Superman music
1 day ago
Friday, June 25, 2010
More Changes
Fox has sold beliefnet to ????. It can't be much worse. The Fox life support in community has been excruciating. Maybe it can be cured, if not. Oh well,
Is is is?
Valid Criticism or Projection? - Beliefnet
I have no problem at all with existence. It needs no modifier, it needs no definition, it is observable wherever we look, or touch, or listen, or use any of the other senses, augmented as necessary by scientific tools to experience it. I have no problem experiencing the awe, wonder, and even transcendence that existence provides free and uninterpreted to anyone not blinded by God beliefs. If you [a theist] wish to interpolate a necessary something between you and existence, again be my guest. Since you can't even begin to describe this "necessary" something it seems to me like you are simply placing an opacity between you and existence that requires that little tinhorn in the fancy dress in the overdecorated balcony to tell you when you can experience existence. Thank you. I can do without herm and herm God, and go direct to the source.
I have no problem at all with existence. It needs no modifier, it needs no definition, it is observable wherever we look, or touch, or listen, or use any of the other senses, augmented as necessary by scientific tools to experience it. I have no problem experiencing the awe, wonder, and even transcendence that existence provides free and uninterpreted to anyone not blinded by God beliefs. If you [a theist] wish to interpolate a necessary something between you and existence, again be my guest. Since you can't even begin to describe this "necessary" something it seems to me like you are simply placing an opacity between you and existence that requires that little tinhorn in the fancy dress in the overdecorated balcony to tell you when you can experience existence. Thank you. I can do without herm and herm God, and go direct to the source.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Truth in Fiction
A comment on this post from Rationally Speaking
J'C: "Humans are story telling creatures. We learn about living in our society "Around the campfire" from fables and stories all of which are fictional. A powerful fictional story works not because of the characters or what happens to them but because the social structures they are embedded in provide meaningful social information whether we agree with it or not. Several of the novels mentioned above, "Gone With the Wind," "Grapes of Wrath," "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress," among many others all provided depictions of a social ethic which whether we agreed with it or not, was part of the social fabric in which we live or could live.
Probably the best philosophy course I took was entitled "Philosophy from Literature." Starting with Homer, and stopping off every few hundred years until we reached James Joyce's Ulysses. The basic premise of the course was what can you learn about your society from the literature of various past societies?"
Fiction allows the author or anonymous authors of most of the fiction and fables from which we derive our mores to explore those mores in ways that direct exposition cannot. The characters can and do react in "unacceptable" ways that people can learn from. Note I am not excluding the religious fictions which guide religious mores.
I have learned almost everything I know about social mores from fiction. I read almost nothing else. I would much rather read a very smart person telling a good story embedded in a well thought out social structure than an equally smart sociologist trying to figure out a social structure from observation of reality. The sociologist is extremely limited by having to describe and reason from existing social structures, and trying to guess why some are dysfunctional, and some seem to work. The very smart novelist, playwright or poet simply plops his characters into a social structure that is close enough to a real structure to be recognizable, and show how the fictional characters react to it. The writer is not limited to reality but can explore variations on reality to see how the fictional characters might respond to the challenges presented by that variation.
June 19, 2010 12:20 AM
J'C: "Humans are story telling creatures. We learn about living in our society "Around the campfire" from fables and stories all of which are fictional. A powerful fictional story works not because of the characters or what happens to them but because the social structures they are embedded in provide meaningful social information whether we agree with it or not. Several of the novels mentioned above, "Gone With the Wind," "Grapes of Wrath," "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress," among many others all provided depictions of a social ethic which whether we agreed with it or not, was part of the social fabric in which we live or could live.
Probably the best philosophy course I took was entitled "Philosophy from Literature." Starting with Homer, and stopping off every few hundred years until we reached James Joyce's Ulysses. The basic premise of the course was what can you learn about your society from the literature of various past societies?"
Fiction allows the author or anonymous authors of most of the fiction and fables from which we derive our mores to explore those mores in ways that direct exposition cannot. The characters can and do react in "unacceptable" ways that people can learn from. Note I am not excluding the religious fictions which guide religious mores.
I have learned almost everything I know about social mores from fiction. I read almost nothing else. I would much rather read a very smart person telling a good story embedded in a well thought out social structure than an equally smart sociologist trying to figure out a social structure from observation of reality. The sociologist is extremely limited by having to describe and reason from existing social structures, and trying to guess why some are dysfunctional, and some seem to work. The very smart novelist, playwright or poet simply plops his characters into a social structure that is close enough to a real structure to be recognizable, and show how the fictional characters react to it. The writer is not limited to reality but can explore variations on reality to see how the fictional characters might respond to the challenges presented by that variation.
June 19, 2010 12:20 AM
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Coming Population Crash
The Reproductive Revolution: How Women Are Changing the Planet's Future: Scientific American
But more than 60 countries—containing approaching half of the world's population—already have fertility rates at or below the rate needed to maintain their populations long-term. The club now includes most of the Caribbean islands, Japan, South Korea, China, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Iran, Turkey, Vietnam, Brazil, Algeria, Kazakhstan and Tunisia. Within 20 years, demographic giants like Indonesia, Bangladesh, Mexico and India will in all probability also have below-replacement fertility.
But more than 60 countries—containing approaching half of the world's population—already have fertility rates at or below the rate needed to maintain their populations long-term. The club now includes most of the Caribbean islands, Japan, South Korea, China, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Iran, Turkey, Vietnam, Brazil, Algeria, Kazakhstan and Tunisia. Within 20 years, demographic giants like Indonesia, Bangladesh, Mexico and India will in all probability also have below-replacement fertility.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
The Source of Morality.
MORAL LAW... - Beliefnet
Humans are social animals and the behavioral imperatives or moral structures ultimately come from the local society(s) of which we are a part. Typically this is a religious society, and while the morals claim to be from God, each local parish or congregation has its own take on God's moral edicts. And woe be it to the member that violates any of these moral edicts, expressed or implied. While God's moral "absolutes" are theoretically universal, and applicable to all, in practice one congregation hates fags, one hates evolutionists, one hates all sex, etc. Even within God's realm one can pick and choose almost any moral structure one likes, just by looking at churches to belong to based on morality. Of course no one does. The milk church morality is the absolute morality of God.
As one moves beyond ones church or village, it becomes necessary to choose among the society values including the morals of the various societies one comes in contact with. One's job will have one set, ones, church another, ones school still another set particularly if it is a public school (in the US.)
As one moves into the complex intertwined societies of the modern world it becomes necessary to be aware of the local moral structure so you don't violate it inadvertently. One may violate it intentionally or ignore it, but one must know why and how to cover up if necessary. From there it is an easy step for a thoughtful person to choose common moral structures "Love thy neighbor..." "Do unto others..." and less common ones that may be necessary for one's self respect.
Ultimately the people one chooses as herm society, people of compatible morality from work, church, school, and neighborhood, will determine the tribe from which morality is constructed. Note that the morality is the commonality from which one builds a society. But for reasonable people it is clear that morality is neither absolute nor universally applicable. That does not mean that for the individual it is not rigidly enforced. In the modern world one cannot afford to lose one's chosen social support structure, whatever that is, by compromising its mores.
Humans are social animals and the behavioral imperatives or moral structures ultimately come from the local society(s) of which we are a part. Typically this is a religious society, and while the morals claim to be from God, each local parish or congregation has its own take on God's moral edicts. And woe be it to the member that violates any of these moral edicts, expressed or implied. While God's moral "absolutes" are theoretically universal, and applicable to all, in practice one congregation hates fags, one hates evolutionists, one hates all sex, etc. Even within God's realm one can pick and choose almost any moral structure one likes, just by looking at churches to belong to based on morality. Of course no one does. The milk church morality is the absolute morality of God.
Pardon him. Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.
George Bernard Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra.
As one moves beyond ones church or village, it becomes necessary to choose among the society values including the morals of the various societies one comes in contact with. One's job will have one set, ones, church another, ones school still another set particularly if it is a public school (in the US.)
