Originally Posted by nihilist moron

I think I figured out which post Eric was talking about, but I have no idea why it should have settled anything.

"Also, the white American poor, which is most of them, are socially conservative -- God knows why. They will vote against their own financial interests if a politician makes enough suitable noises about Jesus and guns. They would rather stay poor and prevent gay marriage than have more money and be more tolerant."

---Ernest W. Adams, Game Design Consultant, Author

(nihilist moron aka The Rani)
I guess money and material wealth aren't the most important things in life for some people.
What a strange concept!

Yes, I said; some people are more interested in intolerance and prejudice (e.g. prevent gay marriage, push Jesus on people) than material wealth.

Perfectly clear; nothing further to settle.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

They end up destroying themselves as well as each other.
So yes, best to steer clear.

C'mon. You're taking all the fun out of it!


Prince

Originally Posted by Einzige

I'd like to put all of the anarchocapitalist Gen X'ers onto a boat in the middle of Lake Ontario - for surely you could fit them all on one - and drop a guided munition onto it.

The time for dialogue with them is past. Stop jeopardizing the future of my generation.

Kim Jong Un, is that you?

They'll let anyone on the internet these days.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

...
With pb, it's all non sequiturs, can't even begin to figure out how his replies apply to my posts.
It IS sort of funny, isn't it.

Ha! The other day I was seriously gonna say the same thing!


Prince

PS: I say just have fun with it and do the same. You know, like: Bears!(eek! )

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Kim Jong Un, is that you?

They'll let anyone on the internet these days.

<chuckle!>

Hey, I think I'm pretty much proof of that!


Prince

PS: You totally snuck-in there on me. So, what's up?
You still partying with that 'fat lady'('zaftig'!)?

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

You Rang?

I just thought of a good one.

As such.

1962 = Year of the tiger. A tiger is a big cat. If Prince of Cats ~= Prince Of Tigers, we get POT!

<snipped weed-pic>



PS:

1962 = #1 in high school potheads per S&H. That means the circle closes. So yeah, it feels right because all of the logical connections are in place.

That wasn't meant to really include you, Rags.
As far as I'm concerned, you(and Herbal) get a hall pass.


Prince

PS: ... 'cuz you guys are 'cool'.*
---------------------------------------
(* not 'dickheads'. )

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Kim Jong Un, is that you?

They'll let anyone on the internet these days.

That wasn't the first time that someone threatened to blow up Gen Xers on this message board. Haters gotta hate.
Should we alert homeland security that we found a budding political terrorist?

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

That wasn't the first time that someone threatened to blow up Gen Xers on this message board. Haters gotta hate.
Should we alert homeland security that we found a budding political terrorist?

Nah. I don't get the impression that he has left the safety of mom and dad's front porch yet.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

PS: You totally snuck-in there on me. So, what's up?
You still partying with that 'fat lady'('zaftig'!)?

Oh it's no party. It is damn hard work. (link is decidedly NSFW)

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I doubt that any of us is fully versed in any topic other that the one(s) we chose to pursue diligently. In most cases, that's our professions, and, perhaps, a serious hobby or two. Outside of those parameters, we're discussing things that interest us, but only as amateurs.

FWIW, I come here for enjoyment and lively exchanges that might be enlightening, but are fully satisfactory if they merely entertain me. Almost everyone on the forum, now and in the past, is bright and interesting, so that's never been a problem. I just hope no one is using the forum as a MOOC.

MOOC stands for a Massive Open Online Course.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

MOOC stands for a Massive Open Online Course.

Yes it does, and we, the faculty, are not amused.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

As usual, I have no idea what the (needless profanity excised) you're talking about.
For that, I am grateful.

I have no desire to inspire evil people to do monstrous deeds against innocent people.

As shown 80 years ago in Germany, even the definitive Model Minority can go from respected to reviled as the result of a campaign of vilification by a vicious regime. America has several such Model Minorities that could become vulnerable in a bad Crisis.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Oh it's no party. It is damn hard work. <snipped razz> (link is decidedly NSFW)

Man, some guys have all the fun!
(BTW, is that Michael Moore? )


Prince

PS: Well, at least it's not a Silicon Valley-MJT!
(I'm not gonna post a link 'cuz, eventhough I believe it might be
NSFW, I'd have to post a 'trigger warning' for some posters. )

Sorry for the lateness of my response to this but I've been busy with other, more important things.

