Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Philosophy, religion, science and turnings - Page 74







Post#1826 at 10-19-2014 09:22 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
10-19-2014, 09:22 PM #1826
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

LMAO, and now the chart is part of the page background of the Bad Philosophy subreddit!
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#1827 at 10-19-2014 09:28 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
10-19-2014, 09:28 PM #1827
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke.

Really interesting article about the psychology of implicit, unconscious philosophical assumptions.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#1828 at 10-19-2014 09:56 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
10-19-2014, 09:56 PM #1828
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Oh, and here is the original Reddit Bad Philosophy thread about the bastardization of Eric's chart. I can't stop laughing.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#1829 at 10-20-2014 02:33 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
10-20-2014, 02:33 AM #1829
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
Amazing LOL

Mixing politics with philosophy, ha ha doesn't work.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#1830 at 10-23-2014 09:42 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
10-23-2014, 09:42 PM #1830
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

My latest results on the select-smart spiritual beliefs survey

Your Complete Results:
1. New Age (100%)
2. Neo-Pagan (92%)
3. Hinduism (89%)
4. Taoism (88%)
5. Mahayana Buddhism (85%)
6. New Thought (84%)
7. Unitarian Universalism (82%)
8. Jainism (75%)
9. Scientology (67%)
10. Liberal Quakers - Religious Society of Friends (67%)
11. Sikhism (65%)
12. Christian Science Church of Christ, Scientist (63%)
13. Theravada Buddhism (54%)
14. Reform Judaism (33%)
15. Secular Humanism (32%)
16. Mainline - Liberal Christian Protestants (31%)
17. Orthodox Quaker - Religious Society of Friends (26%)
18. Bahai (23%)
19. Orthodox Judaism (19%)
20. Islam (19%)
21. Non-theist (12%)
22. Jehovahs Witness (11%)
23. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (11%)
24. Mainline - Conservative Christian Protestant (8%)
25. Seventh Day Adventist (7%)
26. Eastern Orthodox (3%)
27. Roman Catholic (3%)

They seem to come in 3 groups for me, #s 1-13, #s14-20, and #s 21-27
#s 14-27 match me 33% or less.

100% does not mean full agreement, but the best match.

You can take the survey here:
http://www.selectsmart.com/religion/religresults.html
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#1831 at 10-24-2014 04:55 PM by Time Mage X [at joined Jul 2004 #posts 694]
---
10-24-2014, 04:55 PM #1831
Join Date
Jul 2004
Posts
694

I got....Liberal Quaker? I guess this is probably the closest they had to Evangelical-Pentacostal-Baptist they had.
Here comes the sun~Unfinished







Post#1832 at 10-24-2014 05:09 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
10-24-2014, 05:09 PM #1832
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Time Mage X View Post
I got....Liberal Quaker? I guess this is probably the closest they had to Evangelical-Pentacostal-Baptist they had.
I think that fits under Conservative Christian Protestant.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#1833 at 10-24-2014 05:28 PM by Time Mage X [at joined Jul 2004 #posts 694]
---
10-24-2014, 05:28 PM #1833
Join Date
Jul 2004
Posts
694

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
I think that fits under Conservative Christian Protestant.
Hmm, maybe I didn't see that? But you're right, that would cover it.
Here comes the sun~Unfinished







Post#1834 at 10-30-2014 01:24 AM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
10-30-2014, 01:24 AM #1834
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by Time Mage X View Post
I got....Liberal Quaker? I guess this is probably the closest they had to Evangelical-Pentacostal-Baptist they had.
Just took the test, Got Unitarian Universalist as #1, followed by Mahayana Buddhism as a close second, so it got me pretty well, a secular humanist with Buddhist sympathies.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#1835 at 10-30-2014 01:48 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
10-30-2014, 01:48 AM #1835
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
Just took the test, Got Unitarian Universalist as #1, followed by Mahayana Buddhism as a close second, so it got me pretty well, a secular humanist with Buddhist sympathies.
That would only figure if "Secular Humanism" was near the top of your list. UU is not = secular humanist.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#1836 at 11-04-2014 06:20 AM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
11-04-2014, 06:20 AM #1836
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

