0
   

The greatest irony...

 
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 02:54 am
The current discussion of "science" appears to give concepts like "energy" a priori status. This is perhaps equivalent to giving say "the ball" a priori status in a ball game. What matters in any dynamic system, whether it be open or closed, are the patterns of relationships between components, not the components themselves. Each component is bounded with others by the rules of relationship, i.e. our expectancies. It has no "existence" other than in terms of those relationships. Thus "energy" has no existence except in terms of its functional relationship with "us" in our perpetual game of "attempted control". And it follows that the component "God" has existence for some as a hypothetical "Grand Controller". For others (Cyracuz perhaps) "God" is "the system"...not the "controller" or "creator" of it because that would lead to the infinite regress of systems within systems, implied by the question "who created God ?".

A secondary consideration ignored by "creationists" is the concept of "time". This concept like "energy" has existence as a parameter of relationships within the system, as an aspect of "space-time". Since "creation" has no psychological/functional value except within a "time continuum" it follows that "creation" cannot be conceived of originating from "outside". This supports the second view of "God" qua "system" versus the first.

To requote the last lines from above
Quote:
...then the mind can go beyond and find out, through meditation, through a deep, quiet silence, if there is such a thing as reality. Therefore a religious mind is a mind that is constantly aware, sensitive, attentive, so that it goes beyond itself into a dimension where there is no time at all.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 04:44 am
real life

The information you ask of me is already given in the very post you quote from. Apply yourself instead of asking questions that are already answered.


fresco

You are right in that any meaningful application of the concept "god" to me would refer to "the system". The Living Everything, as some of you know I like to call it. A singularity without measurable beginning or end, without measurable size or contents.
Immeasurable because if you try to measure it you are dealing with components of it, not the thing itself.

The curious thing is that I can take all these things said about god in the bible, "god works in mysterious ways", "god is omnipotent" and so on, apply them to my concept of the living everything, and say.. hmm... that's true...
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 09:06 am
Chai wrote:
real life wrote:
Chai wrote:


Seriously, for me, it's about energy. Were did it originate? Can't be destroyed. It's eternal.



If matter/energy has existed since eternity past, why hasn't entropy taken the expected toll?



And what would the expected toll be real life?




The science of thermodynamics is founded on two principles, both of which involve the concept of energy. The first principle asserts that energy is conserved, i.e., energy can neither be created nor destroyed. The second principle asserts that the overall distribution of energy tends to become more uniform, never less uniform. These two principles are called the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Laws # 1 and 2

While the entropy in the universe is continuously increasing, the energy of the universe is constant.

Energy does not disappear real life, just changes.


Correct.

So if energy is 'eternal' then a state of maximum entropy should have been reached.

Otherwise, you are not postulating 'eternal' energy, just an 'old' universe.

If the universe is simply 'old' (not eternal) then energy had to come into being (be created) at some point.

This would violate the 1st Law.

So pick your poison, Chai.

Do you really believe energy is 'eternal', or just 'old'?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 09:10 am
Cyracuz wrote:
real life

The information you ask of me is already given in the very post you quote from. Apply yourself instead of asking questions that are already answered.




No , it's not.

What exactly (in your view) constitutes 'organized religion' (which you oppose) ?

Is it 1 or 2 people discussing their beliefs? 4 or 5 ?

When do we reach the magic number at which you are willing to restrict free speech and freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion?

Do you ever attend events where a crowd has gathered to hear a speaker discuss their view of spirituality (which may be in accord with yours) ?
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 10:16 am
Real life

Fresco posted this quote from Krishnamurti som pages back. It explains what I mean. What I refer to as organized religion is what Krishnamurti says is not religion.


Quote:
Krishnamurti: Sir, what is religion? Actually, what is religion? First of all to find out what is religion we must negate what it is not. Belief is not religion, and the authority which the churches, the organized religions assume, is not religion. In that there is all the sense of obedience, conformity, acceptance, the hierarchical approach to life. The division between the Protestant, the Catholic, the Hindu, the Moslem, that's not religion. When you negate all that, which means you are no longer a Hindu, no longer a Catholic, no longer belonging to any sectarian outlook, then your mind questions, asks what is true religion? This is free from their ritual, without their masters, without their Saviour; all that is not religion. When the mind discards that, intelligently, because it has seen that it's not religion, then it can ask what is religion. Religion is not what I think, but religion is the sense of comprehension of the totality of existence, in which there is no division between you and me. Then if there is that quality of goodness which is virtue, real virtue not the phony virtue of society, but real virtue, then the mind can go beyond and find out, through meditation, through a deep, quiet silence, if there is such a thing as reality. Therefore a religious mind is a mind that is constantly aware, sensitive, attentive, so that it goes beyond itself into a dimension where there is no time at all.


Again, thanks to fresco for posting this piece.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 05:42 pm
The questions that I ask about YOU specifically are not answered by the vagarities of Fresco's piece .

Why can you not answer them so that we can see how your practice is distinguishable from "organized religion" ?
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 06:24 pm
real life wrote:
So if energy is 'eternal' then a state of maximum entropy should have been reached.





Why should that state have been reached?

According to who? You? How did you reach that conclusion? Or, are you just expressing what "should" happen.

