines with the knowledge if not the blessing of the wife isn't even a biblical sin. About the only moral issue is the ability and willingness to provide proper support to the mother of any resulting children.
Adultery without spousal consent is certainly a moral issue, but with contraception and STD prevention it is probably one of the most common moral failings around. Religious or secular. And if you factor in serial monogamy as a moral failing, which I do especially with children involved, statistics are ugly for religious and secular alike, something like 30% for religious couples and 20% secular."
Pair bonded parents provide the most stable platform for child raising, particularly when both parents are committed to the child raising process. The dad provider, mom caregiver paradigm is a holdover from the patriarchal religious past, and provides an unbalanced role image for the children. Far better is two parents sharing the providing and the nurturing.
It seems there is a fairly clear, bright line here. Lieing to your wife and adultury are wrong.
Godman
"Substantive lying to anybody is wrong. It injures the other and is a disaster for self image. One can't hurt self or society much more grievously.
Adultery is a different issue. There are many workable forms of parenting. And to a greater extent marriage without the intent of children. Consensual open marriages. Open mistresses and concubines with the knowledge if not the blessing of the wife isn't even a biblical sin. About the only moral issue is the ability and willingness to provide proper support to the mother of any resulting children.
Adultery without spousal consent is certainly a moral issue, but with contraception and STD prevention it is probably one of the most common moral failings around. Religious or secular. And if you factor in serial monogamy as a moral failing, which I do especially with children involved, statistics are ugly for religious and secular alike, something like 30% for religious couples and 20% secular."
Pair bonded parents provide the most stable platform for child raising, particularly when both parents are committed to the child raising process. The dad provider, mom caregiver paradigm is a holdover from the patriarchal religious past, and provides an unbalanced role image for the children. Far better is two parents sharing the providing and the nurturing.
Morals from society
Science can answer moral questions - Beliefnet
"The problem that is being ignored by all is that morals are neither personal nor universal. Morals are derived from the local society that one considers herm own, and reflect values that benefit that society from the individual working out and therefore from the society back to the individual. If the society is God based then morals will come from God as interpreted by that little tinhorn in the fancy dress in the overdecorated balcony that speaks for God. If the society is not God based, say a typical University community, the morals are no less stringent and are probably more strictly enforced as there is no get out ofHell jail free card, or plagiarism is OK if you don't get caught by the prof card.
Compared to a high level university the typical religion is a group of moral slackers even if they get their morals direct from God. The GOOHF card of the Cross can excuse a lot of sin."
"The problem that is being ignored by all is that morals are neither personal nor universal. Morals are derived from the local society that one considers herm own, and reflect values that benefit that society from the individual working out and therefore from the society back to the individual. If the society is God based then morals will come from God as interpreted by that little tinhorn in the fancy dress in the overdecorated balcony that speaks for God. If the society is not God based, say a typical University community, the morals are no less stringent and are probably more strictly enforced as there is no get out of
Compared to a high level university the typical religion is a group of moral slackers even if they get their morals direct from God. The GOOHF card of the Cross can excuse a lot of sin."
God's morality?
Can a cohesive community become our higher self? - Beliefnet
"True they abide by the same rules, but the rules are fundamental not God. In other words God has no choice but promote rules that are good for the society of believers, and by and large those rules would be good for any society. Do not lie, cheat, steal, kill, respect authority beginning with parents and going on from there, to God if religious, to other authorities worthy of respect if not."
The big differences of course are in the "control morality." That morality that is use to control the sheeple. Paul found the efficacy of sexual morality for paternalistic control, and Christianity has gone downhill from there. A rational sexual morality is necessarily based on the welfare of the family whatever form that takes. The pair bond seems nearly universal in nature and seems to be the most workable sexual morality in humans. That is morality that strengthens and preserves the pair bond seems best for all social groupings.
That's not to say Atheist haven't found a degree of peace and contentment for they abide by the same rules ...
Seefan
"True they abide by the same rules, but the rules are fundamental not God. In other words God has no choice but promote rules that are good for the society of believers, and by and large those rules would be good for any society. Do not lie, cheat, steal, kill, respect authority beginning with parents and going on from there, to God if religious, to other authorities worthy of respect if not."
The big differences of course are in the "control morality." That morality that is use to control the sheeple. Paul found the efficacy of sexual morality for paternalistic control, and Christianity has gone downhill from there. A rational sexual morality is necessarily based on the welfare of the family whatever form that takes. The pair bond seems nearly universal in nature and seems to be the most workable sexual morality in humans. That is morality that strengthens and preserves the pair bond seems best for all social groupings.
Community or God?
Can a cohesive community become our higher self? - Beliefnet
"It depends on what you mean by a cohesive community. If you mean the village, either global or local I don't think it would be possible.
As a self chosen community among like minded friends and friends of friends I think it is the only way to replace the community of God believers. My chosen community has a similar set or mores, a similar rational approach to problem solving and a similar view that the only important activities are those that affect our community. Ourselves certainly, but the effects on the community reflect back on us. I am reminded of the famous image of the drop of water on a still water surface. Certainly the ripples radiate outward, but the reflection inward is the dominant effect of the action.
I don't really need a substitute for God. I never had one to substitute for, and all the meaning and purpose I need comes from and is directed toward that community that will carry on my legacy after I no longer can."
Can a cohesive community and a sense of belonging become our higher self? And be a substitute for a belief in God?
Dareesedelrae
"It depends on what you mean by a cohesive community. If you mean the village, either global or local I don't think it would be possible.
As a self chosen community among like minded friends and friends of friends I think it is the only way to replace the community of God believers. My chosen community has a similar set or mores, a similar rational approach to problem solving and a similar view that the only important activities are those that affect our community. Ourselves certainly, but the effects on the community reflect back on us. I am reminded of the famous image of the drop of water on a still water surface. Certainly the ripples radiate outward, but the reflection inward is the dominant effect of the action.
I don't really need a substitute for God. I never had one to substitute for, and all the meaning and purpose I need comes from and is directed toward that community that will carry on my legacy after I no longer can."
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Seeking God
Near Death Experiences - Beliefnet
I was not seeking God. I am an atheist and always have been. I have no interest in making the leap of faith to find God. But for a large variety of reasons I have studied religions extensively, and have been open to God experiences. It is impossible to sing an Ave Maria, or a Mass without believing in the Virgin or the Trinity at least for the duration of the work. Not understand it, but believe it. But if there were a traditional God who was just itching to show His face (in the case of the Mass) or Herm face in other situations, there was ample opportunity to do so. Net result: Nothing.
In all my studies I have found nothing that would want me to make that leap of faith. Most gods have the characteristics of a spoiled teen age male [insert your own crude adjective here.] The ones that don't, don't even pretend to be gods, although followers may try to make them one. The Buddha and Jesus come to mind. Jesus not Paul's Christ. As for religions a few might be attractive, but the prevailing theism gets in the way. I can and do ignore it, but none make enough sense to belong.
I have found my society, which satisfies all my social needs. It doesn't need a church, although Facebook is an incredible enabler for it. But before Facebook there were other networking tools that worked well enough. Promotional airfares are cheap and one can always find a couch to crash on if not a comfortable guest suite."
Seeking God with all my might might have meant something different to me than to you.
Stephen
I was not seeking God. I am an atheist and always have been. I have no interest in making the leap of faith to find God. But for a large variety of reasons I have studied religions extensively, and have been open to God experiences. It is impossible to sing an Ave Maria, or a Mass without believing in the Virgin or the Trinity at least for the duration of the work. Not understand it, but believe it. But if there were a traditional God who was just itching to show His face (in the case of the Mass) or Herm face in other situations, there was ample opportunity to do so. Net result: Nothing.