Originally Posted by B Butler

I would disagree. I believe most people participating in this "conversation" (using a very loose sense of the word) have well thought out world views and values. They are just so distinct from one another that people sometimes can't and perhaps more often don't want to figure the other guy out. I am sure this exchange of stereotypes, insults and misunderstanding is somehow supporting of everybody's self-worth. Pardon if I don't indulge much.

To call this forum, much less this particular thread a conversation is a stretch of the word conversion. Generally speaking I would say that here there are three types of people. 1. People who know what they are talking about generally. I include those I agree with as well as disagree with. My agreement is not relevant to the person in question knowing their stuff in a general way. I find that many fall into this category though they stumble on particular topics. 2. Those who know their stuff on one or two topics but otherwise don't know what they are talking about. And finally 3. Those who don't know anything at all of any significance to the human species but pretend that they actually know things. In my example above Eric is a classic example of the third type--which is why I find him so annoying in particular (even if I would probably help him out here politically if he'd just shut his trap about things he just doesn't know--which is well most everything excluding woo-woo nonsense). Brower falls into category 2 for me. He knows some things about society, politics and history, his application is however often wrong.

I have found it vaguely insulting and impolite, when seeing someone do something vaguely stupid or funny, to throw out a group stereotype. I wouldn't mutter "blondes" or "Lithuanians" or "Xers." I say "humans" and assume a smug superior air.

I find that just s bad as throwing out a group insult--which it is by the way even if the group includes the whole species. Rather, I judge people on an individual basis. They just often fall into categories.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

I think I figured out which post Eric was talking about, but I have no idea why it should have settled anything.

When Eric posts something along the lines of "this should settle <insert issue>". What he really means "Grand Boomer master of the Universe and know of all things because his spirit animal (or other such bullshit) told him the answer is spoken." When chalenged he will pretend to know something but really doesn't know anything. Vandal in particular is good at pointing out where Eric uses magic in place of science when discussing science. I personally am not that interested in science but will if he ever posts something stupid about politics that doesn't boil down to "Hurr, vote democrat."

With pb, it's all non sequiturs, can't even begin to figure out how his replies apply to my posts.

Perhaps the problem is that you don't read through the non sequiturs to understand that everything he considers to be evil (for whatever reason) equals Nazis or Confederates. I suppose I could write a long screed about the overtures of a plant based diet (or some would call it by the evil V word) and I'm sure he would rattle off some non-sense about Hitler. Never mind that not all non-carnivores are not nazis let alone Hitler.

It IS sort of funny, isn't it.

I rarely find categories 2 and 3 of the people on this forum funny unless of course they end up on a Kinser based Reality Show called "Joy Camp in Death Valley" where they would be sent with the other non-desirable to fight for a cup of water every week. Generally speaking I stick to talking to category 1 people, which thankfully is most of the frequent posters.

@M&L

Anyone using this forum as MOOC has flawed methodology.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Perhaps the problem is that you don't read through the non sequiturs to understand that everything he considers to be evil (for whatever reason) equals Nazis or Confederates. I suppose I could write a long screed about the overtures of a plant based diet (or some would call it by the evil V word) and I'm sure he would rattle off some non-sense about Hitler. Never mind that not all non-carnivores are not nazis let alone Hitler.

You are correct. I don't generally read his posts, unless they are written in response to mine. Hopefully there won't be any more of those, now that I'm on his ignore list.
His response to the plant based diet stuff on the other thread was to write long screeds about smoking.
Smokers and Nazis and bears ... oh my!

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But what does dismantling the institution of marriage, keeping G-d out of the schools (and everywhere else for that matter) and condoms in, and letting unborn babies be mass-murdered, have to do with leveling the economic playing field?

Since I'm not sure if I found a satisfactory answer to this original question while skimming through this thread, I'll take a stab at it.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

dismantling the institution of marriage

Marriage, of course, has been "dismantled" numerous times over the course of human history. But as far as the most recent "dismantling" goes, I think it's pretty clear that it's helped to level the economic playing field when it comes to the sexes. Before then, women were always going to reach a low glass ceiling professionally, of which would would press upon them to not only get married, but to cede any professional responsibilities to their husbands while taking on the exclusive burden of homemaking. Today's women have more freedom (but still not enough) to dictate their own professional paths, and to pursue high paying jobs of their own instead of relying on men for that economic privilege.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

keeping G-d out of the schools (and everywhere else for that matter)

Obviously, we're really talking about public schools here, since private schools, churches, and plenty of venues can keep God in their discussions as much as they want. But I'll throw out an argument that the previous practice was a method of entrenching social classes, in that the "God" that was referred to almost always implied the WASPy version. WASPs, of course, had more social power than other classes back then, even if those other classes practiced other religions just as devoutly. And when it comes to power in society, economics are a crucial part of holding that power.