As one moves into the complex intertwined societies of the modern world it becomes necessary to be aware of the local moral structure so you don't violate it inadvertently. One may violate it intentionally or ignore it, but one must know why and how to cover up if necessary. From there it is an easy step for a thoughtful person to choose common moral structures "Love thy neighbor..." "Do unto others..." and less common ones that may be necessary for one's self respect.
Ultimately the people one chooses as herm society, people of compatible morality from work, church, school, and neighborhood, will determine the tribe from which morality is constructed. Note that the morality is the commonality from which one builds a society. But for reasonable people it is clear that morality is neither absolute nor universally applicable. That does not mean that for the individual it is not rigidly enforced. In the modern world one cannot afford to lose one's chosen social support structure, whatever that is, by compromising its mores.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Modern teen sexuality
How do atheists deal with sexual morality - Beliefnet
Abstinence education has been a total failure even among the most fervent believers not only because of peer pressure and cultural conformity, which are powerful drivers for sex. But in prehistory and until recently marriage was defined as having sex, and for women it normally happened shortly after puberty, for men a little later, probably because they had to compete with all of the successful men in the community for the available young women. But when you add breeding instinct to peer and social pressure, the only moral response is to teach responsible, contraceptive and prophylactic sex however you want to define responsible sex. Forget abstinence it is not responsible sex it is unnatural, anti-social, and anti-peer.
Responsible sex by my definition is informed consent by both partners, radical respect for the health, emotional needs and wishes of any sexual partner, (if you have sowed any wild oats, that means prophylactic sex until medically proven to be STD free six months after last oating) and an intent to form a pair bond leading to marriage and children at an appropriate time. It does not mean waiting for the appropriate time to have sex, it means contraceptive sex until then.
Abstinence education has been a total failure even among the most fervent believers not only because of peer pressure and cultural conformity, which are powerful drivers for sex. But in prehistory and until recently marriage was defined as having sex, and for women it normally happened shortly after puberty, for men a little later, probably because they had to compete with all of the successful men in the community for the available young women. But when you add breeding instinct to peer and social pressure, the only moral response is to teach responsible, contraceptive and prophylactic sex however you want to define responsible sex. Forget abstinence it is not responsible sex it is unnatural, anti-social, and anti-peer.
Responsible sex by my definition is informed consent by both partners, radical respect for the health, emotional needs and wishes of any sexual partner, (if you have sowed any wild oats, that means prophylactic sex until medically proven to be STD free six months after last oating) and an intent to form a pair bond leading to marriage and children at an appropriate time. It does not mean waiting for the appropriate time to have sex, it means contraceptive sex until then.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Sexual morality for Churches.
How do atheists deal with sexual moral(s) - Beliefnet
"I think the message from all churches should change from no sex until marriage, to no children until marriage. The fact of the matter is that kids have sex and no church or God will change that. You might remember that God's instruction was "Be fruitful and multiply." Hesh didn't say when or how. But then it wasn't until recently that anyone had any control over the when and how."
"It is interesting to me that kids with the proper training in the benefits and responsibility of sexual activity as well as the knowledge and means to prevent pregnancy and STDs are down right prudish about casual sex." They know that when they find the right partner that sex will be wonderful, safe, loving and bonding. Most important it will allow them to pair bond as nature intended, at the age when pair bonding is most effective and defer children as desired for educational needs or simply getting established in a career before taking on the added responsibility of parenting. They chose their partner for first sex very carefully with the full intention of establishing a strong pair bond for future children.
"However, they are well aware of the emotional bonding of sexual activity, and generally don't want to risk bonding with a jerk. A roll in the hay with an anonymous stranger or even a classmate loses all allure, as it is not forbidden, just stupid. I know a few sexually active kids well enough to talk about it, and to hear them talk about their friends having casual sex will blister the paint on the room they are in."
"I think the message from all churches should change from no sex until marriage, to no children until marriage. The fact of the matter is that kids have sex and no church or God will change that. You might remember that God's instruction was "Be fruitful and multiply." Hesh didn't say when or how. But then it wasn't until recently that anyone had any control over the when and how."
"It is interesting to me that kids with the proper training in the benefits and responsibility of sexual activity as well as the knowledge and means to prevent pregnancy and STDs are down right prudish about casual sex." They know that when they find the right partner that sex will be wonderful, safe, loving and bonding. Most important it will allow them to pair bond as nature intended, at the age when pair bonding is most effective and defer children as desired for educational needs or simply getting established in a career before taking on the added responsibility of parenting. They chose their partner for first sex very carefully with the full intention of establishing a strong pair bond for future children.
"However, they are well aware of the emotional bonding of sexual activity, and generally don't want to risk bonding with a jerk. A roll in the hay with an anonymous stranger or even a classmate loses all allure, as it is not forbidden, just stupid. I know a few sexually active kids well enough to talk about it, and to hear them talk about their friends having casual sex will blister the paint on the room they are in."
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Transcendence and the Mind
Beliefnet
"Transcendence differs from ordinary conscious states for me by simply focusing all of the mind's resources on whatever it is that is stimulating the transcendence. That focus by the way does not shut off the analytical functions but focuses them on the transcendent experience." Which is why meditation at least of the Buddhist tradition does not work for me. I can focus the minds resources on nothing, but why? It is just a cartoon with an empty balloon. A rainbow works just as well and is much prettier than nothing.
"It doesn't interfere with the reproducible transcendence of Bach's Ricercare (preferably by Marie-Claire Alain) to understand the way the melodies and the harmonies interact to produce the transcendence." Just as it doesn't interfere with the reproducible transcendence of a rainbow to understand the physics of why I am always at the focus.
"Transcendence differs from ordinary conscious states for me by simply focusing all of the mind's resources on whatever it is that is stimulating the transcendence. That focus by the way does not shut off the analytical functions but focuses them on the transcendent experience." Which is why meditation at least of the Buddhist tradition does not work for me. I can focus the minds resources on nothing, but why? It is just a cartoon with an empty balloon. A rainbow works just as well and is much prettier than nothing.
"It doesn't interfere with the reproducible transcendence of Bach's Ricercare (preferably by Marie-Claire Alain) to understand the way the melodies and the harmonies interact to produce the transcendence." Just as it doesn't interfere with the reproducible transcendence of a rainbow to understand the physics of why I am always at the focus.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Reality in sexual morality
How do atheists deal with sexual moral dilemmas? - Beliefnet
A few important reality checks having to do with sexuality.
1. Modern medicine in developed nations, or developed areas of some nations insures that a conception can be reasonably assumed to generate a reproductively capable adult.
2. A financially and emotionally stable pair bonded couple is generally the preferred parenting paradigm.
3. Mammals have sex at every opportunity past sexual maturity.
4. Humans are mammals with concealed estrus and continual receptivity for sex of the female.
5. Sex is an effective and natural pair bonding activity.
6. Teens tend to pair bond at a relatively early age, but the pair bonding is tentative.
In the Our Whole Lives curriculum of the UU church there are a very few rules for sexuality but there are two that are basic. The first is that sexual activity must never be coerced. Respect for one's partner demands nothing else. The second is that conceiving a child is a 30 year commitment for both parents that should never be an accident.
The result which we see commonly acted out in high schools today is that pair bonding is common, generally taken quite seriously and is reinforced with contraceptive sex. Children in their early teens are earnestly discussing a life together considering educational aspirations, parenting aspirations and timing for same.
I find this to be a very encouraging trend. Kids will enjoy their "friend with benefits." They may or may not pair bond on the first try, although biology will help if they have been somewhat intelligent in their choice. If they do pair bond it is not just getting rocks of for either of the partners. If they do it makes it easy to wait until they are ready for parenting make an informed choice to do so, knowing that the pair bond has been tested and not found wanting. They have their replacement 2.2 children, when they are ready, and can see the maternity break window clearly.
I see this as a much better program than the quick trip to Vegas, then another in a week or so when the sex turns out to be not what they expected, or in a year or so when dad decides he doesn't really want to be one.
A few important reality checks having to do with sexuality.
1. Modern medicine in developed nations, or developed areas of some nations insures that a conception can be reasonably assumed to generate a reproductively capable adult.