You're the one placing limits, not I.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 06:32 pm
Cyracuz wrote:
But what I meant was that to suspend one's own intellect is not a very intelligent thing to do.
It can be an intelligent thing to do, if the end justifies the means.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 06:40 pm
real life.

You haven't got a clue what Krisnamurti is talking about. It is not a question of "practice" or "audience participation". The listener merely onvited to ask questions of the "self"....to observe that self in its conditioned mode...and to realize that this is a preblematic mode common to all selves. Therein lies the possibility of impersonal transcendence.

Unless you are prepared to attempt such observation, which is far from easy, you have about as much idea of the experience as a non-swimmer has of swimming. You will remain like an incredulous pool-side fearful and spectator who won't believe the water can support you.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 06:40 pm
Bring on the dancing girls!.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 06:49 pm
Spendi,

Your interjection prevented editing and the additional point that that non-swimmers like real life are doomed to to suffer the restrictions of their theistic water wings.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 06:52 pm
fresco wrote:
.......theistic water wings.
Cute!
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 07:26 pm
Quote:
What matters in any dynamic system, whether it be open or closed, are the patterns of relationships between components, not the components themselves. Each component is bounded with others by the rules of relationship, i.e. our expectancies


And yet human dynamics are affected by individual "components" social and personal needs. If a persons personal and social needs are not given equal weight, the "patterns of relationships between components" is disturbed more than needs be.

PS. by 'social needs' here, I am referring to the interrelatedness of all people.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 07:29 pm
real life wrote:
What exactly (in your view) constitutes 'organized religion' (which you oppose) ?


Ok, I'll indulge you once more. With a spoon this time Twisted Evil

Organized religion is any belief that is advertised and offered to people as a solution to all their problems. Any belief that urges you to suspend your objections if you cannot understand it with the justification that we were not meant to understand it, only believe it.

That sort of "religion" is an alternative attractive to those who cannot deal with the suspense of a true spiritual quest, and as such it has more in common with drugs and other escapes from reality than true religion.

All in my (not so) humble opinion, of course. :wink:
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 07:33 pm
Quote:
Any belief that urges you to suspend your objections if you cannot understand it with the justification that we were not meant to understand it, only believe it.


Sounds suspiciously like Nationalism/Patriotism...especially that espoused just before countries go to war.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 07:38 pm
Yes it does. I am not a very great fan of those either.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 08:03 pm
Chai wrote:
real life wrote:
So if energy is 'eternal' then a state of maximum entropy should have been reached.





Why should that state have been reached?

According to who? You? How did you reach that conclusion? Or, are you just expressing what "should" happen.

You're the one placing limits, not I.


What would prevent the universe from reaching a state of maximum entropy if it had existed 'eternally' (i.e. not just a 'very long time') ?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 08:09 pm
fresco wrote:
real life.

You haven't got a clue what Krisnamurti is talking about. It is not a question of "practice" or "audience participation". The listener merely onvited to ask questions of the "self"....to observe that self in its conditioned mode...and to realize that this is a preblematic mode common to all selves. Therein lies the possibility of impersonal transcendence.

Unless you are prepared to attempt such observation, which is far from easy, you have about as much idea of the experience as a non-swimmer has of swimming. You will remain like an incredulous pool-side fearful and spectator who won't believe the water can support you.


Cyra's criticism was of 'organized religion'. Thus my question is all about practice. That's why your article isn't relevant.

I asked him specific questions about whether he ever gathered with others of like mind to discuss their beliefs and learn from each other, and how that differed from the 'organized religion' that he was trashing.

My questions are not related to your article. They are specifically in response to Cyra's statement regarding practice , i.e. organized religion.

Chill.
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 08:10 pm
real life wrote:
Chai wrote:
real life wrote:
So if energy is 'eternal' then a state of maximum entropy should have been reached.





Why should that state have been reached?

According to who? You? How did you reach that conclusion? Or, are you just expressing what "should" happen.

You're the one placing limits, not I.


What would prevent the universe from reaching a state of maximum entropy if it had existed 'eternally' (i.e. not just a 'very long time') ?


How does this answer my questions to you?

I'll take the high road and answer yours though....I did not say anything would prevent the universe from......very long time)? As I also quoted before, While the entropy in the universe is continuously increasing, the energy of the universe is constant.


I asked you what led you to believe this "should" have happened already?

You're up.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 08:17 pm
Cyracuz wrote:
real life wrote:
What exactly (in your view) constitutes 'organized religion' (which you oppose) ?


Ok, I'll indulge you once more. With a spoon this time Twisted Evil

Organized religion is any belief that is advertised and offered to people as a solution to all their problems. Any belief that urges you to suspend your objections if you cannot understand it with the justification that we were not meant to understand it, only believe it.

That sort of "religion" is an alternative attractive to those who cannot deal with the suspense of a true spiritual quest, and as such it has more in common with drugs and other escapes from reality than true religion.

All in my (not so) humble opinion, of course. :wink:


Your view of spirituality IMO appeals to folks who are vain enough to think they can understand everything.

Christianity teaches right up front that the mind of man will not be able to fully understand the nature of God. It is therefore a much more honest approach.

Go ahead and pretend , if you wish, that you do (or can eventually) understand everything. But it ain't gonna happen.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 11/15/2024 at 01:49:54