I will, however, freely admit that this is probably the least related to economics of the examples you've given.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

and condoms in, and letting unborn babies be mass-murdered

This one, on the other hand, is quite straightforward. Raising a child costs a lot of money, and thus requires economic sacrifices. Contraception and abortion can help prevent someone from having to raise a child before they are economically prepared to do so, thus reducing the likelihood of poverty and making the economic playing field more level.

Originally Posted by Bronco80

Marriage, of course, has been "dismantled" numerous times over the course of human history. But as far as the most recent "dismantling" goes, I think it's pretty clear that it's helped to level the economic playing field when it comes to the sexes. Before then, women were always going to reach a low glass ceiling professionally, of which would would press upon them to not only get married, but to cede any professional responsibilities to their husbands while taking on the exclusive burden of homemaking. Today's women have more freedom (but still not enough) to dictate their own professional paths, and to pursue high paying jobs of their own instead of relying on men for that economic privilege.

Obviously, we're really talking about public schools here, since private schools, churches, and plenty of venues can keep God in their discussions as much as they want. But I'll throw out an argument that the previous practice was a method of entrenching social classes, in that the "God" that was referred to almost always implied the WASPy version. WASPs, of course, had more social power than other classes back then, even if those other classes practiced other religions just as devoutly. And when it comes to power in society, economics are a crucial part of holding that power.

I will, however, freely admit that this is probably the least related to economics of the examples you've given.

This one, on the other hand, is quite straightforward. Raising a child costs a lot of money, and thus requires economic sacrifices. Contraception and abortion can help prevent someone from having to raise a child before they are economically prepared to do so, thus reducing the likelihood of poverty and making the economic playing field more level.

There are also significant technology and social changes to be noted here. Before contraception and safe abortions, at a time when a house keeping mother couldn't earn enough to support a family, society needed to force the father to take care of the kids. Also, there were no government agencies defending the children or providing aid when the father couldn't or wouldn't. The old religious and family values coerced the male to provide support no matter how dysfunctional the resulting family was. My grandfather was a drunk, my grandmother beaten, and she could not bring the children to a good environment or prevent more children from coming as the medical and social tools were unavailable to her at the time.

I can understand how the old rules came to be. They were an attempt to do the best one could for the women and children. The best they could do at the time was pretty (expletive deleted) awful, absolutely intolerable by modern standards of people who care for their fellow human beings.

But when the church endorsed the old rules, they did so in the name of God, and God isn't allowed to change his mind. If 'God' at some point in the past is seen as endorsing some awful wretched immoral system that can be justified only because it was the best they could do back then, then 'God' will demand that said awful wretched immoral system must continue forever.

Which is why I describe myself as a devout agnostic. I can not worship such a 'God'. A lot of churches, even when doing the best they can for their people, handcuff themselves whenever they speak in the name of God. When they put their words in the mouth of God, when they presume to take His place, they are locking subsequent generations into policies and doctrines that might not be at all appropriate in another time or place. I can respect the idea of a benevolent wise God, but churches and priests are often not as benevolent or wise as God is supposed to be. Humans do not have the wisdom to speak supposed eternal truths meant to stand for all time, yet anoint a man a priest and that is precisely what he will do.

I hate to criticize Jesus, I respect His message very much, but He should have spent a little more time emphasizing humility, mercy and love, and that these things are more important than fixed absolute rules. Well, He did what He could, but He had the misfortune to be preaching to humans.

Originally Posted by B Butler

But when the church endorsed the old rules, they did so in the name of God, and God isn't allowed to change his mind. If 'God' at some point in the past is seen as endorsing some awful wretched immoral system that can be justified only because it was the best they could do back then, then 'God' will demand that said awful wretched immoral system must continue forever.