In all my studies I have found nothing that would want me to make that leap of faith. Most gods have the characteristics of a spoiled teen age male [insert your own crude adjective here.] The ones that don't, don't even pretend to be gods, although followers may try to make them one. The Buddha and Jesus come to mind. Jesus not Paul's Christ. As for religions a few might be attractive, but the prevailing theism gets in the way. I can and do ignore it, but none make enough sense to belong.
I have found my society, which satisfies all my social needs. It doesn't need a church, although Facebook is an incredible enabler for it. But before Facebook there were other networking tools that worked well enough. Promotional airfares are cheap and one can always find a couch to crash on if not a comfortable guest suite."
Friday, April 9, 2010
Human Rights stop at the Church Door?
Secular public, religious private - Beliefnet
That is a tough one. I find that radical respect for human rights says that 'What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.' And 'What happens in church stays in church.' While it is true that this permits abuse, according to standards of the larger society, as long as it stays in church, the support systems in the church must deal with it. The only larger society options are education and support for apostates. I think the media especially the internet is the only solution. If those within the church can discover alternatives to abuse, and can find the support groups outside the church to leave, they have the choice to do so. The fact that many will not choose to do so is not the concern of the larger society."
I'd be delighted to see the EU Court order the Vatican to end its discrimination and ordain men and women regardless of whether they were in a sexual relationship and regardless of whether they openly straight or homosexual.
Blü
That is a tough one. I find that radical respect for human rights says that 'What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.' And 'What happens in church stays in church.' While it is true that this permits abuse, according to standards of the larger society, as long as it stays in church, the support systems in the church must deal with it. The only larger society options are education and support for apostates. I think the media especially the internet is the only solution. If those within the church can discover alternatives to abuse, and can find the support groups outside the church to leave, they have the choice to do so. The fact that many will not choose to do so is not the concern of the larger society."
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
God as Tinkerer
QWERTY - Beliefnet
You might have got me thinking about a designer for the first time. It at least fits all the data."
Maybe God isn't so much of a Designer as He is a Hobbyist Tinkerer. Instead of buying a new computer, He just uses scraps of electronics from around the house and rigs one.
Iwantamotto
You might have got me thinking about a designer for the first time. It at least fits all the data."
Human Design extreme makeovers
QWERTY - Beliefnet
According to mythologies Hesh has done that a few times already and it hasn't worked out too well. It is fun to see how in so many mythologies the designer has been pissed and started over. Maybe one of these times he will forget about the thinking thing in Herm own image and quit with the dog."
I'm not sold on the idea it's proof there is no Designer. I AM sold on the idea that it's apparently not worth the trouble to start over from scratch.
Iwantamotto
According to mythologies Hesh has done that a few times already and it hasn't worked out too well. It is fun to see how in so many mythologies the designer has been pissed and started over. Maybe one of these times he will forget about the thinking thing in Herm own image and quit with the dog."
QWERTY, living and religion
QWERTY - Beliefnet
"I suspect the Dvorak is more common than one might expect in that all computers give a choice of keboards. But the real problem is that one doesn't just have to retrain finger strokes one must reprogram the brain, in the basic area of muscle memory. Most efficient typists type words not letters, so it is not just a matter of learning a few new letters but new words. It isn't going to happen. However, a new keyboard student would probably be advised to create the muscle memory on Dvorak, as it is universally available on computers and one never looks at the keys when touch typing anyway.
In the larger sense, much of what we do involves large areas of the brain, not simply muscle memory but all of the rest of the specialized and general memory functions. So retraining is not simply deciding not to cut the ends off the meatloaf, we almost have go back to how to make a meat loaf all over again.
Similarly with livelong beliefs. One almost has to go back to 'Now I lay me down to sleep'"
Probably the greatest blessing of a belief free and largely shadow free upbringing. I don't have to unlearn anything, I can just find out what I want to learn and do so.
"I suspect the Dvorak is more common than one might expect in that all computers give a choice of keboards. But the real problem is that one doesn't just have to retrain finger strokes one must reprogram the brain, in the basic area of muscle memory. Most efficient typists type words not letters, so it is not just a matter of learning a few new letters but new words. It isn't going to happen. However, a new keyboard student would probably be advised to create the muscle memory on Dvorak, as it is universally available on computers and one never looks at the keys when touch typing anyway.
In the larger sense, much of what we do involves large areas of the brain, not simply muscle memory but all of the rest of the specialized and general memory functions. So retraining is not simply deciding not to cut the ends off the meatloaf, we almost have go back to how to make a meat loaf all over again.
Similarly with livelong beliefs. One almost has to go back to 'Now I lay me down to sleep'"
Probably the greatest blessing of a belief free and largely shadow free upbringing. I don't have to unlearn anything, I can just find out what I want to learn and do so.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Spirituality
Spirituality - Beliefnet
If you quoted that to a random sample of English speaking people, and asked them to describe the feeling in a single word, the word would be spiritual in most cases regardless of religious preference or lack thereof.
Trying to eliminate 'Spiritual' from their speech and damning its use as a purely religious word is a stupid and losing battle by atheist fundamentalists. Even for religious people spiritual will frequently be used in a secular context. Words acquire meaning by usage not by what Humpty-Dumpty wants them to mean."
I certainly agree with his assessment of Yosemite, if not his fundamentalism about it. However, it is a place where you can hardly ever turn around without encountering a spiritual moment. It is my nomination for Forrest Church's Cathedral of the World. There is something there for everybody.
I work in the most beautiful place in the world [Yosemite]. I feel a connection whenever I'm there, which is daily. It's a feeling that I am where I belong. I'm home.
mountain_man
If you quoted that to a random sample of English speaking people, and asked them to describe the feeling in a single word, the word would be spiritual in most cases regardless of religious preference or lack thereof.
Trying to eliminate 'Spiritual' from their speech and damning its use as a purely religious word is a stupid and losing battle by atheist fundamentalists. Even for religious people spiritual will frequently be used in a secular context. Words acquire meaning by usage not by what Humpty-Dumpty wants them to mean."
I certainly agree with his assessment of Yosemite, if not his fundamentalism about it. However, it is a place where you can hardly ever turn around without encountering a spiritual moment. It is my nomination for Forrest Church's Cathedral of the World. There is something there for everybody.
Owning Your Own Shadow - Science & Religion - Beliefnet Community
Owning Your Own Shadow - Beliefnet
Sorry. The dark side, the yang, the masculine, are all socially imposed on the natural instinctual behaviors that must be controlled to fit properly into a specific society. Many societies reinforce natural behaviors in ways that another society might consider dysfunctional, but within the society they are controlled expressions of natural behavior. The difference between a benevolent pastoral leader and an exploiter of herm followers is not that one is responding to a genetic instinct to lead benevolently, and the other to an exploitation gene. The both are responding to a natural genetic drive to alpha status for those who can and follower stats for those who can't. The only difference is that both leaders have different control of their alpha instinctual behavior. Historically this control has been mediated by religious beliefs, a powerful social control force, both for good and for evil, at least by my society's standards, but as Heinlein noted, 'Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes...' and generally not in the eyes of his local society. I am quite sure that Torquemada and his fellow priests were filled with satisfaction for doing God's will indeed they gave themselves the title of 'Protector of the Faith' which has persisted to the present day. One wonders sometimes however, just what faith it is that the protector is protecting?"
genetics and neuroscience are compellingly identifying that we have a dark side that cannot always be blamed on parents and society.