2. A financially and emotionally stable pair bonded couple is generally the preferred parenting paradigm.
3. Mammals have sex at every opportunity past sexual maturity.
4. Humans are mammals with concealed estrus and continual receptivity for sex of the female.
5. Sex is an effective and natural pair bonding activity.
6. Teens tend to pair bond at a relatively early age, but the pair bonding is tentative.
In the Our Whole Lives curriculum of the UU church there are a very few rules for sexuality but there are two that are basic. The first is that sexual activity must never be coerced. Respect for one's partner demands nothing else. The second is that conceiving a child is a 30 year commitment for both parents that should never be an accident.
The result which we see commonly acted out in high schools today is that pair bonding is common, generally taken quite seriously and is reinforced with contraceptive sex. Children in their early teens are earnestly discussing a life together considering educational aspirations, parenting aspirations and timing for same.
I find this to be a very encouraging trend. Kids will enjoy their "friend with benefits." They may or may not pair bond on the first try, although biology will help if they have been somewhat intelligent in their choice. If they do pair bond it is not just getting rocks of for either of the partners. If they do it makes it easy to wait until they are ready for parenting make an informed choice to do so, knowing that the pair bond has been tested and not found wanting. They have their replacement 2.2 children, when they are ready, and can see the maternity break window clearly.
I see this as a much better program than the quick trip to Vegas, then another in a week or so when the sex turns out to be not what they expected, or in a year or so when dad decides he doesn't really want to be one.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Santa Claus, God and other Myths
Santa Clause & Childhood - Beliefnet
Mature wisdom if you can count a six year old as mature assigns both Santa and God to the large category of myth. Entertaining fictions with some fun stuff and some scary stuff to help people learn about the important mores of their society. One needs to be aware of the myths dominant in society or one will be continually making mistakes without being aware of doing so. It is very important to know the laws and myths of a society so you know when you are choosing to ignore them. The myths probably more importantly than the laws.
I am frequently asked why I am so interested in religion since I am not an anti-theist and have my atheist philosophy and world view well thought out. Aside from the fact that the Christian God makes good music, I live in a Christian world, with a smattering of Jews and other religions thrown in for good measure. Christians assume things about me particularly in the sexuality arena that I better be aware of if I am going to live as a responsible adult. I have to know that abstinence is assumed until marriage at least in theory, so that I can behave appropriately. I have to know that while the religious woman is willing and enthusiastic about sex, it is still sin that will influence her later reactions to it. I must also realize that for a religious woman sex is a marriage proposal if it is not clear that it is just good clean fun.
Mature wisdom if you can count a six year old as mature assigns both Santa and God to the large category of myth. Entertaining fictions with some fun stuff and some scary stuff to help people learn about the important mores of their society. One needs to be aware of the myths dominant in society or one will be continually making mistakes without being aware of doing so. It is very important to know the laws and myths of a society so you know when you are choosing to ignore them. The myths probably more importantly than the laws.
I am frequently asked why I am so interested in religion since I am not an anti-theist and have my atheist philosophy and world view well thought out. Aside from the fact that the Christian God makes good music, I live in a Christian world, with a smattering of Jews and other religions thrown in for good measure. Christians assume things about me particularly in the sexuality arena that I better be aware of if I am going to live as a responsible adult. I have to know that abstinence is assumed until marriage at least in theory, so that I can behave appropriately. I have to know that while the religious woman is willing and enthusiastic about sex, it is still sin that will influence her later reactions to it. I must also realize that for a religious woman sex is a marriage proposal if it is not clear that it is just good clean fun.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Permission slip.
"Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus have a sword fight." Aussie humor. Absolutely hilarious. Permission to attend an Easter Pageant.
Thanks KWinters at beliefnet for finding this.
I was actually in a Bible based play once and played the role of 'Annoyed about having to do this.' My scene involved offering a potplant, as nobody knew what Myrrh was, to a plastic baby Jesus then standing between 'I forgot my costume so am wearing the teachers poncho' and 'I don't feel very well'. Highlights of the play included a nervous donkey with diarrhea causing 'I don't feel very well' to vomit onto the back of Mary's head,
Thanks KWinters at beliefnet for finding this.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Global warming: not a fraud
Global warming: not a fraud
This introduces a "petition" by 250 scientists that should be required reading for all Americans.
Jon ends his column with
The most disturbing thing to me about the recent climate change and evolution debates is how ignorance has been elevated to knowledge, and how scientists have been assaulted for holding generally accepted theories.
These issues have been demagogued to death, and the credulous or stupid people who believe the rhetoric have, in some places, turned into the majority. Science is inherently undemocratic - you don't get to vote on whether two plus two equals four, but some politicians, school boards and political parties have adopted the "wishing makes it so" protocols, and we as a nation are poorer for it.
Jon Carroll
This introduces a "petition" by 250 scientists that should be required reading for all Americans.
Jon ends his column with
Let's do nothing, and watch the coastal areas get drowned. We'll all learn how to swim!
Mind research
The error of mind-body dualism - Beliefnet
Esp as an example is an intensely emotional phenomenon. The Rhine and PEAR studies have foundered on trying to produce results without the emotional content. But ask an early pair bonded couple how they know it is the right pair, and all you get is a shrug. We just know. Ask teilhard how he knows God, and all you get is E-X-P-E-R-I-E-N-C-E. Guess what? He is telling the truth. Science won't touch that with a double insulated 20 foot pole.
Science is still afraid of esp it is a grant killer big time. People on the periphery will earnestly try to find "rational" explanations for obvious esp phenomena like the dog knowing when master is getting off the bus a block away, or how a school of fish avoid a predator. Or how a quintet synchronizes everything they do including the emotional content of the music even if the pianist is blind. I was at a concert last night where a chamber choir performed an extremely difficult new music piece commissioned just last year. The choir was scattered around the stage in no apparent order with at least 6 ft. spacing between singers. How they held it together was either God, esp, or magic. I will bet on esp.
It is only recently that the kinesthetic senses are being investigated, although gymnasts, pianists, and dancers have known about them almost as long as they have been doing their thing. Ask a pianist how they play an Ab minor arpeggio and they look at you funny and say what do you mean how? You just play it. I recently found out I have a muscle memory disability. I have known about it since I took typing in high school, but everybody said I was just stupid. It is easier to say stupid, than research a tenuous phenomenon
If I sound bitter, it is because I had a very frustrating childhood, I could do anything physically as long as it was one thing at a time. 40 WPM no mistakes first week in typing class. But I still can't type my name without doing it one letter at a time. Stupid, lazy, careless, just some of the names used instead of disability. I finally figured it out for myself, after crashing routinely on a double back with a full twist. It was one too many things to do in the time I had to do it, and the muscle memory wasn't there to help. 30 years later science caught up. No esp there, that is a different subject. Just a different brain function. And science wouldn't touch it."
I have no doubt that infringing on the remaining gaps filled by God, as in "God helped me do it" is still intimidating to scientists. The right wingers have no problem with exposing "wasteful grants" for what they deem useless research.
If you have a better excellent summary [of mind research] to hand, grateful if you lay it on us."If I had one I would. The science is still barely in its infancy. It was almost aborted by the skeptic crowd and Randi who declared that anything but the standard five senses was by definition either supernatural or magic. Most of it was, but they intimidated research into neurosciences and consciousness research. Partly by setting standards for success waaaaay to high. And partly because it was infringing on the forbidden territory of God's duality.
Blü
Esp as an example is an intensely emotional phenomenon. The Rhine and PEAR studies have foundered on trying to produce results without the emotional content. But ask an early pair bonded couple how they know it is the right pair, and all you get is a shrug. We just know. Ask teilhard how he knows God, and all you get is E-X-P-E-R-I-E-N-C-E. Guess what? He is telling the truth. Science won't touch that with a double insulated 20 foot pole.
Science is still afraid of esp it is a grant killer big time. People on the periphery will earnestly try to find "rational" explanations for obvious esp phenomena like the dog knowing when master is getting off the bus a block away, or how a school of fish avoid a predator. Or how a quintet synchronizes everything they do including the emotional content of the music even if the pianist is blind. I was at a concert last night where a chamber choir performed an extremely difficult new music piece commissioned just last year. The choir was scattered around the stage in no apparent order with at least 6 ft. spacing between singers. How they held it together was either God, esp, or magic. I will bet on esp.