Which is why I describe myself as a devout agnostic. I can not worship such a 'God'. A lot of churches, even when doing the best they can for their people, handcuff themselves whenever they speak in the name of God. When they put their words in the mouth of God, when they presume to take His place, they are locking subsequent generations into policies and doctrines that might not be at all appropriate in another time or place. I can respect the idea of a benevolent wise God, but churches and priests are often not as benevolent or wise as God is supposed to be. Humans do not have the wisdom to speak supposed eternal truths meant to stand for all time, yet anoint a man a priest and that is precisely what he will do.

I hate to criticize Jesus, I respect His message very much, but He should have spent a little more time emphasizing humility, mercy and love, and that these things are more important than fixed absolute rules. Well, He did what He could, but He had the misfortune to be preaching to humans.

Yes, and he did quite a bit of what you say he should have done.

Humans are directly connected to God, but only to the extent that they realize this. Awakening and Enlightenment is part of evolution. So our wisdom and our understanding of the truth and the good evolves. The truth and the good itself, though, is eternal. It is also available and out in the open to anyone "who has ears to hear," as Jesus said. It can't really be said that God decides this truth, if this is so. God IS it. Always and forever, now and everywhere. Not because I as a prophet in both senses declare this. It just makes sense, doesn't it?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Humans are directly connected to God, but only to the extent that they realize this. Awakening and Enlightenment is part of evolution. So our wisdom and our understanding of the truth and the good evolves. The truth and the good itself, though, is eternal. It is also available and out in the open to anyone "who has ears to hear," as Jesus said. It can't really be said that God decides this truth, if this is so. God IS it. Always and forever, now and everywhere. Not because I as a prophet in both senses declare this. It just makes sense, doesn't it?

I've found that those who believe themselves directly connected to God have generally lost touch with the world. I don't want to reprise our old Issac Newton vs George Berkeley discussions, but I agree with many who say you don't get science. In this case I can sympathize with the broad sense of what you seem to be saying, but if you think you have found a unique Truth and that all other perspectives are in Error, you are in Error.

I of course know this as I have found a unique Truth.

Originally Posted by B Butler

I've found that those who believe themselves directly connected to God have generally lost touch with the world. I don't want to reprise our old Issac Newton vs George Berkeley discussions, but I agree with many who say you don't get science. In this case I can sympathize with the broad sense of what you seem to be saying, but if you think you have found a unique Truth and that all other perspectives are in Error, you are in Error.

I of course know this as I have found a unique Truth.

All perspectives are part of the whole and of our evolving knowledge. Our awareness and conception of what we call "God" evolves as we mature. Having so recently emerged from "caves," meaning quite rudimentary lifestyles and knowledge, our conception of God in many cases remains immature, and it's no wonder. A heavenly Father creator separate from ourselves who calls the shots on moral issues is an immature conception. It's God 1.0, as Deepak Chopra calls it. Our "red-state" or rural/non-green culture in the USA and in many areas of the Middle East are among the most immature in their conceptions of God, and they cry that left-liberals "just don't get it."

Saying that "I don't get science" is something I can just deny. So that really says nothing; merely an expression of frustration with me perhaps, and an indication of the difficulties of communication. Atheist or agnostic ideas about God may be just another immature conception of "God" (that it is explained as some sort of human delusion). I get science indeed, which is not that hard; though I am not up on much of the specifics in some areas, not being a scientist per se. I have gaps in scientific knowledge, but am not "out of touch."

As a philosopher, I do disagree with science-oriented philosophy (scientism); however I consider it a part of the whole spectrum or wheel of philosophy, and so it has its place and function. Philosophy evolves within the Wheel. My views have their unique aspects, but in general are far from unique. I understand things that scientism believers cannot, and it's hard to explain to them (and yourself) how these things transcend the supposed "scientific" explanations, or how new such explanations may account for them. It is up to each person to get what they get, and how curious and open they are to explore the mystery of reality in all its aspects.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

... @M&L

Anyone using this forum as MOOC has flawed methodology.

There has always been a certain amount of passive involvement here. Just look at the number of people on the forum, and the number actually posting. The passive many must be here for something.

Originally Posted by B Butler

... But when the church endorsed the old rules, they did so in the name of God, and God isn't allowed to change his mind. If 'God' at some point in the past is seen as endorsing some awful wretched immoral system that can be justified only because it was the best they could do back then, then 'God' will demand that said awful wretched immoral system must continue forever...