1. Reform Jewish -- and I am a 'hick German-American'.

2. Universalist-Unitarian.

3. Liberal Quaker

4. Mainline Christian Protestant

5. Bahai

6. Islam
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#1837 at 11-08-2014 03:54 PM by TnT [at joined Feb 2005 #posts 2,005]
---
11-08-2014, 03:54 PM #1837
Join Date
Feb 2005
Posts
2,005

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
UU is not = secular humanist.
NOT secular humanist? Based on what? As a fallen-away UU, my experience in the UU churches suggests that secular humanist pretty much describes most of the folks hanging out there. There's certainly no doctrinal requirement that I was made aware of, other than the positive-thinking, social cause stuff.
" ... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition."







Post#1838 at 11-08-2014 03:59 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
11-08-2014, 03:59 PM #1838
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by TnT View Post
NOT secular humanist? Based on what? As a fallen-away UU, my experience in the UU churches suggests that secular humanist pretty much describes most of the folks hanging out there. There's certainly no doctrinal requirement that I was made aware of, other than the positive-thinking, social cause stuff.
I was a UU for 30 years; many of us were theists. My ministers tended to be at least spiritualist. I even administered my philosophy questionnaire to many folks there. The results were all over the map. There have always been theists among Unitarian-Universalists. That is the original doctrine; "one God, not Three. Everyone is saved." There are many secular humanists there too. But there is a vast difference between these two religions.

In my case, I got 82% of my best match for UU, and 32% of my best match for secular humanist. If they were the same, how could that be? And Odin never answered about how secular humanism ranked on his survey.

A few years ago when I took the survey, UU came out #1. Hinduism and Neo-pagan also took turns as my #1.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 11-08-2014 at 06:04 PM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#1839 at 11-08-2014 04:15 PM by TnT [at joined Feb 2005 #posts 2,005]
---
11-08-2014, 04:15 PM #1839
Join Date
Feb 2005
Posts
2,005

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
... I even administered my philosophy questionnaire to many folks there. The results were all over the map.
I believe that. That's why including UU as a single entity in any kind of sorting process makes no sense. If by secular, you mean non-theist?

Almost all of the UU's I knew were concerned with worldly causes; every Sunday one was inundated with folks recruiting fellow congregants to pass out petitions to be signed, collecting money for whatever, etc. A huge emphasis on one's fellow human's sad state of affairs.

Furthermore, I'd guess that "all over the map" goes for the different UU congregations as well. The east coast ones I became familiar with had a large community of "ex-Jewish" in them, whereas the Rocky Mountain west congregations were much different demographically.

UU's are the sorts of folks who go around at night burning question marks in peoples' lawns.
" ... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition."







Post#1840 at 11-08-2014 06:00 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
11-08-2014, 06:00 PM #1840
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by TnT View Post
I believe that. That's why including UU as a single entity in any kind of sorting process makes no sense. If by secular, you mean non-theist?
I think there are some general spiritual principles one can ascribe to UUs, and also there are some social-political concerns on the questionnaire. Both secular humanist and non-theist are listed separately among the 27 religions. Secular humanist was about 32% of my best match, which was "New Age." Non-theist was only 11%. One reason for that may be that some social concerns are ascribed to secular humanists, but not to non-theists.

Almost all of the UU's I knew were concerned with worldly causes; every Sunday one was inundated with folks recruiting fellow congregants to pass out petitions to be signed, collecting money for whatever, etc. A huge emphasis on one's fellow human's sad state of affairs.
That's true. There was a lot of interest in spiritual questions too, in the 30 years I was there. I am still on the mailing list and go once in a while. These days, diversity is a big deal in our UU church; but it's more about creating a "beloved community" than about activism, although the latter is there too.

Furthermore, I'd guess that "all over the map" goes for the different UU congregations as well. The east coast ones I became familiar with had a large community of "ex-Jewish" in them, whereas the Rocky Mountain west congregations were much different demographically.