It is only recently that the kinesthetic senses are being investigated, although gymnasts, pianists, and dancers have known about them almost as long as they have been doing their thing. Ask a pianist how they play an Ab minor arpeggio and they look at you funny and say what do you mean how? You just play it. I recently found out I have a muscle memory disability. I have known about it since I took typing in high school, but everybody said I was just stupid. It is easier to say stupid, than research a tenuous phenomenon
If I sound bitter, it is because I had a very frustrating childhood, I could do anything physically as long as it was one thing at a time. 40 WPM no mistakes first week in typing class. But I still can't type my name without doing it one letter at a time. Stupid, lazy, careless, just some of the names used instead of disability. I finally figured it out for myself, after crashing routinely on a double back with a full twist. It was one too many things to do in the time I had to do it, and the muscle memory wasn't there to help. 30 years later science caught up. No esp there, that is a different subject. Just a different brain function. And science wouldn't touch it."
I have no doubt that infringing on the remaining gaps filled by God, as in "God helped me do it" is still intimidating to scientists. The right wingers have no problem with exposing "wasteful grants" for what they deem useless research.
BP oil spill: And a child shall lead them.
BP oil spill: And a child shall lead them - Carl Hiaasen - MiamiHerald.com
In his winning essay, McNamara proposed several possible options for sealing the ruptured oil pipeline. He said the most promising plan would require ``a super-long straw'' and approximately 3,700 metric tons of Quaker oatmeal.
You ever let that goop sit in a cereal bowl for an hour or two? It turns to rock,'' the sixth-grader explained at his press conference. ``There's nothing that stuff won't clog up.''
Definitely Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/05/15/1630663/bp-oil-spill-and-a-child-shall.html#ixzz0o6rp3zRV This is the best laugh of the year.
In his winning essay, McNamara proposed several possible options for sealing the ruptured oil pipeline. He said the most promising plan would require ``a super-long straw'' and approximately 3,700 metric tons of Quaker oatmeal.
You ever let that goop sit in a cereal bowl for an hour or two? It turns to rock,'' the sixth-grader explained at his press conference. ``There's nothing that stuff won't clog up.''
Definitely Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/05/15/1630663/bp-oil-spill-and-a-child-shall.html#ixzz0o6rp3zRV This is the best laugh of the year.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Abstinance until marriage, cont
Theist responsible - Beliefnet
Sorry, the problem here is that I do not buy into Paul's idea of sexual responsibility from 1 Corinthians 7:8-9. Paraphrasing a bit: Since I am an ugly misanthrope who isn't getting any, nobody else is going to get any either, and if they take the marriage route they better not enjoy that.
For me sexual responsibility involves radical respect for one's partner. That means no sex until both partners think it is a good idea. It means preventing pregnancy until again both partners think they are ready for the responsibility of raising children financially, emotionally, and with the social support including medical that constitutes responsible parenting. Preventing the possible transmission of STD's is usually not an issue if both partners have the same ideas about responsible sexuality. But if one has had irresponsible sex in the past that may be a consideration until medical testing confirms freedom from STDs.
This normally results in monogamy long before the monogamy is blessed by some church, but if the bond fails, as occasionally happens in spite of sexual bonding, it will happen early and before children are involved. Then the result will be serial monogamy usually on the second try.
Will it work for everybody? Of course not, but it works a lot better than denying the pair bonding efficacy of long term sexuality. And it works a lot better than trying to deny the stiffie. It seems that not even priests can do that reliably. As my favorite T-shirt says: Got a stiffie wear a Jiffy (brand condom.) The stiffie will win every time particularly if she or in some cases he is interested. It is called being mammalian.
And that personal responsibility may or may not include abstinence, monogamy, marriage, masturbation, porn, sex toys, prostitutes, homosexuality, and sundry other things the churches deplore for everybody but the preachers.
It does include radical respect for a partner, a partner capable of informed consent, and acceptance of responsibility for anything that is the result of the sex including STDs, psychological problems, and conception.
THEN I surely OUGHT to be RESPONSIBLE enough ALSO to Practice "Abstinence" and/or "Monogamy" properly, too ... ???
Sorry, the problem here is that I do not buy into Paul's idea of sexual responsibility from 1 Corinthians 7:8-9. Paraphrasing a bit: Since I am an ugly misanthrope who isn't getting any, nobody else is going to get any either, and if they take the marriage route they better not enjoy that.
For me sexual responsibility involves radical respect for one's partner. That means no sex until both partners think it is a good idea. It means preventing pregnancy until again both partners think they are ready for the responsibility of raising children financially, emotionally, and with the social support including medical that constitutes responsible parenting. Preventing the possible transmission of STD's is usually not an issue if both partners have the same ideas about responsible sexuality. But if one has had irresponsible sex in the past that may be a consideration until medical testing confirms freedom from STDs.
This normally results in monogamy long before the monogamy is blessed by some church, but if the bond fails, as occasionally happens in spite of sexual bonding, it will happen early and before children are involved. Then the result will be serial monogamy usually on the second try.
Will it work for everybody? Of course not, but it works a lot better than denying the pair bonding efficacy of long term sexuality. And it works a lot better than trying to deny the stiffie. It seems that not even priests can do that reliably. As my favorite T-shirt says: Got a stiffie wear a Jiffy (brand condom.) The stiffie will win every time particularly if she or in some cases he is interested. It is called being mammalian.
People who've never HEARD of "Paul" still have The DUTY of Personal Responsibility, with or without a "Condom" ...
teilhard
And that personal responsibility may or may not include abstinence, monogamy, marriage, masturbation, porn, sex toys, prostitutes, homosexuality, and sundry other things the churches deplore for everybody but the preachers.
It does include radical respect for a partner, a partner capable of informed consent, and acceptance of responsibility for anything that is the result of the sex including STDs, psychological problems, and conception.
Abstinance until marriage
Theist responsible - Beliefnet
And you wonder why I blame the Pope and his whole sexually dysfunctional religion? I don't. I am not anti-Catholic. In everything but sexuality I find the Catholic faith to be useful and beneficial to its parishioners. But the Catholics that benefit from it by and large as you note ignore that part of the sexuality dogma. Not just the no condom part, the whole no sexuality part.
Many Catholic young women in my high school many years ago were sexually active and were desirable partners because the tinge of sinfulness added excitement. But the Florence Crittenton home down the street made them early believers in teaching their partners the no condom no sex rule. They made sure it was used properly.
Such a dis-Connect is EXACTLY a LARGE Part of The Problem, isn't it ... ???It is EXACTLY the WHOLE problem. Your program of abstinence until the first rape blessed by the Pope results in broken lives, broken families, and STDs when people fail because of their natural instincts which you call sin. I am sure at your age you know of the Florence Crittenton services where sinners rejected by their church could hide out until the baby was born, and prepared for the nunnery, as they were "used goods" and unacceptable to any good Catholic man as a wife.
teilhard
And you wonder why I blame the Pope and his whole sexually dysfunctional religion? I don't. I am not anti-Catholic. In everything but sexuality I find the Catholic faith to be useful and beneficial to its parishioners. But the Catholics that benefit from it by and large as you note ignore that part of the sexuality dogma. Not just the no condom part, the whole no sexuality part.
Many Catholic young women in my high school many years ago were sexually active and were desirable partners because the tinge of sinfulness added excitement. But the Florence Crittenton home down the street made them early believers in teaching their partners the no condom no sex rule. They made sure it was used properly.
Sexuality Education in Schools, cont
Theist responsible - Beliefnet
This is why I mentioned the UU OWL curriculum. Our Whole Lives which has been around in earlier forms for over 30 years has been extremely effective in producing stable and loving families which produce planned children usually at an appropriate time in their lives. The pair bond is formed early, built on and stabilized with responsible sexuality. When the pair is ready for children they simply delete the chosen contraceptive. The stability of the pair bond is not an issue. It formed naturally at an appropriate age, survived the temptations of promiscuity, probably some tough times in the late stages of education when values and mores are tested, and survived. I can think of no stronger base for a family.