Namchuck
Sorry. The dark side, the yang, the masculine, are all socially imposed on the natural instinctual behaviors that must be controlled to fit properly into a specific society. Many societies reinforce natural behaviors in ways that another society might consider dysfunctional, but within the society they are controlled expressions of natural behavior. The difference between a benevolent pastoral leader and an exploiter of herm followers is not that one is responding to a genetic instinct to lead benevolently, and the other to an exploitation gene. The both are responding to a natural genetic drive to alpha status for those who can and follower stats for those who can't. The only difference is that both leaders have different control of their alpha instinctual behavior. Historically this control has been mediated by religious beliefs, a powerful social control force, both for good and for evil, at least by my society's standards, but as Heinlein noted, 'Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes...' and generally not in the eyes of his local society. I am quite sure that Torquemada and his fellow priests were filled with satisfaction for doing God's will indeed they gave themselves the title of 'Protector of the Faith' which has persisted to the present day. One wonders sometimes however, just what faith it is that the protector is protecting?"
Good and Evil
Owning Your Own Shadow - Beliefnet
"Good and evil are socially defined concepts. Generally what supports and protects the social unit is good, and that which disturbs it is evil. I find evil much more of a problem than good, as scientific studies of social animals find almost no evidence of willful disturbance of the group. Even among social predators, while the prey may find them evil, within the group they are extremely careful of each other, even the lower status members of the group. The low status members may get the tough and dangerous jobs in the hunt but if they are hurt they will be supported by the group.
As I have mentioned before it takes a religious leader to create the 'us vs. them' that permits evil in a social animal. Other humans learned from the religious leaders, so the evil is spread."
Why is there evil in the world? Why is there good in the world? These mysteries are impossible to separate. The mystery of 'goodness' IMO, is even more than the mystery of evil.
Wendyness
"Good and evil are socially defined concepts. Generally what supports and protects the social unit is good, and that which disturbs it is evil. I find evil much more of a problem than good, as scientific studies of social animals find almost no evidence of willful disturbance of the group. Even among social predators, while the prey may find them evil, within the group they are extremely careful of each other, even the lower status members of the group. The low status members may get the tough and dangerous jobs in the hunt but if they are hurt they will be supported by the group.
As I have mentioned before it takes a religious leader to create the 'us vs. them' that permits evil in a social animal. Other humans learned from the religious leaders, so the evil is spread."
God, Lust and the Mating Dance
First Muslim Sex Shop Opens For Business - Beliefnet
"Uncontrollable lust in men is as religiously conditioned as the cover-up solutions. Men as well as women continually survey the 'marketplace' for potential mates, and may in fact feel sexual desire for one that meets standards for attractiveness, and social compliance. This is called mammalian biology. It takes God to call this sin. However, sexual desire is only the first step in the mammalian mating dance. The males have to display their prowess in an acceptable manner, (dinner and an entertainment is a good start for a human male) the female must indicate acceptance in an appropriate manner, and the dance continues."
As I've often said, if covering women's bodies is to protect them from men's lust, it would be much better to blindfold men and let us women get on with our lives!
Kwinters
"Uncontrollable lust in men is as religiously conditioned as the cover-up solutions. Men as well as women continually survey the 'marketplace' for potential mates, and may in fact feel sexual desire for one that meets standards for attractiveness, and social compliance. This is called mammalian biology. It takes God to call this sin. However, sexual desire is only the first step in the mammalian mating dance. The males have to display their prowess in an acceptable manner, (dinner and an entertainment is a good start for a human male) the female must indicate acceptance in an appropriate manner, and the dance continues."
Surprisingly, Family Time Has Grown - Well Blog - NYTimes.com
Surprisingly, Family Time Has Grown - Well Blog - NYTimes.com: "That may reflect a rise in what Dr. Stevenson calls the “hedonic marriage,” in which couples share home and work responsibilities so they can spend more time together.
By contrast, couples from earlier generations typically had “specialized” roles that tended to keep them apart — the husband working at a job to support the family, the wife staying home to raise the children."
By contrast, couples from earlier generations typically had “specialized” roles that tended to keep them apart — the husband working at a job to support the family, the wife staying home to raise the children."
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Constraints
Creedalness - Beliefnet
"Quite the contrary. I am one of the people here that chooses not to believe, not only in God but in anything. It has released all constraints on my life, as beliefs are by definition constraints. I choose to accept constraints that I have found to be useful for living in a modern society. Some of which are similar to belief constraints, largely because some belief constraints are based on natural requirements for social living. The difference is that the constraints I have accepted are based on the realities of the modern world rather than the realities of a bunch of bronze age desert marauders. You may keep your bronze age belief constraints, in particular the belief of women as property. They don't work for me."
You chose not to believe and that constrains your life.
Godman
"Quite the contrary. I am one of the people here that chooses not to believe, not only in God but in anything. It has released all constraints on my life, as beliefs are by definition constraints. I choose to accept constraints that I have found to be useful for living in a modern society. Some of which are similar to belief constraints, largely because some belief constraints are based on natural requirements for social living. The difference is that the constraints I have accepted are based on the realities of the modern world rather than the realities of a bunch of bronze age desert marauders. You may keep your bronze age belief constraints, in particular the belief of women as property. They don't work for me."
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Modern sexuality
Sex got you all tensed up? - Beliefnet
"It has already started and it will be the death of paternalism and misogyny. It is called Norplant and safer, less invasive female controlled contraceptives. Once the female can truthfully say 'Go ahead fucker, it won't do any good,' although the .32 or three fingers up into the solar plexus will have the same effect, the mating dance changes considerably. It doesn't make any difference if God says do it, or force says do it, if the man wants progeny, he will have to convince her to stop the contraception. Certainly 'God says do it' will retain power over those properly conditioned to accept God's word. But even back in my childhood, there were a bunch of 'unlucky' Catholic families with 2 or 3 children. It was probably a coincidence that the woman was intelligent, educated, and employed.
There will probably still be women that will choose to be sex toys and probably even have children by the rich and famous, recent news events prove that, but it makes very little difference, those that aren't rich and famous are going to have to find the whorehouses or the hairy palms, or make themselves desirable husbands and fathers.
Your daughter won't have to control the horse, she will simply say what do you have that interests me? Guess what, male enhancement drugs wont cut it."
"A huge change and I see it in the teens I know well is the complete separation of sexuality and reproduction. Teens of the appropriate age are doing the teen thing just like their remote ancestors did. The difference is that they know how to prevent conception and if relevant STD's and are deferring reproduction until much later. This is a mind-boggling change in attitude toward both sexuality and reproduction. At least for those of us who grew up with much different sexual morality and iffy contraception.
My guess is that for those inclined that way late college and grad school will be breeding time for the females. Perhaps with older men who are already out working and established."
"Since the domestication of animals and crop plants in the early Holocene, It seems to me that genetics and evolution has been reduced to "Whatever the smart ape wants." If I am right that we are seeing the domestication of the human male, it might reduce to whatever the female smart ape wants."
In your opinion what changes in the 'social vein' would you start with?