UU's are the sorts of folks who go around at night burning question marks in peoples' lawns.
I imagine they should start putting them on their churches. Light it up nice and bright.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#1841 at 11-10-2014 01:12 PM by The Wonkette [at Arlington, VA 1956 joined Jul 2002 #posts 9,209]
---
11-10-2014, 01:12 PM #1841
Join Date
Jul 2002
Location
Arlington, VA 1956
Posts
9,209

Quote Originally Posted by TnT View Post
Furthermore, I'd guess that "all over the map" goes for the different UU congregations as well. The east coast ones I became familiar with had a large community of "ex-Jewish" in them, whereas the Rocky Mountain west congregations were much different demographically.

UU's are the sorts of folks who go around at night burning question marks in peoples' lawns.
When I was growing up in the 60s and 70s, UU congregations were a good refuge for families with one Jewish parent and one Christian parent who wanted to raise their child "something" and respect both traditions. I had some involvement with UU as a teen in the early 70s and there were a number of "half-Jewish" kids like me.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is still the case, although Reform Jewish congregations are much more welcoming of interfaith families than Jewish congregations were when I was growing up.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008







Post#1842 at 01-16-2015 02:33 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
01-16-2015, 02:33 AM #1842
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

The Future of God is an excellent new book by Deepak Chopra. It is also a series of interviews and debates on you tube, and a PBS promotional program. From my astrological point of view, it's a chance for more people to take advantage of the enhanced potential these days for mystic or transcendent experience indicated by Neptune's transit of Pisces.

Here's a link to a playlist on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Apz4...QH4dPc&index=2

I agree with his perspective very much. In the program, he talks about the future of God in a silicon valley language. He defines the God seen as the "old bearded patriarch; the humanized image" of God that we learned as children, God 1.0. The future of God as cosmic consciousness, accessed through our own deepest awareness, is God 2.0. Cute! God is neither He, She, or It; he says. Sometimes this is called the New Age, New Thought, or the essence of the Consciousness Revolution/2T. It is also timeless, and related to ancient eastern religion and modern western science, among other traditions.

Skeptics like vandal can mock and criticize him as a pseudoscientist or pretender, and I promise to ignore his comments myself and not react to them. Hee hee, a promise is a promise.

For the rest of us, this program is a chance to learn about this point of view, which looks at both science and spirituality as using different methods to investigate the same reality: the source, the quantum vaccuum, or the cosmic mind to which we are connected by the very fact that we are aware at this very moment. And the deeper we go, the more we have access to the creative powers, wisdom and virtues of the divine.

And it opens us up to some phenomena skeptics might consider supernatural, as he explains in the first video. But I can understand why people would not want to believe in a God or Spirit that can do seemingly magical things that can't be explained, in a universe in which we seem to be the only "intelligent" (in quotes) life explained (it is claimed) by physics and evolution. A bridge between these two perspectives exists, however, and Chopra leads us to it.

One of his key phrases is outstanding: "religion is believing other peoples' experiences; spirituality is having your own." God or cosmic consciousness is something that we already have and already are; the divine within. We know it by experiencing it, not just by thinking about it.

I have been open to this perspective since my own new birth on June 26, 1966, but developing this new awareness in my life has taken a lot longer, and is ongoing. Does anyone here have any inkling of this?

The debates with the skeptics/atheists are always fun to watch too. Sam Harris is one I am familiar with, and Deepak's ally Jean Houston is someone I have known and respected since the early 1980s at least.

http://youtu.be/nupB70anRrQ

Ha ha, I am not alone! Deepak says that Michael the atheist "brings out the worst in me." Michael says Deepak "needs to be more spiritual" Oh well, even spiritual leaders act like me with vandal sometimes!
Last edited by Eric the Green; 01-16-2015 at 02:54 AM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#1843 at 01-17-2015 02:34 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
01-17-2015, 02:34 PM #1843
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Here's a recent blog post of mine that has relevance to this thread: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.co...es-of-knowing/