Teens and pre-teens who have used the curriculum have been followed and the results are noted above. It works. Abstinence is not part of the program but radical respect for sexual partners is. The result is monogamy and an incredibly stable pair bond. I know of a few families from the program or its equivalent who now have teenagers that they are encouraging to follow the same program. When it gets noisy in the bedroom, the parents get that "I remember that" look of great pleasure, and later there is frequently another noisy bedroom in the house. The teens are already discussing when the best time for children will be and planning their lives around that time. It is a given for them that the pair bond will last until then. It probably will.
I don't really believe that a "Papal Bull" would suddenly Solve-the-Problem-of-Irresponsible-Sexual-Behavior ...I have no interest in solving your problem of irresponsible sexual behavior. All I am interested in solving is the problem of unplanned pregnancies and other STDs. It is quite clear that proper education in the advantages of contraception, monogamy or at least limited promiscuity, respect for ones sexual partner, and the importance of both partners being ready financially, emotionally, and socially for parenting, is effective in producing stable families, usually later in life. Teens will have sex. This is normal mammalian behavior. Giving them the information they need to have responsible sex is extremely effective in producing responsible sexual behavior.
teilhard
This is why I mentioned the UU OWL curriculum. Our Whole Lives which has been around in earlier forms for over 30 years has been extremely effective in producing stable and loving families which produce planned children usually at an appropriate time in their lives. The pair bond is formed early, built on and stabilized with responsible sexuality. When the pair is ready for children they simply delete the chosen contraceptive. The stability of the pair bond is not an issue. It formed naturally at an appropriate age, survived the temptations of promiscuity, probably some tough times in the late stages of education when values and mores are tested, and survived. I can think of no stronger base for a family.
Teens and pre-teens who have used the curriculum have been followed and the results are noted above. It works. Abstinence is not part of the program but radical respect for sexual partners is. The result is monogamy and an incredibly stable pair bond. I know of a few families from the program or its equivalent who now have teenagers that they are encouraging to follow the same program. When it gets noisy in the bedroom, the parents get that "I remember that" look of great pleasure, and later there is frequently another noisy bedroom in the house. The teens are already discussing when the best time for children will be and planning their lives around that time. It is a given for them that the pair bond will last until then. It probably will.
Myths and Atheists.
beliefnet
Perhaps you should have been taught that myths that endure and speak of useful things to many generations of humans probably have values that should not be scoffed at.
I would suggest you take off your atheist blinders and read that myth for the allegorical truths it contains rather than for a Yahweh shooting gallery.
Probably the thing that makes atheists look the worst is their tendency to be as literalist about the myths and allegories of the Bible as any fundie Christian. Hey, lookie there! A sitting duck! With this buckshot it will never get up again!
Perhaps you should have been taught that it was an old story that meant something to a minor culture of people long ago, and far away.
F1fan
Perhaps you should have been taught that myths that endure and speak of useful things to many generations of humans probably have values that should not be scoffed at.
I would suggest you take off your atheist blinders and read that myth for the allegorical truths it contains rather than for a Yahweh shooting gallery.
Probably the thing that makes atheists look the worst is their tendency to be as literalist about the myths and allegories of the Bible as any fundie Christian. Hey, lookie there! A sitting duck! With this buckshot it will never get up again!
Atheist Spirituality
Beliefnet - Article from Science Daily
My spirituality, which is independent of any deity supernatural or otherwise, frequently contradicts reality. There is no conflict. A rainbow or a sunrise has no meaning in reality. Both are easily explainable expressions of optical phenomenon. But sunrises and rainbows are reasons for me to get out of bed to appreciate the challenges and rewards of living yet another day, to do what I can to make it as meaningful as a sunrise or a rainbow. Rainbows especially as it takes both sun and rain to make one. Although a great sunrise will have both sun and clouds. But then clouds are just a meteorological phenomenon with no meaning and the sun is just a large thermonuclear reaction with even less meaning. It takes spirituality not reality to give meaning to either.
Of course in reality I am just another animal getting up every morning to eat and avoid being eaten, perhaps to live long enough to breed, and insure that the resulting children also get up every morning to eat. Perhaps I can help them avoid being eaten, and maybe I can even give them a reason to get up every morning. But of course none of that has anything to do with reality.
I don't see how any idea that contradicts reality can be considered spiritual. To my mind spirituality MUST conform to reality, otherwise it creates inner and external conflict.
F1fan
My spirituality, which is independent of any deity supernatural or otherwise, frequently contradicts reality. There is no conflict. A rainbow or a sunrise has no meaning in reality. Both are easily explainable expressions of optical phenomenon. But sunrises and rainbows are reasons for me to get out of bed to appreciate the challenges and rewards of living yet another day, to do what I can to make it as meaningful as a sunrise or a rainbow. Rainbows especially as it takes both sun and rain to make one. Although a great sunrise will have both sun and clouds. But then clouds are just a meteorological phenomenon with no meaning and the sun is just a large thermonuclear reaction with even less meaning. It takes spirituality not reality to give meaning to either.
Of course in reality I am just another animal getting up every morning to eat and avoid being eaten, perhaps to live long enough to breed, and insure that the resulting children also get up every morning to eat. Perhaps I can help them avoid being eaten, and maybe I can even give them a reason to get up every morning. But of course none of that has anything to do with reality.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Tonehammer Demo
A teaser for our project can be found at "Requiem"
Six minutes out of maybe 24 hours of work by the singers. Good stuff.
Six minutes out of maybe 24 hours of work by the singers. Good stuff.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Monogamy Genetic?
Theist responsible... - Discuss Atheism - Beliefnet #88
I don't see monogamy as genetic. I see it as a strongly reinforced social value. In other words nurture rather than nature. The fact that historically and prehistorically a two parent family seemed to be the only way most of the people could succeed in producing a replacement quota of adults strongly insured that the leaders who could afford to play around would preach monogamy, and believers would buy it, but as soon as the man can afford it he will play around in one way or another. They don't call prostitution the oldest profession for nothing. Or if you are rich enough you can hire massage therapists of one sex or another to accomplish the same purpose.
I am one of those preaching and practicing monogamy as long as dependent children are involved as I think that is still produces the best results as measured by high functioning adults. There are exceptions, but for every bootstrap street kid that makes it there are hundreds and maybe thousands that don't. If I were writing the laws marriage would be a commitment to any resulting children, natural or adopted, and in a divorce the only lawyer allowed would be an advocate for the children. Unfortunately the churches write the laws for both and the current disaster is the result.
Isn't there enough evidence to suggest that some people are genetically hardwired for monogamy and some for infidelity? Among other variations in the middle of the road that are often overlooked by our Christianized society.
Yavanna
I don't see monogamy as genetic. I see it as a strongly reinforced social value. In other words nurture rather than nature. The fact that historically and prehistorically a two parent family seemed to be the only way most of the people could succeed in producing a replacement quota of adults strongly insured that the leaders who could afford to play around would preach monogamy, and believers would buy it, but as soon as the man can afford it he will play around in one way or another. They don't call prostitution the oldest profession for nothing. Or if you are rich enough you can hire massage therapists of one sex or another to accomplish the same purpose.
I am one of those preaching and practicing monogamy as long as dependent children are involved as I think that is still produces the best results as measured by high functioning adults. There are exceptions, but for every bootstrap street kid that makes it there are hundreds and maybe thousands that don't. If I were writing the laws marriage would be a commitment to any resulting children, natural or adopted, and in a divorce the only lawyer allowed would be an advocate for the children. Unfortunately the churches write the laws for both and the current disaster is the result.
Modern Villages.
Genetic Origins of Human Morality - Beliefnet #5
Modern humans haven't moved much beyond the village or parish. The only difference is that we now have the means and incentive to choose our own village or occasionally more than one. As churches have lost their village status, other groups take up the slack, and as you point out sport teams provide the same religious fervor (and bigotry and violence) that churches once provided. The pub crawl is another. Arts groups can be another. I notice that SF Symphony has its own web2.0 social networking site. Every University has its social site, with the line between alumni and students blurring drastically.