Wendyness
"It has already started and it will be the death of paternalism and misogyny. It is called Norplant and safer, less invasive female controlled contraceptives. Once the female can truthfully say 'Go ahead fucker, it won't do any good,' although the .32 or three fingers up into the solar plexus will have the same effect, the mating dance changes considerably. It doesn't make any difference if God says do it, or force says do it, if the man wants progeny, he will have to convince her to stop the contraception. Certainly 'God says do it' will retain power over those properly conditioned to accept God's word. But even back in my childhood, there were a bunch of 'unlucky' Catholic families with 2 or 3 children. It was probably a coincidence that the woman was intelligent, educated, and employed.
There will probably still be women that will choose to be sex toys and probably even have children by the rich and famous, recent news events prove that, but it makes very little difference, those that aren't rich and famous are going to have to find the whorehouses or the hairy palms, or make themselves desirable husbands and fathers.
Your daughter won't have to control the horse, she will simply say what do you have that interests me? Guess what, male enhancement drugs wont cut it."
"A huge change and I see it in the teens I know well is the complete separation of sexuality and reproduction. Teens of the appropriate age are doing the teen thing just like their remote ancestors did. The difference is that they know how to prevent conception and if relevant STD's and are deferring reproduction until much later. This is a mind-boggling change in attitude toward both sexuality and reproduction. At least for those of us who grew up with much different sexual morality and iffy contraception.
My guess is that for those inclined that way late college and grad school will be breeding time for the females. Perhaps with older men who are already out working and established."
"Since the domestication of animals and crop plants in the early Holocene, It seems to me that genetics and evolution has been reduced to "Whatever the smart ape wants." If I am right that we are seeing the domestication of the human male, it might reduce to whatever the female smart ape wants."
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Question Authority.
Creedalness - Beliefnet
There appears to be a strong genetic tendency to believe anything our parents tell us, and as we mature we transfer this tendency to believe anyone who seems to know what they are talking about. This tendency is strongly reinforced by religious and business leaders as it makes their job of manipulating people easier. Wise parents can encourage critical thinking in their children, and a good education emphasizing critical thinking can reinforce the tendency to 'Question Authority' (This bumper sticker was famously seen upside down on a beat up Volkswagen of a friend and relative of mine.) Needless to say such people are thrown out of Sunday Schools and even Churches as disruptive.
There of course downsides to critical thinking, as many notice here, whether it is a religious, political, or social assertion the critical thinkers here are just tiresome about asking for evidence in support of the assertion, and quoting some 'expert opinion' is just another opinion. They frequently have problems saying 'Yes, Sir' in any situation, frequently causing problems in some work situations, in all churches, and the military. It can be countered of course, one can reasonably and rationally transfer authority to one who deserves it and generally react appropriately to orders.
Even on items like global warming critical thinkers don't accept authority figures whether they are smart as Al Gore, or as stupid as Sarah Palin. They look at the data, consider expert opinions which are supported by the data, and act accordingly."
Do you think it is a problem that people are just inclined to simplify and form these creeds? OR is it something we must do? The best we can hope for is some sort of creed shopping to fit our circumstances and ability.
Godman
There appears to be a strong genetic tendency to believe anything our parents tell us, and as we mature we transfer this tendency to believe anyone who seems to know what they are talking about. This tendency is strongly reinforced by religious and business leaders as it makes their job of manipulating people easier. Wise parents can encourage critical thinking in their children, and a good education emphasizing critical thinking can reinforce the tendency to 'Question Authority' (This bumper sticker was famously seen upside down on a beat up Volkswagen of a friend and relative of mine.) Needless to say such people are thrown out of Sunday Schools and even Churches as disruptive.
There of course downsides to critical thinking, as many notice here, whether it is a religious, political, or social assertion the critical thinkers here are just tiresome about asking for evidence in support of the assertion, and quoting some 'expert opinion' is just another opinion. They frequently have problems saying 'Yes, Sir' in any situation, frequently causing problems in some work situations, in all churches, and the military. It can be countered of course, one can reasonably and rationally transfer authority to one who deserves it and generally react appropriately to orders.
Even on items like global warming critical thinkers don't accept authority figures whether they are smart as Al Gore, or as stupid as Sarah Palin. They look at the data, consider expert opinions which are supported by the data, and act accordingly."
Religion, Philosophy and Science
What Do Atheist Believe In? - Beliefnet
A brilliant analysis of the differences I just couldn't ignore. Thanks Bill.
Religions are not an expression of the principle [of rational investigation.] While religion, science and philosophy are based on inquiry, it's the nature of that inquiry that separates them. Religion is based on faith. Questions asked are answered by some prophetic source, which is relied on as authority. Philosophy is based on reason. Questions asked are answered by persons who claim no special authority other than the weight of reason. Their answers are then scrutinized by a community of peers, each of whom has the same opportunity to question or criticize the answers given."
Philosophy recognizes no authority figures, per se, just the power of reason to find errors in logic. Unlike religion, which not only privileges faith but divides communities by allegiance to one prophetic source or another, philosophy is a bit more cannibalistic. Philosophical communities are built on analyzing and criticizing the answers put forth, even by the most respected figures. This process, which is more critical and competitive, tends to produce lines of thought that don't build so much as evolve toward more sophisticated ways of addressing a given issue.
Science, on the other hand, is based on the empirical method. Just as Moses and Isaiah would have made lousy philosophers, Aristotle would have made a poor scientist. That's because Aristotle - who did a decent job of analyzing the different constitutions of Greece - was too much of an armchair 'scientist' to engage in the scientific method. He asked questions, came up with reasoned answers and usually left it at that. Science, on the other hand, relies on empirical testing. A question is posed. A hypothesis is formed. A carefully constructed experiment is then used to test the hypothesis. The test results are then reviewed. If the experiment is a failure, the hypothesis is adjusted and further tests are devised. If the experiment is a success, test results are published so that the test may be replicated by peers.
Not every philosophical question makes a good fit for the scientific method. Some philosophical questions are basically definitional. ('What is Justice? What is truth?') The kinds of questions appropriate to science are those which can be empirically tested. Religion, on the other hand, is neither open to reason or testing. It is something taken on faith. Even where religious disputes involve reason, it's more a question of interpretation of a text that is taken, on faith, as authoritative. The role of reason is limited to a dispute over textual interpretation. In certain instances, reason is employed to propagate or defend the faith, but this is called scholasticism. It's really the rhetorical use of reason, reason as a weapon of propaganda. It's not about answering questions through reason.
BillThinks4Himself
A brilliant analysis of the differences I just couldn't ignore. Thanks Bill.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Get rich quick: take a joy ride.
Turning Bumpy Roads into an Electrifying Product: Scientific American:
"One carefree summer day in California, a few college students went for a joy ride. It was the perfect day to don the shades, roll down the windows, and crank up the tunes.
But then someone noticed all the bumps in the road. These were engineering students from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the group got to thinking: Isn't there energy in that?
From the battlefield of ideas to the proving ground
MIT's technology licensing office, for example, researched where the device could fit in the market. They found the biggest bang in the biggest vehicles: heavy-duty trucks and military vehicles.
"One carefree summer day in California, a few college students went for a joy ride. It was the perfect day to don the shades, roll down the windows, and crank up the tunes.
But then someone noticed all the bumps in the road. These were engineering students from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the group got to thinking: Isn't there energy in that?
From the battlefield of ideas to the proving ground
MIT's technology licensing office, for example, researched where the device could fit in the market. They found the biggest bang in the biggest vehicles: heavy-duty trucks and military vehicles.
Friday, March 26, 2010
On Jealousy
Owning Your Own Shadow - Beliefnet
From the link
"Before I bow down before any belief system, I look to see what axes the believer may have to grind. Prof. Legerstee has made a career in psychology studying jealousy. As you may note the referenced research will be published in a Handbook companion to another book on jealousy.