First part quoted here:

When we say the words, “I know that,” we can refer to one of two very distinct things. On the one hand, we can be talking about a proposition, something that can be expressed in words or symbols.
“The Earth is the third planet from the sun.”
“Yes, I know that.”
There’s no need to take a telescope and replicate the observations of the early astronomers who figured out the order of planetary orbits. All you have to do is to read about it. The words and numbers convey the concept perfectly and precisely, and so when you repeat them, you give the knowledge to someone else, with no meaning lost. This is what might be called “propositional knowledge.”
On the other hand, we can be talking about what it’s like to experience something. Unlike propositional knowledge, this second sort of knowing can’t be expressed in words or symbols, unless one is talking to someone who already knows it, and even then one is forced to use metaphor.
“Being in love is like you’re in a binary orbit, the two of you forming a common center of gravity.”
“Yes, I know that.”
But you can only say “Yes, I know that,” if you’ve been in love. Otherwise, the statement makes no sense. Two people aren’t in a literal binary orbit with a common center of gravity; both of them are part of the Earth’s gravitational system and the influence of their masses on one another is trivial. But if you’ve been in love, you know what the statement means, because you know what being in love feels like.
Using the words above, talking about binary orbits, or any other metaphors for being in love — a passage of music in the heart; a burning in the blood; two bodies and hearts merged as one — doesn’t convey knowledge. If someone has never been in love, these words convey nothing but confusion. What it’s like to be in love can be known, but it’s non-propositional knowledge in that it can’t be literally expressed or communicated. It’s not reducible to a proposition. You can’t learn it by hearing it from someone else. You must experience it yourself directly.
These two types of knowing are communicated in different ways, and they are also acquired in different ways.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#1844 at 01-18-2015 05:13 PM by TnT [at joined Feb 2005 #posts 2,005]
---
01-18-2015, 05:13 PM #1844
Join Date
Feb 2005
Posts
2,005

"What it’s like to be in love can be known, but it’s non-propositional knowledge in that it can’t be literally expressed or communicated. It’s not reducible to a proposition. You can’t learn it by hearing it from someone else. You must experience it yourself directly."


And even then, one can only talk about one's own sensations. No matter what one does, the words describing the sensation are an abstraction, and that abstraction can only be a reflection of one's own experience, not someone else's. Visiting with someone else who has had a very similar experience may well seem to reach a consensus of sorts, but we can't be sure.

For example, how can we know that your sensation of the color "red" is EXACTLY the same as mine. Really can't can we?
" ... a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition."







Post#1845 at 01-18-2015 07:02 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
01-18-2015, 07:02 PM #1845
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Another person's experience is ineffable in the details, but not ineffable in meaning. Your experience of the color red may be different from mine, but you experience it when seeing the same things I do (blood, fire, an apple, a sunset) and that gives it certain associations and emotional impact (relating to non-propositional knowledge), and also allows us to identify what part of the spectrum gives rise to the experience of that color (relating to propositional knowledge).
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#1846 at 01-18-2015 08:05 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
01-18-2015, 08:05 PM #1846
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by TnT View Post
"What it’s like to be in love can be known, but it’s non-propositional knowledge in that it can’t be literally expressed or communicated. It’s not reducible to a proposition. You can’t learn it by hearing it from someone else. You must experience it yourself directly."


And even then, one can only talk about one's own sensations. No matter what one does, the words describing the sensation are an abstraction, and that abstraction can only be a reflection of one's own experience, not someone else's. Visiting with someone else who has had a very similar experience may well seem to reach a consensus of sorts, but we can't be sure.