I see this as an interim step to Appiah's Cosmopolitanism which I expect will be the next step in human moral evolution. I am not sure where the social village will be found, but I expect the university communities will end up as the choice for the well educated.
I don't see work as satisfying community social needs, with a few exceptions. Here in silicon valley Google and Apple seem to be viable communities, but that does not seem to be the norm. Most work experiences are devoid of moral value unless one views raping the world for personal gain as a moral value.
Still, it's more very good news for professional sport.
Blü
Modern humans haven't moved much beyond the village or parish. The only difference is that we now have the means and incentive to choose our own village or occasionally more than one. As churches have lost their village status, other groups take up the slack, and as you point out sport teams provide the same religious fervor (and bigotry and violence) that churches once provided. The pub crawl is another. Arts groups can be another. I notice that SF Symphony has its own web2.0 social networking site. Every University has its social site, with the line between alumni and students blurring drastically.
I see this as an interim step to Appiah's Cosmopolitanism which I expect will be the next step in human moral evolution. I am not sure where the social village will be found, but I expect the university communities will end up as the choice for the well educated.
I don't see work as satisfying community social needs, with a few exceptions. Here in silicon valley Google and Apple seem to be viable communities, but that does not seem to be the norm. Most work experiences are devoid of moral value unless one views raping the world for personal gain as a moral value.
Sexuality Education in Schools
Theist responsible... - Beliefnet
My assertion is fact based and is responsible for my anti-church feelings on this issue. Unplanned pregnancies and abortions are some of the most serious issues facing the US today. The “Just say No!” campaign and the prevention of meaningful sexuality education in the public schools which should be isolated from toxic religious influences has been led by a few religious organizations headed by the Catholic Church.
I say toxic purposely as these policies kill people and fetuses, and result in the tragedy of way too many single parent families. Sure most of the moms (it is always the mom) make the best of a bad situation, but an unplanned pregnancy is a preventable tragedy encouraged, and in fact mandated by church doctrine. The Pope could solve this problem simply by issuing a Bull that the UU OWL curriculum or the equivalent be taught in all schools Catholic and public. The Baptists can go to Hell in their own way by pulling their kids out of the public schools.
They are already doing so, dooming their children to non-competitiveness in the modern world. But evolution has never been kind to non-competitive species or subspecies in this case. I suspect that Homo Sapiens Religiosus will be extinct in my grandchildren's lifetime. I just hope it doesn't get too ugly. We already are seeing random killings by the losers, but so far it is other losers that are bearing the brunt of the damage. My hope is that fast food, soda pop and beer will keep them anchored on their couch, and Fox entertainment will be more interesting than getting their asses up even for sex. I will gladly contribute my share of the welfare checks to keep them there.
I believe that your Assertion is not Fact-based, but instead reflects your Anti-Church Feelings ...
teilhard
My assertion is fact based and is responsible for my anti-church feelings on this issue. Unplanned pregnancies and abortions are some of the most serious issues facing the US today. The “Just say No!” campaign and the prevention of meaningful sexuality education in the public schools which should be isolated from toxic religious influences has been led by a few religious organizations headed by the Catholic Church.
I say toxic purposely as these policies kill people and fetuses, and result in the tragedy of way too many single parent families. Sure most of the moms (it is always the mom) make the best of a bad situation, but an unplanned pregnancy is a preventable tragedy encouraged, and in fact mandated by church doctrine. The Pope could solve this problem simply by issuing a Bull that the UU OWL curriculum or the equivalent be taught in all schools Catholic and public. The Baptists can go to Hell in their own way by pulling their kids out of the public schools.
They are already doing so, dooming their children to non-competitiveness in the modern world. But evolution has never been kind to non-competitive species or subspecies in this case. I suspect that Homo Sapiens Religiosus will be extinct in my grandchildren's lifetime. I just hope it doesn't get too ugly. We already are seeing random killings by the losers, but so far it is other losers that are bearing the brunt of the damage. My hope is that fast food, soda pop and beer will keep them anchored on their couch, and Fox entertainment will be more interesting than getting their asses up even for sex. I will gladly contribute my share of the welfare checks to keep them there.
Religious Wishful Thinking on Sex.
Theist responsible... - Beliefnet
It is called religious wishful thinking. There may be a few around who keep their penises dry, but even those who claim to do so seem to find ways of succumbing to their natural instincts. Maybe even Ratzinger?
Abstinence absent masturbation is a joke. Abstinence with masturbation is unusual. Monogamy, while certainly a worthy ideal, is an unnatural aberration for males of most species, particularly the human species. Whores, rent-a-boys, and the new wife are so common as to be considered to be the norm. Throw porn into the mix and even regulators do it.
Probably the most disastrous legacy of Paul was his use of sexuality as the universal sin that all needed to be saved from. He knew that celibacy was a joke, and that sexual fun and games with pregnancy as a side effect were universal. So by making all sins he had his need for a Savior, but made sexuality a disaster for the rest of the world. It is time we held Paul and the Pope accountable for the damage they have done.
A Guy who keeps his "John Thomas" IN his own Pants ISN'T going become an un-intended DADDY ... It's called Self-Control ... It's called "Abstinence" and/or "Monogamy" ...
teilhard
It is called religious wishful thinking. There may be a few around who keep their penises dry, but even those who claim to do so seem to find ways of succumbing to their natural instincts. Maybe even Ratzinger?
Abstinence absent masturbation is a joke. Abstinence with masturbation is unusual. Monogamy, while certainly a worthy ideal, is an unnatural aberration for males of most species, particularly the human species. Whores, rent-a-boys, and the new wife are so common as to be considered to be the norm. Throw porn into the mix and even regulators do it.
Probably the most disastrous legacy of Paul was his use of sexuality as the universal sin that all needed to be saved from. He knew that celibacy was a joke, and that sexual fun and games with pregnancy as a side effect were universal. So by making all sins he had his need for a Savior, but made sexuality a disaster for the rest of the world. It is time we held Paul and the Pope accountable for the damage they have done.
Behavior or Religion?
Theist responsible... - Beliefnet
The rates of unplanned pregnancy and abortion are the result of religious objections to informing all teens, including those whose parents object for religious reasons, of the options for family planning. The behavior of humans that are past puberty is definitely not the problem. All humans past puberty will engage in sexual activities that are normal and natural instinctive behaviors. The survival of the human species depends on it.
Technological solutions have insured that for practical purposes all pregnancies will result in a pubescent human. Historical fecundity limiters of maternal and child mortality have been eliminated by technology, so it is reasonable that technology should provide the solutions for fecundity limitation to sustainable limits. I know that the Bishop of Rome hopes that AIDS will do the job here as it did in Africa, but I am strongly in favor of more benign methods.
I strongly advocate deferring first pregnancies to the last few years of education, but I am enough of a realist to know that changing instinctive behaviors is not going to work. Every person over the age of 8 should know the benefits and possible risks of all forms of contraception singly and in combination, the Pope be damned. Teens will have sex. This is a given. Very few of them male or female want the responsibility of pregnancy or abortion and will take the necessary steps to prevent it until they are ready for the responsibility of parenting. None of them will "Just say no"
The rates of unplanned pregnancy and abortion are the result of religious objections to informing all teens, including those whose parents object for religious reasons, of the options for family planning. The behavior of humans that are past puberty is definitely not the problem. All humans past puberty will engage in sexual activities that are normal and natural instinctive behaviors. The survival of the human species depends on it.
Technological solutions have insured that for practical purposes all pregnancies will result in a pubescent human. Historical fecundity limiters of maternal and child mortality have been eliminated by technology, so it is reasonable that technology should provide the solutions for fecundity limitation to sustainable limits. I know that the Bishop of Rome hopes that AIDS will do the job here as it did in Africa, but I am strongly in favor of more benign methods.