It seems that she has rather well developed jealousy in her shadow. It is little wonder that she finds it in babies and believes
Please note 'non-basic emotions' that is the shadow 'develop' during the terrible twos, by parents trying to control the child's behavior by loading up the 'terrible bag' with dysfunctional self images of jealousy, pride, embarrassment and guilt. Note the relationship to the Seven Deadly Sins of Catholicism. None of which are worth much to the believer, but which are gold for the preacher or therapist.
The terrible two's are terrible because the child is learning to relate to others in herm society. This is a difficult process both for the child and the caregiver. The child will test behaviors and act out emotional reactions to peers and adults. It is all to easy for the caregiver to label the behavior as bad, even giving it a name, 'Don't be jealous of Billy you can play with Jane later.' Or worse 'Don't be jealous of Billy, there are others you can play with.' By the way while you are at it you can stuff that jealous self image in your shadow bag, it will be real useful when you are a teen.
It is harder but better for the care giver to find a socially acceptable way to help the child find a way into the Billy/Jane group. The jealousy is initially rejection by the group, which needs to be dealt with by finding ways to overcome the rejection. Rejection by the social group is an evolutionary fatal result. The two year old must learn to overcome the rejection.
The baby reacts to the rejection by herm most important social connection, herm mother, by crying, kicking and turning in their seats when mom's attention turns to someone else. One may impute jealousy, but abandonment by mom at 3 months is fatal.
If I may be so bold as to criticize the experimental protocol, I would ask if a normal mother would abandon attention to a 3 month old, for an animated emotional discussion with a stranger (to the baby.) Would not a normal mother have her hand on the stroller rocking it or otherwise showing the infant that hesh was in the social group?
(Don't get me started on abusive psychology experiments even at the University level)"
The experimental protocol was that mom was to bring a 3 month old baby to the lab, and mom would begin to talk to a stranger while ignoring the baby. While still ignoring the baby, the conversation would become animated with emotional content, laughing and presumably other emotional bonding signals. Mom is told to ignore the squirming, crying, kicking and other signals that the baby is feeling abandoned.
Now I was just an involved dad, and had the late afternoon baby sitting shift by choice, and would take the kids out in nice weather. I didn't have the same kind of mom-baby bond for obvious reasons, all I could do in the middle of the night was hang the baby on mom's teat, change the diaper when he was done and put him back in the crib. Yet I knew enough to keep a hand on the pram, and keep it moving when I stopped to talk with friends. The baby didn't have to cry and kick to get my attention if it lagged, just squirming around was the signal that my attention was not shared enough.
I cannot imagine a mom, even under lab conditions overcoming her natural instinct to attend to the baby at all times if only by rocking the pram. And I wonder what kind of issues went into the baby's shadow by abandonment even for a few minutes while the lab assistant noted the number of kicks, intensity of crying, and other indications that the baby was "jealous." I bet none of it was jealousy. But the "I can't trust mommy" separation anxiety got an early start. I would have fired our nanny for participating in that experiment. It was bad enough that mommy had to go to work. The nanny had strict rules on abandonment. And by the way strict rules on labeling behavior as well.
Jealousy is is not a learned behavior, it comes with the package of being human.
See below link.
Babies start feeling jealousy at 3 months, study says
Wendyness
From the link
Lead author of the study, Prof. Maria Legerstee, professor of psychology at York University in Toronto, Canada, says even three months old baby may have ways of letting mom know by crying, kicking and turning in their seats when mom's attention turns to someone else. She says the behavior is quite normal and parents need not worry about it. It's a normal and appropriate reaction,' Legerstee said...The findings of the study will be included in next year's Handbook of Jealousy: Theories, Principles and Multidisciplinary Approaches.
"Before I bow down before any belief system, I look to see what axes the believer may have to grind. Prof. Legerstee has made a career in psychology studying jealousy. As you may note the referenced research will be published in a Handbook companion to another book on jealousy.
It seems that she has rather well developed jealousy in her shadow. It is little wonder that she finds it in babies and believes
The development of 'non-basic' emotions such as jealousy, pride, embarrassment and guilt are thought to develop during the second year of life, generally known as terrible two's, Prof. Legerstee said.
Please note 'non-basic emotions' that is the shadow 'develop' during the terrible twos, by parents trying to control the child's behavior by loading up the 'terrible bag' with dysfunctional self images of jealousy, pride, embarrassment and guilt. Note the relationship to the Seven Deadly Sins of Catholicism. None of which are worth much to the believer, but which are gold for the preacher or therapist.
The terrible two's are terrible because the child is learning to relate to others in herm society. This is a difficult process both for the child and the caregiver. The child will test behaviors and act out emotional reactions to peers and adults. It is all to easy for the caregiver to label the behavior as bad, even giving it a name, 'Don't be jealous of Billy you can play with Jane later.' Or worse 'Don't be jealous of Billy, there are others you can play with.' By the way while you are at it you can stuff that jealous self image in your shadow bag, it will be real useful when you are a teen.
It is harder but better for the care giver to find a socially acceptable way to help the child find a way into the Billy/Jane group. The jealousy is initially rejection by the group, which needs to be dealt with by finding ways to overcome the rejection. Rejection by the social group is an evolutionary fatal result. The two year old must learn to overcome the rejection.
The baby reacts to the rejection by herm most important social connection, herm mother, by crying, kicking and turning in their seats when mom's attention turns to someone else. One may impute jealousy, but abandonment by mom at 3 months is fatal.
If I may be so bold as to criticize the experimental protocol, I would ask if a normal mother would abandon attention to a 3 month old, for an animated emotional discussion with a stranger (to the baby.) Would not a normal mother have her hand on the stroller rocking it or otherwise showing the infant that hesh was in the social group?
(Don't get me started on abusive psychology experiments even at the University level)"
The experimental protocol was that mom was to bring a 3 month old baby to the lab, and mom would begin to talk to a stranger while ignoring the baby. While still ignoring the baby, the conversation would become animated with emotional content, laughing and presumably other emotional bonding signals. Mom is told to ignore the squirming, crying, kicking and other signals that the baby is feeling abandoned.
Now I was just an involved dad, and had the late afternoon baby sitting shift by choice, and would take the kids out in nice weather. I didn't have the same kind of mom-baby bond for obvious reasons, all I could do in the middle of the night was hang the baby on mom's teat, change the diaper when he was done and put him back in the crib. Yet I knew enough to keep a hand on the pram, and keep it moving when I stopped to talk with friends. The baby didn't have to cry and kick to get my attention if it lagged, just squirming around was the signal that my attention was not shared enough.
I cannot imagine a mom, even under lab conditions overcoming her natural instinct to attend to the baby at all times if only by rocking the pram. And I wonder what kind of issues went into the baby's shadow by abandonment even for a few minutes while the lab assistant noted the number of kicks, intensity of crying, and other indications that the baby was "jealous." I bet none of it was jealousy. But the "I can't trust mommy" separation anxiety got an early start. I would have fired our nanny for participating in that experiment. It was bad enough that mommy had to go to work. The nanny had strict rules on abandonment. And by the way strict rules on labeling behavior as well.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Winter Migrations
YosemiteBlog.com - The Insiders Guide to Yosemite National Park: "The Annual Migration (and a video)
If you’ve never been to Yosemite in February you’ve missed one of the greatest migratory events in recent history. The flocking of the photographers. Every year the photographers migrate in from their winter nesting grounds for 2 weeks to preen themselves and take pictures of Horsetail Fall in the setting light of the winter Sun."