For example, how can we know that your sensation of the color "red" is EXACTLY the same as mine. Really can't can we?
The color red is the same for all of us. Exactly which color sensation you label as "red" may be slightly different; the only difference is the labels that you put on each part of the spectrum. That might vary by person or culture. But we all experience the same color spectrum, at least that part of it that humans experience. The labels/names are the abstractions; the colors experienced are real. We are all part of one world, and we are all in the same world. That's my opinion; Brian's is different. And yours is different from both of us. At least right now So what's the "truth"? I don't know, but the differences are only the best knowledge each of us have.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#1847 at 01-18-2015 09:23 PM by radind [at Alabama joined Sep 2009 #posts 1,595]
---
01-18-2015, 09:23 PM #1847
Join Date
Sep 2009
Location
Alabama
Posts
1,595

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
The color red is the same for all of us. Exactly which color sensation you label as "red" may be slightly different; the only difference is the labels that you put on each part of the spectrum. That might vary by person or culture. But we all experience the same color spectrum, at least that part of it that humans experience. The labels/names are the abstractions; the colors experienced are real. We are all part of one world, and we are all in the same world. That's my opinion; Brian's is different. And yours is different from both of us. At least right now So what's the "truth"? I don't know, but the differences are only the best knowledge each of us have.
The perception of color is more complex than we usually recognize. Following is one article to indicate a hint of some of the issues. I know a little about optics, but not enough to settle this issue.
Why are leaves green?

http://bensimonds.com/2013/05/30/lig...-leaves-green/
…”Perhaps this isn’t even the right question. Colour exists primarily in our minds – leaves are only “green” because we perceive them to be green. But I don’t want to go down a philosophical rabbit-hole, so I’ll stick to why – from a biological perspective – we perceive them this way.

Our perception of the colour of an object depends on several things:

The range of wavelengths present in the incident light.
The wavelengths of light that the object reflects or absorbs.
The receptor cells in our eyes that detect the reflected light.
Our brain’s interpretation of the signals from those receptors.
It’s important to realise that our categorising things into colours has more to do with our brains than it does with light itself.”…

… “But what about Magenta?
The next thing to talk about is how we get from the concept of wavelengths as representing colours, to the familiar idea of a colour wheel. Whilst I’ve shown already that most colours we see are made up of a whole mix of wavelengths, I’ve also been acting as each wavelength of light could in theory be assigned a specific colour. Indeed they can – as evidenced by certain kinds of light sources like lasers that can produce light of a single wavelength, which we see as coloured light, or by looking at light through a prism, split up into a rainbow of different wavelengths. However, the wavelengths of light extend off in either direction from the ends of the visible spectrum, into kinds of radiation we can’t see. So how do we end up perceiving colours like magenta which we perceive as being somewhere between red and blue?”…

… “The answer this time lies in the brain. Once the receptors in our eyes receive light, they pass this on as an electrical signal up the optic nerve to the visual cortex, at the back of the brain, in the occipital lobe. Here the three-channel model of colour is abandoned and replaced with a four-colour opponent-processing model. Neurons early in the visual cortex are clustered in regions called blobs, some of which compare the signals from the different cone cells, to decide whether light is more blue or more yellow, others whether it is more red or more green. The output from these clusters determine how we perceive colour , and the grouping of colours into opposing pairs results in our idea of complimentary colours, blue with yellow, red with green and so on.”…







Post#1848 at 01-18-2015 10:06 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
01-18-2015, 10:06 PM #1848
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
The color red is the same for all of us. Exactly which color sensation you label as "red" may be slightly different
You have that exactly backwards.

I'm reminded of how you dogmatically insisted that birds who see into the ultraviolet don't see any more colors than we do. This, even though the birds see all of the same colors that we do, AND ALSO ultraviolet light (however it appears to them), which means they MUST see at least one additional color that we don't.

Anyway, it's possible that we do see red exactly the same way, but there's no way to know. We DO, however, label "red" in exactly the same way: everything that I say is red, you also say is red, whether we are experiencing "red" in the same way or not.
Last edited by Brian Rush; 01-18-2015 at 10:09 PM.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#1849 at 01-18-2015 10:41 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
01-18-2015, 10:41 PM #1849
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Besides, the word "red" implies a variety of colors.

red
crimson
vermilion
ruby
magenta
maroon
cherry
sapphire


Somebody is sleeping at the switch with "ruby" and "cherry".
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#1850 at 01-18-2015 11:15 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
01-18-2015, 11:15 PM #1850
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by radind View Post
The perception of color is more complex than we usually recognize. Following is one article to indicate a hint of some of the issues. I know a little about optics, but not enough to settle this issue.
Why are leaves green?

http://bensimonds.com/2013/05/30/lig...-leaves-green/
…”Perhaps this isn’t even the right question. Colour exists primarily in our minds – leaves are only “green” because we perceive them to be green. But I don’t want to go down a philosophical rabbit-hole, so I’ll stick to why – from a biological perspective – we perceive them this way.
I'll respond to this as we go through it.