I strongly advocate deferring first pregnancies to the last few years of education, but I am enough of a realist to know that changing instinctive behaviors is not going to work. Every person over the age of 8 should know the benefits and possible risks of all forms of contraception singly and in combination, the Pope be damned. Teens will have sex. This is a given. Very few of them male or female want the responsibility of pregnancy or abortion and will take the necessary steps to prevent it until they are ready for the responsibility of parenting. None of them will "Just say no"
Sunday, May 9, 2010
A little bit 'o Neanderthal
A little bit Neanderthal
Did God make Herm Chosen People as sex toys for horny Neandertal hunters. I know God had little respect for human women but this is ridiculous.
No Neandertal mitochondrial DNA in Homo sapiens. Ergo no Neanderthal women bred with Homo Sapiens men. 1-4% Neanderthal DNA in Homo sapiens. This must be from male Neanderthals breeding with Homo sapiens females.
A bit of speculation: It is my understanding that the Neanderthals were a superior apex predator in every way to Homo sapiens, except for adaptability. Neanderthals had no need to adapt. Everything including Homo sapiens stayed out of their way if possible.
Now if a bunch of Neanderthal guys were on an extended hunt far from the caves, and happened upon a Homo sapiens female, a little fun and games involving bestiality (by their standards) might have been more useful than the quantity of food available. If she managed to escape some of those Neanderthal genes might have been advantageous and were conserved.
From the SciAm report:
Researchers sequencing Neandertal DNA have concluded that between 1 and 4 percent of the DNA of people today who live outside Africa came from Neandertals, the result of interbreeding between Neandertals and early modern humans.
The finding contrasts sharply with Pääbo's previous work. In 1997 he and his colleagues sequenced the first Neandertal mitochondrial DNA . Mitochondria are the cell’s energy-generating organelles, and they have their own DNA, which is distinct from the much longer DNA sequence that resides in the cell’s nucleus. Their analysis revealed that Neandertals had not made any contributions to modern mitochondrial DNA.
Did God make Herm Chosen People as sex toys for horny Neandertal hunters. I know God had little respect for human women but this is ridiculous.
No Neandertal mitochondrial DNA in Homo sapiens. Ergo no Neanderthal women bred with Homo Sapiens men. 1-4% Neanderthal DNA in Homo sapiens. This must be from male Neanderthals breeding with Homo sapiens females.
A bit of speculation: It is my understanding that the Neanderthals were a superior apex predator in every way to Homo sapiens, except for adaptability. Neanderthals had no need to adapt. Everything including Homo sapiens stayed out of their way if possible.
Now if a bunch of Neanderthal guys were on an extended hunt far from the caves, and happened upon a Homo sapiens female, a little fun and games involving bestiality (by their standards) might have been more useful than the quantity of food available. If she managed to escape some of those Neanderthal genes might have been advantageous and were conserved.
From the SciAm report:
Researchers sequencing Neandertal DNA have concluded that between 1 and 4 percent of the DNA of people today who live outside Africa came from Neandertals, the result of interbreeding between Neandertals and early modern humans.
The finding contrasts sharply with Pääbo's previous work. In 1997 he and his colleagues sequenced the first Neandertal mitochondrial DNA . Mitochondria are the cell’s energy-generating organelles, and they have their own DNA, which is distinct from the much longer DNA sequence that resides in the cell’s nucleus. Their analysis revealed that Neandertals had not made any contributions to modern mitochondrial DNA.
Color Survey Results « xkcd
Color Survey Results « xkcd
From a delightful color survey from xkcd. Who ever thought science could be so funny. A very witty write up of the results.
And really, if you’re reading this blog, odds are you probably—like me—spend more time looking at a monitor than at the outdoors anyway.
From a delightful color survey from xkcd. Who ever thought science could be so funny. A very witty write up of the results.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Truths of Physics and Psychology
The Moral Life of Babies - NYTimes.com
Thanks Paul, for the laugh of the day. One of these years psychology may find a universal truth, but it needs to find some reality and humility first.
The truths of physics and psychology are universal: objects obey the same physical laws everywhere; and people everywhere have minds, goals, desires and beliefs.
Paul Bloom
Thanks Paul, for the laugh of the day. One of these years psychology may find a universal truth, but it needs to find some reality and humility first.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Development of Morality.
The Moral Life of Babies - NYTimes.com
This for me is the crux of the article. And the Author ignores it. The within-group preferences are the basis of morality. Our school colors are good, yours are bad.
Adult morality is basically the ability to choose ones group and abide by the moral standards it sets up. Particularly the standards for role modeling. As we are seeing daily: If your group is sport you expect your sport heroes to be good role models and woe be to the used to be hero that falls short in the role model behavior. They might redeem their hero status by their talent, but it will always have the asterisk hesh is a great athlete* *but hesh is an asshole.
In politics and religion the role model issues are even more important.
I learned the importance of role modeling early, as one of my favorite musicians was an asshole, and people in my group would judge his music by his behavior. The implicit message was that my society expected every member to be an exemplary role model, and achievements would be judged as much by the role modeling as by the achievement itself. This drastically changes the importance of moral behavior, at least in my society which is self selected to be intelligent, rational, well educated, and achievement oriented. And damn few of us get our moral behavior from God.
We possess abstract moral notions of equality and freedom for all; we see racism and sexism as evil; we reject slavery and genocide; we try to love our enemies. Of course, our actions typically fall short, often far short, of our moral principles, but these principles do shape, in a substantial way, the world that we live in. It makes sense then to marvel at the extent of our moral insight and to reject the notion that it can be explained in the language of natural selection. If this higher morality or higher altruism were found in babies, the case for divine creation would get just a bit stronger.
But it is not present in babies. In fact, our initial moral sense appears to be biased toward our own kind. There’s plenty of research showing that babies have within-group preferences: 3-month-olds prefer the faces of the race that is most familiar to them to those of other races; 11-month-olds prefer individuals who share their own taste in food and expect these individuals to be nicer than those with different tastes; 12-month-olds prefer to learn from someone who speaks their own language over someone who speaks a foreign language. And studies with young children have found that once they are segregated into different groups — even under the most arbitrary of schemes, like wearing different colored T-shirts — they eagerly favor their own groups in their attitudes and their actions.
Paul Bloom
This for me is the crux of the article. And the Author ignores it. The within-group preferences are the basis of morality. Our school colors are good, yours are bad.
Adult morality is basically the ability to choose ones group and abide by the moral standards it sets up. Particularly the standards for role modeling. As we are seeing daily: If your group is sport you expect your sport heroes to be good role models and woe be to the used to be hero that falls short in the role model behavior. They might redeem their hero status by their talent, but it will always have the asterisk hesh is a great athlete* *but hesh is an asshole.
In politics and religion the role model issues are even more important.
I learned the importance of role modeling early, as one of my favorite musicians was an asshole, and people in my group would judge his music by his behavior. The implicit message was that my society expected every member to be an exemplary role model, and achievements would be judged as much by the role modeling as by the achievement itself. This drastically changes the importance of moral behavior, at least in my society which is self selected to be intelligent, rational, well educated, and achievement oriented. And damn few of us get our moral behavior from God.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Salvation
Owning Your Own Shadow - Beliefnet
It is because I have studied the Bible and understand what is going on in it that I do not accept the Good News of Salvation. It would probably be easier not to work on righteousness and nail my shadow to the cross, but that doesn't work for me. Christ has nothing to do with my behavior or my relationships with other people. He is not responsible for any injury I might inflict on them and neither is Adam. The arrow of responsibility is very short and it points right at me. I think all this work makes me a better member of my chosen society both as an actor and as a role model. It is my effect on my society today, in this life that is important to me. No more, and no less.
It is because I have studied the Bible and understand what is going on in it that I do not accept the Good News of Salvation. It would probably be easier not to work on righteousness and nail my shadow to the cross, but that doesn't work for me. Christ has nothing to do with my behavior or my relationships with other people. He is not responsible for any injury I might inflict on them and neither is Adam. The arrow of responsibility is very short and it points right at me. I think all this work makes me a better member of my chosen society both as an actor and as a role model. It is my effect on my society today, in this life that is important to me. No more, and no less.