Not incidentally you might want to bookmark this blog. It is always worth a glance. Loyd is not associated with the park service nor any concessionaire there. He is just an (extr)ordinary park lover who visits often and blogs about it. He has recently added forums. When you visit click on one of the ads to help him support the work he does. Hey, you might find a great place to stay when you visit. I did.
If you’ve never been to Yosemite in February you’ve missed one of the greatest migratory events in recent history. The flocking of the photographers. Every year the photographers migrate in from their winter nesting grounds for 2 weeks to preen themselves and take pictures of Horsetail Fall in the setting light of the winter Sun."
Not incidentally you might want to bookmark this blog. It is always worth a glance. Loyd is not associated with the park service nor any concessionaire there. He is just an (extr)ordinary park lover who visits often and blogs about it. He has recently added forums. When you visit click on one of the ads to help him support the work he does. Hey, you might find a great place to stay when you visit. I did.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Stoic Cosmopolitanism
Redefining Love - Beliefnet
"So after 1977 years of Christian parochialism and hate we are finally getting back to the ancient truth:
All people are manifestations of the one universal spirit and should live in brotherly love and readily help one another.
Amen."
For those wondering the date 33 CE was chosen to exclude Jesus and include Paul in Christian parochialism.
With the Stoic above and Jesus' Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. One can hardly go wrong.
A distinctive feature of Stoicism is its cosmopolitanism. All people are manifestations of the one universal spirit and should, according to the Stoics, live in brotherly love and readily help one another.
Wiscidea
"So after 1977 years of Christian parochialism and hate we are finally getting back to the ancient truth:
All people are manifestations of the one universal spirit and should live in brotherly love and readily help one another.
Amen."
For those wondering the date 33 CE was chosen to exclude Jesus and include Paul in Christian parochialism.
With the Stoic above and Jesus' Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. One can hardly go wrong.
Live a Good Life
The Story of God - Beliefnet
Thank you Cryano for bringing this to my attention. I had forgotten it.
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
—Marcus Aurelius Antoninus
Thank you Cryano for bringing this to my attention. I had forgotten it.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Conscious Control of "Cultural Self"
Owning Your Own Shadow - Beliefnet
"In the early years events frequently get stuffed into the unconscious shadow by parents and mentors whose shadow has been carefully nurtured by their parents and mentor's belief system or culture.
However, it is not a necessary or even desirable means of raising children. It is possible to give children control over their actions and in effect to relegate the subconscious to the trivial. Body regulation, habits, manners, and peripheral awareness for interesting things to bring to the conscious attention of the mind. But the cultural self is managed by an aware and active consciousness managing all relevant social interactions. Will hesh do it perfectly, never making a mistake, of course not. Mistakes are how we learn especially in social situations. But will the mistake be caused by the unconscious? In most cases no.
Such a properly raised child as an adult will answer 'No' to all of your questions above. And hesh will answer no to all similar questions relating to negative self image and loss of self control."
I threw manners in as a late addition, I don't think they can be called shadow as they are necessary cultural conditioning. And are if anything a subconscious benevolence to identify one as a properly socialized member of the society.
3/20/1145 from Shadows - The issue is not uncontrolled actions, but how the control over actions is established. I put manners in as a late addition to subconscious control, but perhaps can be used as a illustration of what I mean. Good manners are essential to fitting in to ones society. As an example, good manners has been defined as the noise you don't make while eating your soup. This needs to be unconscious, we can't worry about every spoonful of soup we eat. But manners can be in the shadow, or in the volitional unconscious, simply by the way we are taught them.
"Slurping your soup is crude" that is only a crude person slurps soup, puts eating soup in the shadow. An inadvertent slurp reinforces the idea that the person is crude and not socially acceptable, whether or not it is commented on.
An alternative is "Slurping your soup is annoying to mommy" and by extension to others. An inadvertent slurp now generates an apology, with no effect on self image. Eating soup is still managed by the unconscious and very strictly I would add to the point of nausea for violation, but the apology rather than shadow pain can make all the difference in solving a manners issue. See Too Big for a Fork for an amusing example. If it were a shadow issue I would have been between a rock and a hard place. I could have been a rude guest and refused the food, or I could have been a barbarian and chewed the meat off the fork.
From birth to the age of about six the events of one's life get sorted into the conscious mind and the unconscious mind. Our unconscious mind has the greater influence and our life is built on its foundation. IOW, our cultural self is controlled by the hidden 'cogs of the wheels' of the unconscious. Do you ever have psychological pain? Do you ever suffer psychologically? Do you ever have negative emotions? Do you ever blame other people for the way you feel?....
stardustpilgrim
"In the early years events frequently get stuffed into the unconscious shadow by parents and mentors whose shadow has been carefully nurtured by their parents and mentor's belief system or culture.
However, it is not a necessary or even desirable means of raising children. It is possible to give children control over their actions and in effect to relegate the subconscious to the trivial. Body regulation, habits, manners, and peripheral awareness for interesting things to bring to the conscious attention of the mind. But the cultural self is managed by an aware and active consciousness managing all relevant social interactions. Will hesh do it perfectly, never making a mistake, of course not. Mistakes are how we learn especially in social situations. But will the mistake be caused by the unconscious? In most cases no.
Such a properly raised child as an adult will answer 'No' to all of your questions above. And hesh will answer no to all similar questions relating to negative self image and loss of self control."
I threw manners in as a late addition, I don't think they can be called shadow as they are necessary cultural conditioning. And are if anything a subconscious benevolence to identify one as a properly socialized member of the society.
3/20/1145 from Shadows - The issue is not uncontrolled actions, but how the control over actions is established. I put manners in as a late addition to subconscious control, but perhaps can be used as a illustration of what I mean. Good manners are essential to fitting in to ones society. As an example, good manners has been defined as the noise you don't make while eating your soup. This needs to be unconscious, we can't worry about every spoonful of soup we eat. But manners can be in the shadow, or in the volitional unconscious, simply by the way we are taught them.
"Slurping your soup is crude" that is only a crude person slurps soup, puts eating soup in the shadow. An inadvertent slurp reinforces the idea that the person is crude and not socially acceptable, whether or not it is commented on.
An alternative is "Slurping your soup is annoying to mommy" and by extension to others. An inadvertent slurp now generates an apology, with no effect on self image. Eating soup is still managed by the unconscious and very strictly I would add to the point of nausea for violation, but the apology rather than shadow pain can make all the difference in solving a manners issue. See Too Big for a Fork for an amusing example. If it were a shadow issue I would have been between a rock and a hard place. I could have been a rude guest and refused the food, or I could have been a barbarian and chewed the meat off the fork.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Imposing Sin and Shadow
Owning Your Own Shadow - Beliefnet
I do not deny either sin or shadow. Both are integral components of powerful and useful belief systems. But the proposition that either necessarily applies to me requires substantial and significant support to overcome my reasoned denial. You may scream until you are blue in the face that I am a sinner, but until you can provide independent proof that I am intrinsically a sinful person your screaming is so much noise in a thunderstorm. It doesn't help to show that I did something bad, you must show that I did something bad because of sinfulness. And by the way something you think is bad or sinful has no relevance to the discussion."
But your acceptance [of shadow], or lack of it, neither proves nor disproves the proposition.