That seems to be the argument most churches have used as the basis of their respective faiths, but there is no reason God needs to subscribe to dogma. In fact, that's my primary hot-button issue with the deeply religious. If there is a God, and (s)he is all powerful, then how can any mortal apply limits. It's oxymoronic piety.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

All perspectives are part of the whole and of our evolving knowledge. Our awareness and conception of what we call "God" evolves as we mature. Having so recently emerged from "caves," meaning quite rudimentary lifestyles and knowledge, our conception of God in many cases remains immature, and it's no wonder. A heavenly Father creator separate from ourselves who calls the shots on moral issues is an immature conception. It's God 1.0, as Deepak Chopra calls it. Our "red-state" or rural/non-green culture in the USA and in many areas of the Middle East are among the most immature in their conceptions of God, and they cry that left-liberals "just don't get it."

Saying that "I don't get science" is something I can just deny. So that really says nothing; merely an expression of frustration with me perhaps, and an indication of the difficulties of communication. Atheist or agnostic ideas about God may be just another immature conception of "God" (that it is explained as some sort of human delusion). I get science indeed, which is not that hard; though I am not up on much of the specifics in some areas, not being a scientist per se. I have gaps in scientific knowledge, but am not "out of touch."

As a philosopher, I do disagree with science-oriented philosophy (scientism); however I consider it a part of the whole spectrum or wheel of philosophy, and so it has its place and function. Philosophy evolves within the Wheel. My views have their unique aspects, but in general are far from unique. I understand things that scientism believers cannot, and it's hard to explain to them (and yourself) how these things transcend the supposed "scientific" explanations, or how new such explanations may account for them. It is up to each person to get what they get, and how curious and open they are to explore the mystery of reality in all its aspects.

Scientism suggests that there is a physical real universe out there, and embraces certain tools, rituals, rules and techniques to determine the nature of that universe. You seem to be implying the existence of a spiritual universe, an absolute Truth, which often includes one of more gods, that there are techniques for probing this absolute reality, and you are in a position to judge how far along various groups and individuals are in understanding said Truth.

First, it is obvious that the techniques for probing the universe of Scientism and your spiritual universe are to a great extent incompatible. Science works on certain problems. There are a good number of areas of study, which might include religion, politics and many branches of philosophy, where no one has yet learned how to apply the scientific method.

I try. If someone comes along and declares that Restoree government will inevitably transform the worlds cultures to something better, I try to ask a question that can be objectively answered by observing the world. One of my favorites is asking if there is a spiral of rhetoric building towards a possible spiral of violence. If so, we might be heading for crisis and a possible cultural transformation. If not, if all there is is a few lonely voices crying in the wilderness, there is nothing there. Philosophers will debate the relative merits of ideas in a vacuum. Scientists have to build ideas of how reality works and measuring how well those ideas compare to what is actually going on.

Yes, you can deny your lack of understanding of science. Conservatives can also deny global warming. A refusal to acknowledge and accept a world view is not the same as understanding and working with a world view. Science is a well defined and very tight world view. It is very good at what it does. Those who have embraced the world view have done extraordinary things. You aren't playing the same game, seem to feel free to ignore the rules, while at the same time claiming to understand the rules and their importance. Trust me. You don't get it.

Outside of the world of science, I suppose I am attempting to build a meta-system. I would like to build an understanding of the world that includes any number of highly diverse perspectives. I am doomed to fail. I will never be able to out Bible quote a fundamentalist. I don't think I'll every really understand how an oil company executive with deep core economic values can blind himself to climate science. It is difficult to see how some consider rules more important than people. Some thought patterns are just so alien to me than I don't anticipate understanding them save in a crude fashion. Still, it seems an honorable goal to at least try to understand and respect major viewpoints that are shaping our world.

But this seems quite different from your assumption of an absolute philosophical / mystical Truth and a presumption of being able to judge how far various groups and people are from perceiving said Truth. I find the many and highly varied world views utterly incompatible, and the use of a unified common theme a dangerous and inaccurate assumption. It seems better to try to grasp each individual's perspective in terms of each individual's perspective rather than filter it through some assumed mystic filter.

But we all seek Truth in different ways.

In the words of Lily Tomlin, speaking as Edith Ann, "And that's the Truth." (Wet noisy raspberry.)