Idealism and Atheism
Owning Your Own Shadow - Beliefnet
Idealism and optimism seem to me to be necessary for a life without God. There is no salvation that I don't make for myself. This life is all I can expect, so I can't waste it on worthless that is non-ideal activities. And the legacy that I leave for others had better be beautiful, interesting and useful. I can't think of a way to do that without an idealistic outlook on life. I think humans are evolving into a better more idealistic species, not all of us, but I want to insure that those who are important to me are part of that evolution.
You seem to have an idealistic streak - that is surprising to me.
newchurchguy
Idealism and optimism seem to me to be necessary for a life without God. There is no salvation that I don't make for myself. This life is all I can expect, so I can't waste it on worthless that is non-ideal activities. And the legacy that I leave for others had better be beautiful, interesting and useful. I can't think of a way to do that without an idealistic outlook on life. I think humans are evolving into a better more idealistic species, not all of us, but I want to insure that those who are important to me are part of that evolution.
UU Youth
Owning Your Own Shadow - Beliefnet
There were no rules, no belief systems, and yet we had to function as a coherent group in spite of radically different views on everything from God to sexuality. I learned to respect the rules and limits of others without internalizing them. I learned to communicate my rules and limits without projecting them on others. This was fairly easy with respect to God, in spite of my unusual for the time overt atheism, but the sexuality issues as you might expect in a group of horny teens with no rules except respect for your partner made for some interesting times. Further, deponent sayeth not.
What did the UU youth group contribute to your righteousness / no shadow?
iamachildofhis
There were no rules, no belief systems, and yet we had to function as a coherent group in spite of radically different views on everything from God to sexuality. I learned to respect the rules and limits of others without internalizing them. I learned to communicate my rules and limits without projecting them on others. This was fairly easy with respect to God, in spite of my unusual for the time overt atheism, but the sexuality issues as you might expect in a group of horny teens with no rules except respect for your partner made for some interesting times. Further, deponent sayeth not.
Parents
Owning Your Own Shadow - Beliefnet
My parents' relationship lasted more than half a century, the usual bumps and frictions, but in general I would agree with your assessment.
My mother was an intelligent, independent, and strong woman, and the iconic ancestor was similar. Not domineering as many such women can be, but not submissive either. She knew she was equal to anybody else. Not better, but no worse. My older sisters who were important in my early life inherited these traits. One might say I had no experience with other types of women or at least didn't notice other types. My father was an equal partner in my parenting and in his marriage, but traditional gender role models were basically ignored.
Your parents must have had a very good, loving relationship. You must have really valued your mother, also.
iamachildofhis
My parents' relationship lasted more than half a century, the usual bumps and frictions, but in general I would agree with your assessment.
My mother was an intelligent, independent, and strong woman, and the iconic ancestor was similar. Not domineering as many such women can be, but not submissive either. She knew she was equal to anybody else. Not better, but no worse. My older sisters who were important in my early life inherited these traits. One might say I had no experience with other types of women or at least didn't notice other types. My father was an equal partner in my parenting and in his marriage, but traditional gender role models were basically ignored.
How No Shadow?
Owning Your Own Shadow - Beliefnet
I am sure siblings and playmates were caught out and instructed on stealing, but as usual my own burning ears were what made me learn. But relevant to the shadow topic, it was always behavior correction. "We" don't do that kind of thing. Never "That is bad," and absolutely never "You are bad." I don't remember "bad" as part of my parents' vocabulary.
As I remember it sharing was a part of playing with toys. Even my teddy bear which for a while was a constant companion was shared. I vaguely remember a kind of a round dance game where the teddy bear danced with everybody.
The "We" in all of it was what "We" considered to be an elite society. One in which each person was expected to be knowledgeable, thoughtful, responsible, mannerly, fun to be with, and to do their chores diligently and without direction or complaint. There were "Others" some of whom were part of a different elite, and some who were definitely less than elite.
You grew up in a very polite home, then. Were you the one stealing, or a sibling, or a play mate? Were you encouraged to continually share, or were there toys which were yours, alone, and you, alone could choose whether or not to share them? Were you groomed for an elite society?
iamachildofhis
I am sure siblings and playmates were caught out and instructed on stealing, but as usual my own burning ears were what made me learn. But relevant to the shadow topic, it was always behavior correction. "We" don't do that kind of thing. Never "That is bad," and absolutely never "You are bad." I don't remember "bad" as part of my parents' vocabulary.
As I remember it sharing was a part of playing with toys. Even my teddy bear which for a while was a constant companion was shared. I vaguely remember a kind of a round dance game where the teddy bear danced with everybody.
The "We" in all of it was what "We" considered to be an elite society. One in which each person was expected to be knowledgeable, thoughtful, responsible, mannerly, fun to be with, and to do their chores diligently and without direction or complaint. There were "Others" some of whom were part of a different elite, and some who were definitely less than elite.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Atheism Ridicule - Discuss Atheism - Beliefnet Community
Atheism Ridicule - Beliefnet
While you are equal, the societies to which you belong are different. Abner will judge kodiacman by the standards of the educated atheist society of which he is a part. Kodiacman may very well say that God does not approve of the educated atheist society, or at least the atheist part, and in effect say 'Throw Abner to the wolves.' Abner will probably like Brer Rabbit say 'Don't throw me into that briar patch full of atheist chemists.' And you both will walk away feeling virtuous and filled with righteousness for making the correct moral judgment."
I guess the question is what qualifies Abner to judge kodiacman? If we are equal then our authority is equal and we have no basis for calling one action evil or good.
Kodiacman
While you are equal, the societies to which you belong are different. Abner will judge kodiacman by the standards of the educated atheist society of which he is a part. Kodiacman may very well say that God does not approve of the educated atheist society, or at least the atheist part, and in effect say 'Throw Abner to the wolves.' Abner will probably like Brer Rabbit say 'Don't throw me into that briar patch full of atheist chemists.' And you both will walk away feeling virtuous and filled with righteousness for making the correct moral judgment."
Atheism Ridicule - Discuss Atheism - Beliefnet Community
Atheism Ridicule - Beliefnet
No, he is assuming a moral authority. The moral authority is always a segment of the society of which the person is a part. Or depending on your definition of society, it may be the local society, the church, the community, or a self chosen community of peers. None of which have supreme authority, not even the church or God.
By calling another 'evil' a person is basically saying that the behavior is unacceptable for membership in the relevant society. In effect saying that if the behavior continues we, the society, will 'throw you to the wolves' and give no protection or benefits from belonging to the society. The outsider may find a society that tolerates the evil behavior, and may even encourage it, in which case there may be a clash of societies up to and including warfare if the evil is deemed onerous enough. Please note that the 'evil' society probably does not view itself as evil, and may in fact consider all other societies evil. It may even base this on a particular God belief, but even that is not absolute.
As an example many societies consider treating women as property and subjugating them to some relevant male to be evil. There are other societies that say this is requirement of God. I would challenge anyone to show either view is a supreme moral edict."
By calling Godman 'evil' you are presuming a supreme moral authority...either yourself, society, or God. The first two are arbitrary, and if you can't see that, maybe he's right.
Merlin
No, he is assuming a moral authority. The moral authority is always a segment of the society of which the person is a part. Or depending on your definition of society, it may be the local society, the church, the community, or a self chosen community of peers. None of which have supreme authority, not even the church or God.
By calling another 'evil' a person is basically saying that the behavior is unacceptable for membership in the relevant society. In effect saying that if the behavior continues we, the society, will 'throw you to the wolves' and give no protection or benefits from belonging to the society. The outsider may find a society that tolerates the evil behavior, and may even encourage it, in which case there may be a clash of societies up to and including warfare if the evil is deemed onerous enough. Please note that the 'evil' society probably does not view itself as evil, and may in fact consider all other societies evil. It may even base this on a particular God belief, but even that is not absolute.
As an example many societies consider treating women as property and subjugating them to some relevant male to be evil. There are other societies that say this is requirement of God. I would challenge anyone to show either view is a supreme moral edict."
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Common Elements.
Atheism Ridicule - Beliefnet: "“The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.” ~Harlan Ellison"
Noted by Kodiakman
Noted by Kodiakman
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)