Christianlib
I do not deny either sin or shadow. Both are integral components of powerful and useful belief systems. But the proposition that either necessarily applies to me requires substantial and significant support to overcome my reasoned denial. You may scream until you are blue in the face that I am a sinner, but until you can provide independent proof that I am intrinsically a sinful person your screaming is so much noise in a thunderstorm. It doesn't help to show that I did something bad, you must show that I did something bad because of sinfulness. And by the way something you think is bad or sinful has no relevance to the discussion."
Shadows of Science?
Owning Your Own Shadow - Beliefnet
"Just because someone calls it a dark side as believers always will does not mean it is so. Nanobots, stem cell research, cell phone emissions, genetic engineering and eugenics are all neutral science capabilities. Some are dangerous and must be controlled, none are sinful or dark and must be suppressed. Science is naturally open and groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists and others will provide the necessary control as long as the believers keep their sin and repression out of the mix. Case in point medical marijuana. Science is being done by the black market. Certainly a shadow but not one of science. Even Mengele's experiments were a dark expression of a belief system, not a dark side of science.
You, as many believers do, claim many things are expressions of the dark side. Most do it for power over others. Paul being a notorious example. If wanting to indulge in fun pair bonding activities in bed is a sin and you can get people, especially women to internalize this, this gives men total control over the powerful pair bonding instincts and redirect them to the support of the church. Why do you think they call it the Missionary position? And why is everything else the shadow.
You keep trying to impose a shadow on me. You may certainly try if it makes you feel better about yours, but I do not need to accept its existence simply because you say it is there. Any more than I need to accept the fundie's assertion that I am a sinner because all people are sinners. If the fundie thinks hesh can act out herm uncontrolled basic instincts in a socially dysfunctional manner because everybody is a sinner, and hesh gets to nail herm acting out to the cross and its OK because the cross is available to all sinners, we have total control by the church. Except I am not a sinner, and I can call herm on herm dysfunctional actions with a clear conscience because I control my possibly dysfunctional actions openly and consciously. I don't always succeed, but it isn't because sin made me do it, or my shadow burst out, it was because I failed. No one else. Not mom, not the preacher, not God, not the Devil. It was J'Carlin and no one else. If it needs fixing I fix it."
Examples of the 'dark' (shadow) side of science:...Not so 'difficult' to 'find' if you take off your blinders or if you are willing to look at your own shadow.
Wendyness
"Just because someone calls it a dark side as believers always will does not mean it is so. Nanobots, stem cell research, cell phone emissions, genetic engineering and eugenics are all neutral science capabilities. Some are dangerous and must be controlled, none are sinful or dark and must be suppressed. Science is naturally open and groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists and others will provide the necessary control as long as the believers keep their sin and repression out of the mix. Case in point medical marijuana. Science is being done by the black market. Certainly a shadow but not one of science. Even Mengele's experiments were a dark expression of a belief system, not a dark side of science.
You, as many believers do, claim many things are expressions of the dark side. Most do it for power over others. Paul being a notorious example. If wanting to indulge in fun pair bonding activities in bed is a sin and you can get people, especially women to internalize this, this gives men total control over the powerful pair bonding instincts and redirect them to the support of the church. Why do you think they call it the Missionary position? And why is everything else the shadow.
You keep trying to impose a shadow on me. You may certainly try if it makes you feel better about yours, but I do not need to accept its existence simply because you say it is there. Any more than I need to accept the fundie's assertion that I am a sinner because all people are sinners. If the fundie thinks hesh can act out herm uncontrolled basic instincts in a socially dysfunctional manner because everybody is a sinner, and hesh gets to nail herm acting out to the cross and its OK because the cross is available to all sinners, we have total control by the church. Except I am not a sinner, and I can call herm on herm dysfunctional actions with a clear conscience because I control my possibly dysfunctional actions openly and consciously. I don't always succeed, but it isn't because sin made me do it, or my shadow burst out, it was because I failed. No one else. Not mom, not the preacher, not God, not the Devil. It was J'Carlin and no one else. If it needs fixing I fix it."
Genetic Shadows?
Owning Your Own Shadow - Beliefnet
"Genetic behaviors are shadow only when someone normally a shaman tells us they are bad, or evil, or sin and we must suppress them. If we see them as natural, powerful drivers of achievement, that must be controlled, not suppressed, we can use them efficiently to achieve desired ends.
If they control us, as they will if suppressed, then they normally will be expressed dysfunctionally as you note above. The terms you use above are shadow terms for natural genetic behaviors. Displaying feelings about others is the way we create social bonds with those we wish to include in our social group. But controlled expression is necessary for social survival, which in many cases means physical survival. Take lust as an example. It is a powerful mammalian drive to reproduce the species. It is absolutely necessary to be able to indicate to a member of the opposite sex that you find them sexually attractive. If you suppress it as sin you end up with the young adult party where all get drunk to lose their suppressions and many end up in bed, or on the couch or on the floor. If one is aware of the power of lust one can take appropriate control measures to make sure it serves one's needs, rather than the mammalian need to reproduce.
It is like a powerful engine in a car. No less of a safety maven than Ralph Nader said 'Power is safety.' But put that power in the hands of a kid whose competitive drive is a suppressed sin, and you have an accident looking for a spot marked X.
This is not to say that control of powerful instincts is easy, or that it is always successful but awareness is critical to control. Knowing the capabilities of the double-bitted ax is a key to using it safely and effectively."
Each time we become impulsive, display exaggerated feelings about others, feel humiliated, find excessive fault, display unreasonable anger, or behave 'as if we are not ourselves', we are seeing the genetic shadow in action.
Namchuck
"Genetic behaviors are shadow only when someone normally a shaman tells us they are bad, or evil, or sin and we must suppress them. If we see them as natural, powerful drivers of achievement, that must be controlled, not suppressed, we can use them efficiently to achieve desired ends.
If they control us, as they will if suppressed, then they normally will be expressed dysfunctionally as you note above. The terms you use above are shadow terms for natural genetic behaviors. Displaying feelings about others is the way we create social bonds with those we wish to include in our social group. But controlled expression is necessary for social survival, which in many cases means physical survival. Take lust as an example. It is a powerful mammalian drive to reproduce the species. It is absolutely necessary to be able to indicate to a member of the opposite sex that you find them sexually attractive. If you suppress it as sin you end up with the young adult party where all get drunk to lose their suppressions and many end up in bed, or on the couch or on the floor. If one is aware of the power of lust one can take appropriate control measures to make sure it serves one's needs, rather than the mammalian need to reproduce.
It is like a powerful engine in a car. No less of a safety maven than Ralph Nader said 'Power is safety.' But put that power in the hands of a kid whose competitive drive is a suppressed sin, and you have an accident looking for a spot marked X.
This is not to say that control of powerful instincts is easy, or that it is always successful but awareness is critical to control. Knowing the capabilities of the double-bitted ax is a key to using it safely and effectively."
Bly's Shadow
Owning Your Own Shadow - Beliefnet
But if our parents weren't obsessed with sin and badness and had said 'Your activity is annoying me, would you take it elsewhere, or control it to please me?' instead of 'ADD is sick, oops 'Can't you be still?' If they said 'Your brother will hurt just like you do when hit, can you consider his feelings, that is use your natural empathy to identify with your potentially hurt brother?' Instead of 'It is sin to try to kill your brother.' Intervention may be necessary, but it is not necessary to dump a bunch of BS into the kid's bag during the intervention.
Wouldn't it be nice to be 25 with an empty bag? It can be done. When people try to dump BS into your bag simply say 'I don't need that. I can control that behavior, or do it where it won't annoy other people.' This is known as being socially responsible. Kids learn it naturally unless people dump BS into their bag.