The first question is correct, as I see it. Yes, we do want to go down that rabbit hole, if we want to understand color. So, if we don't, then we are going in the wrong direction. But, let's go in your direction anyway, and see what Ideas come to my mind about it.

Our perception of the colour of an object depends on several things:

The range of wavelengths present in the incident light.
The wavelengths of light that the object reflects or absorbs.
The receptor cells in our eyes that detect the reflected light.
Our brain’s interpretation of the signals from those receptors.
It’s important to realise that our categorising things into colours has more to do with our brains than it does with light itself.”…
It has to do with our brains; namely, what we (souls) use our brains for, which, as I said, was to categorize things. So, what we define as red, depends on the thoughts and words in our brains, with which we label a particular shade that we see as "red" or "green" etc. But the thought or label "red" is not the color we see. So, yes, "our categorising things into colours has more to do with our brains than it does with light itself." Precisely.

… “But what about Magenta?
The next thing to talk about is how we get from the concept of wavelengths as representing colours, to the familiar idea of a colour wheel. Whilst I’ve shown already that most colours we see are made up of a whole mix of wavelengths, I’ve also been acting as each wavelength of light could in theory be assigned a specific colour. Indeed they can – as evidenced by certain kinds of light sources like lasers that can produce light of a single wavelength, which we see as coloured light, or by looking at light through a prism, split up into a rainbow of different wavelengths. However, the wavelengths of light extend off in either direction from the ends of the visible spectrum, into kinds of radiation we can’t see. So how do we end up perceiving colours like magenta which we perceive as being somewhere between red and blue?”…

… “The answer this time lies in the brain. Once the receptors in our eyes receive light, they pass this on as an electrical signal up the optic nerve to the visual cortex, at the back of the brain, in the occipital lobe. Here the three-channel model of colour is abandoned and replaced with a four-colour opponent-processing model.
I don't know what the term "three channel model" or "four-colour opponent processing model" refer to. Primary colors and opposing colors on the wheel?
Neurons early in the visual cortex are clustered in regions called blobs, some of which compare the signals from the different cone cells, to decide whether light is more blue or more yellow, others whether it is more red or more green. The output from these clusters determine how we perceive colour , and the grouping of colours into opposing pairs results in our idea of complimentary colours, blue with yellow, red with green and so on.”…
I'm not sure how this responds to TnT's question. Is it this article's contention that each brain groups the colors in different ways? Or that our brain manufactures magenta?

If we go back down the rabbit hole, we may get some different answers. It goes back to my original point, perhaps. We each see the entire range of the color spectrum (except color-blind folks). Our brains may group them, and come up with similar opposing pairs, according to this notion of perception. But they are the same colors.

The colors are archetypal. I realized this in my college masters' paper. The wavelengths, eyes and brain are objects which may tell us how color and light are transmitted, but they don't tell us what color is, or who perceives it. In our empirical age, we dismiss the archetypal and the spiritual, but we know there are scholars like Jung and Campbell who do not. And, I might add, Strauss and Howe are in this camp. These days, most posters here revert to the empirical approach.

But this approach was seen as too limited in the Awakening era, as is common in more spiritual periods in our history. More of us today have just reverted back to the past, because we are now in a 4T, just like the humanist era of the 30s. It would be better if we could move forward, though, and remember the insights from all turnings and saecula, and move toward a more holistic approach that recognizes all modes of knowing, their best applications in each case, and their essential unity.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece
-----------------------------------------