Originally Posted by B Butler

Scientism suggests that there is a physical real universe out there, and embraces certain tools, rituals, rules and techniques to determine the nature of that universe. You seem to be implying the existence of a spiritual universe, an absolute Truth, which often includes one of more gods, that there are techniques for probing this absolute reality, and you are in a position to judge how far along various groups and individuals are in understanding said Truth.

It does seem to me that what I stated is the obvious truth, in which we are all in a position to know; not me in particular.

I would say that the universe does not "include one or more gods." According to the best sages I know (including myself ), "God" is simply "what there is."

Scientism does more than "embrace" certain tools; it says those are the only tools and others are false. It says there's a "real physical universe" "out there" (without being able to tell us what is "real," what "physical" refers to, or what "out there" means).

First, it is obvious that the techniques for probing the universe of Scientism and your spiritual universe are to a great extent incompatible. Science works on certain problems. There are a good number of areas of study, which might include religion, politics and many branches of philosophy, where no one has yet learned how to apply the scientific method.

I would say different, but not incompatible; in fact they need to be compatible and refer to each other, since they are viewing the same reality from different angles and methods.

I try. If someone comes along and declares that Restoree government will inevitably transform the worlds cultures to something better, I try to ask a question that can be objectively answered by observing the world. One of my favorites is asking if there is a spiral of rhetoric building towards a possible spiral of violence. If so, we might be heading for crisis and a possible cultural transformation. If not, if all there is is a few lonely voices crying in the wilderness, there is nothing there. Philosophers will debate the relative merits of ideas in a vacuum. Scientists have to build ideas of how reality works and measuring how well those ideas compare to what is actually going on.

They can apply those empirical methods to questions that lend themselves to such treatment. My rule of thumb is, the more alive and conscious an object of knowledge is, the less such methods can be successfully applied. Studies of government and politics don't lend themselves readily to such treatment, except in fairly general terms.

Yes, you can deny your lack of understanding of science. Conservatives can also deny global warming. A refusal to acknowledge and accept a world view is not the same as understanding and working with a world view. Science is a well defined and very tight world view. It is very good at what it does. Those who have embraced the world view have done extraordinary things. You aren't playing the same game, seem to feel free to ignore the rules, while at the same time claiming to understand the rules and their importance. Trust me. You don't get it.

Why should I "trust you" that I "don't get it?" I get it just fine. I understand quite a lot. If I am incorrect about some detail or fact, I can be corrected. As a world view, "science" (i.e. scientism) is quite limited and incorrect in some respects; as you say, it's quite workable in others. On the other hand, scientific methods do not require belief in scientism, or a "scientific world view" at all; just willingness to abide by the protocols of an investigation. A world view is a philosophy, and can only be decided upon philosophically. There is no empirical proof for scientism at all.

Outside of the world of science, I suppose I am attempting to build a meta-system. I would like to build an understanding of the world that includes any number of highly diverse perspectives. I am doomed to fail. I will never be able to out Bible quote a fundamentalist. I don't think I'll every really understand how an oil company executive with deep core economic values can blind himself to climate science. It is difficult to see how some consider rules more important than people. Some thought patterns are just so alien to me than I don't anticipate understanding them save in a crude fashion. Still, it seems an honorable goal to at least try to understand and respect major viewpoints that are shaping our world.

But this seems quite different from your assumption of an absolute philosophical / mystical Truth and a presumption of being able to judge how far various groups and people are from perceiving said Truth. I find the many and highly varied world views utterly incompatible, and the use of a unified common theme a dangerous and inaccurate assumption. It seems better to try to grasp each individual's perspective in terms of each individual's perspective rather than filter it through some assumed mystic filter.

As I say, this mystical truth is not hidden or presumptuous; it is available to anyone at any time. It is obvious and out in the open, and quite simple. It is not an individual's view, or my view; it is the perennial philosophy. It has relatively little to do with organized religions, and certainly not with dogmas. On the other hand, it can be said that it is the heart of truth in all religions, and that Jesus was himself perhaps the greatest mystic, with Buddha up there with him. There are some differences in interpretation, but these are comparatively minor. If you are curious, you will find the truth about this. Seek and ye shall find. It's up to you. If you ever get into a seeker's frame of mind, you will be able to find it, since (as Buddhists say) you already have it. Everyone is a Buddha, and Christ is within you.

But we all seek Truth in different ways.

In the words of Lily Tomlin, speaking as Edith Ann, "And that's the Truth." (Wet noisy raspberry.)

Yes, I endorse Lily's statement