When that little tinhorn in the fancy dress in the overdecorated balcony tries to dump his BS into my bag, I simply tell him that my BS bag has no bottom, and herm BS means nothing to me. Hesh will usually then scream 'God will send you to Hell sinner!'and I will smile nicely and say 'Hesh may try if Hesh wishes, but I doubt Hesh would as I am not a sinner. My BS bag is empty.'"
If people weren't loaded up with BS from the time they were 2 the shrinks and the preachers wouldn't have anything to work with. One of the most important things I learned early in life was the difference between "You are bad" and "Your behavior needs better control." I also learned very early that "You are bad" must for my own wellness be interpreted as "Fix your behavior." Fortunately I was encouraged to do so by my atheist parents, well technically Unitarian, I don't even know how they viewed God, but God and sin were not a part of my life growing up. As a result I don't have a bag full of BS to deal with particularly the BS about what I am. Contrary to popular belief this is neither unusual nor unbelievable.
You ask what causes the shadow? As Robert Bly puts it in, 'The Long Bag we Drag Behind Us' in MEETING THE SHADOW:
'When we were one or two years old we had what we might visualize as a 360-degree personality. Energy radiated out from all parts of our body and all parts of our psyche. A child running is a living globe of energy. We had a ball of energy, all right; but one day we noticed that our parents didn't like certain parts of the ball. They said things like: 'Can't you be still?' Or 'it isn't nice to try and kill your brother.'
Wendyness
But if our parents weren't obsessed with sin and badness and had said 'Your activity is annoying me, would you take it elsewhere, or control it to please me?' instead of 'ADD is sick, oops 'Can't you be still?' If they said 'Your brother will hurt just like you do when hit, can you consider his feelings, that is use your natural empathy to identify with your potentially hurt brother?' Instead of 'It is sin to try to kill your brother.' Intervention may be necessary, but it is not necessary to dump a bunch of BS into the kid's bag during the intervention.
Wouldn't it be nice to be 25 with an empty bag? It can be done. When people try to dump BS into your bag simply say 'I don't need that. I can control that behavior, or do it where it won't annoy other people.' This is known as being socially responsible. Kids learn it naturally unless people dump BS into their bag.
When that little tinhorn in the fancy dress in the overdecorated balcony tries to dump his BS into my bag, I simply tell him that my BS bag has no bottom, and herm BS means nothing to me. Hesh will usually then scream 'God will send you to Hell sinner!'and I will smile nicely and say 'Hesh may try if Hesh wishes, but I doubt Hesh would as I am not a sinner. My BS bag is empty.'"
If people weren't loaded up with BS from the time they were 2 the shrinks and the preachers wouldn't have anything to work with. One of the most important things I learned early in life was the difference between "You are bad" and "Your behavior needs better control." I also learned very early that "You are bad" must for my own wellness be interpreted as "Fix your behavior." Fortunately I was encouraged to do so by my atheist parents, well technically Unitarian, I don't even know how they viewed God, but God and sin were not a part of my life growing up. As a result I don't have a bag full of BS to deal with particularly the BS about what I am. Contrary to popular belief this is neither unusual nor unbelievable.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Natural Behaviors.
If Man is the Measure - Beliefnet
LOL! or even LOL!!!!!! is not an argument. An assertion without support can be dismissed without comment.
However, one of my weaknesses is to comment anyway.
While many autonomous processes don't need to rise to the level of consciousness to function, they are not immune to conscious manipulation. Placebos as an example.
One would not generally aspire to 100% consciousness.
"However, one can be 100% conscious of behavior influencing activities of the mind/brain. The fact that you believe Jungian therapy can give you some control over the shadow is evidence that such control is possible. The real question is what belief system, and it takes a belief system to mask behavior influencing activities from the consciousness, causes the shadow? In a different post you noted that touching yourself 'there' is bad or something like that. Why? Touching yourself 'there' is natural. See any dog. What belief system other one that is trying to control your sexuality would suggest such an unnatural attitude?"
It is the control over sexuality and other natural human behaviors like following the leader, among others that gives religion its power for good and for abuse. The control over sexual expression was used as the dominant sin expression by Paul. See Romans 1.
If the natural sexual expressions as seen in our simian relatives were free to be expressed by humans, one would see a considerably different human evolutionary pattern. I suspect that the two female family structure would be dominant, with the women choosing mates from the males based dominance and power to provide a stable society and for their intelligence and ability to provide a suitable dowry for the anticipated child. The men would still play their political power games not for genetic continuity but for dominance over the social structures supporting the female dominated reproductive needs for the society. The harem would be a self chosen group adhering to the rich, intelligent and powerful. Low status men would probably touch themselves "there" a lot.
LOL! No one is capable of 100% consciousness.
Wendyness
LOL! or even LOL!!!!!! is not an argument. An assertion without support can be dismissed without comment.
However, one of my weaknesses is to comment anyway.
While many autonomous processes don't need to rise to the level of consciousness to function, they are not immune to conscious manipulation. Placebos as an example.
One would not generally aspire to 100% consciousness.
A centipede was happy quite,
Until a frog in fun
Said, "Pray, which leg comes after which?"
This raised her mind to such a pitch,
She lay distracted in the ditch
Considering how to run.
-- Anonymous
"However, one can be 100% conscious of behavior influencing activities of the mind/brain. The fact that you believe Jungian therapy can give you some control over the shadow is evidence that such control is possible. The real question is what belief system, and it takes a belief system to mask behavior influencing activities from the consciousness, causes the shadow? In a different post you noted that touching yourself 'there' is bad or something like that. Why? Touching yourself 'there' is natural. See any dog. What belief system other one that is trying to control your sexuality would suggest such an unnatural attitude?"
It is the control over sexuality and other natural human behaviors like following the leader, among others that gives religion its power for good and for abuse. The control over sexual expression was used as the dominant sin expression by Paul. See Romans 1.
If the natural sexual expressions as seen in our simian relatives were free to be expressed by humans, one would see a considerably different human evolutionary pattern. I suspect that the two female family structure would be dominant, with the women choosing mates from the males based dominance and power to provide a stable society and for their intelligence and ability to provide a suitable dowry for the anticipated child. The men would still play their political power games not for genetic continuity but for dominance over the social structures supporting the female dominated reproductive needs for the society. The harem would be a self chosen group adhering to the rich, intelligent and powerful. Low status men would probably touch themselves "there" a lot.
Objectivity of Self Image.
If Man is the Measure - Beliefnet
This is the big lie of both religion and psychology, perhaps influenced by religion. 'No one' is an absolute statement. I have known many people who have well integrated personalities with a realistic and objective view of themselves with or without the mirror. They know their strengths and their weaknesses but nothing is hidden from themselves. In fact, I find this to be the normal human condition for those not exposed to religion or psychology. Admittedly a small sample, but a sample that I try to spend most of my time with."
If you really think your view of yourself in the mirror is totally realistic and objective, you need to read up on some psychology. NO ONE has an objective view of his/her self.
Christianlib
This is the big lie of both religion and psychology, perhaps influenced by religion. 'No one' is an absolute statement. I have known many people who have well integrated personalities with a realistic and objective view of themselves with or without the mirror. They know their strengths and their weaknesses but nothing is hidden from themselves. In fact, I find this to be the normal human condition for those not exposed to religion or psychology. Admittedly a small sample, but a sample that I try to spend most of my time with."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)