Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I'm sure the other Tim agrees too. ...

If I'm "the other Tim," I guess I come down with Tara. Philosophy is essential. Without the "vision thing" one doesn't really know what one is doing. I know a lot of people in this world that are happy with food, sex, TV and a single-wide trailer. Seemingly really happy.

One can lose oneself in work, especially work like welding that can absorb a person's attention and is creative. It tires a person out and often results in regular pay checks. It's not hard to just settle into that kind of life ... work, have a few beers with the guys, go home eat a good supper, have sex, go to sleep and do it all again the next day.

But tolerance for others, kindness, generosity, some of those higher values really need a bit of philosophy in the foundation. That takes a bit of work if the values are to be lived out and not just performed according to received wisdom (i.e. organized religion).

Originally Posted by TnT

If I'm "the other Tim," I guess I come down with Tara. Philosophy is essential. Without the "vision thing" one doesn't really know what one is doing. I know a lot of people in this world that are happy with food, sex, TV and a single-wide trailer. Seemingly really happy.

One can lose oneself in work, especially work like welding that can absorb a person's attention and is creative. It tires a person out and often results in regular pay checks. It's not hard to just settle into that kind of life ... work, have a few beers with the guys, go home eat a good supper, have sex, go to sleep and do it all again the next day.

But tolerance for others, kindness, generosity, some of those higher values really need a bit of philosophy in the foundation. That takes a bit of work if the values are to be lived out and not just performed according to received wisdom (i.e. organized religion).

Exactly and those qualities are very much needed more than ever to be acted out and not just spoken about. In time I feel we will need another generation to come along who will be internally focused because interacting with my own generation, I see it is not our strongest trait. We see that in our own parents and feel we do not need to preach the same way. But it is needed still and more than anything needed to be acted on.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

Why am I getting a sermon on this? I already know all of this.....

Because Brian is a Boomer and sermonizing is what Boomers do. Which is why I mostly ignore them these days.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You atheist/materialist guys would say the same thing in a 2T, just as you did here. Just as my parents and their generation said in the 2T. So it's not about the turning in that respect; we need both welders and philosophers in all turnings. It's just a difference in emphasis, and application.

Seriously Eric, you're closer to death than you are to birth, you'd think you'd give your resentments against your parents a rest by now.

I would say over all that if the goal is to have people working to make money to buy things so other people work, there is more need for welders than there is philosophers. Welders make things for people to buy from their welding. What do philosophers make?

No, Marco Rubio is still wrong. Especially about this. Is he right about anything? No, just charming and smooth.

So we don't need people who know how to work metals then? Are you sure that's the nail you want to hang your hat on?

Of course, to some extent, it IS about generations. Idealists generally like some philosophers to be around; civics and nomads generally don't, and prefer welders. Of course, as I also said, the idealists here during the 4T are also not very philosophical. But a lot of Boomers are probably still idealists like me. Just not on this forum; not anymore; not since 2008.

But, I apologize if my generational generalizations are too tightly-drawn

Here you are confusing Idealists with the prophet generation. Idealism is a philosphy in its own right--or more accurately a class of various philosophies. Furthermore, prophet generations do not have a lock on philosophy. I know that Boomers in particular like to pretend that they invented religion, sex, politics and all manner of things humans have been doing since humanity existed, but the fact is that Generation has very little do with philosophy unless you consider that Nomads and Civics tend toward materialist schools. You know cause we have to fix the outer world or survive as opposed to find inner peace or whatever nonsense Prophets and Artists are supposed to do.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

But I am an atheist and i dont know about materialist as i dont really know exactly what you mean by that but even I can understand what you are saying and agree with you. Yes even a civic can agree we need both.

Eric doesn't even know what he means by materialist, other than "something I don't agree with". Generally speaking though since we are talking about philosophy here the whole can be divided into two camps.

Idealism--generally speaking that the idea that is thought exists before the material world manifests that idea,

and,

Materialism--generally speaking that the material world is reflected in ideas.

For example a idealist would answer the question to trees falling in forests when no one is around to hear them fall as not making a sound. The perception of the tree falling is necessary for it to make a sound in the act of falling--and some like Eric would even go so far as to say that the tree and gravity and sound do not exist without a human around to sense them (or some other conscious entity--like say other trees, rocks the earth and what not.) Suffice it to say his new age ideas go down the rabbit hole quickly and make absolutely no sense to anyone who is remotely rational.

Using the same example a materialist would say that the tree does make a sound because in the act of falling it hits the ground, other trees/objects and causes the compression of air to make sound.

I am of course a materialist, as are most rationalists.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Because Brian is a Boomer and sermonizing is what Boomers do. Which is why I mostly ignore them these days.

Like the cape in the bullring, we can be ignored but rarely are. We're just irritating that way.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Seriously Eric, you're closer to death than you are to birth, you'd think you'd give your resentments against your parents a rest by now.

Why? I have materialists like you around to resent now.

I would say over all that if the goal is to have people working to make money to buy things so other people work, there is more need for welders than there is philosophers. Welders make things for people to buy from their welding. What do philosophers make?

Your premise fails. That's not the goal.

So we don't need people who know how to work metals then? Are you sure that's the nail you want to hang your hat on?

I said both; why are you misquoting me again? I know you have some mental skills, but you don't display them when arguing with me.

Here you are confusing Idealists with the prophet generation. Idealism is a philosphy in its own right--or more accurately a class of various philosophies. Furthermore, prophet generations do not have a lock on philosophy. I know that Boomers in particular like to pretend that they invented religion, sex, politics and all manner of things humans have been doing since humanity existed, but the fact is that Generation has very little do with philosophy unless you consider that Nomads and Civics tend toward materialist schools. You know cause we have to fix the outer world or survive as opposed to find inner peace or whatever nonsense Prophets and Artists are supposed to do.

In my post you quote above, I was referring to the generation type only. Idealist is the original name, = prophets.

But I also subscribe to Idealism as a philosophy.

You always think we need to fix the outer world as opposed to inner peace. It doesn't matter which turning or generation you are in. Because you are a Materialist. I don't condemn materialists however, even if you condemn idealists or spiritualists.

Here you seem to say that what nomads and civics do is to fix the outer world, but whatever prophets and artists are supposed to do is "nonsense." So, you don't believe in the generations theory then?

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Eric doesn't even know what he means by materialist, other than "something I don't agree with". Generally speaking though since we are talking about philosophy here the whole can be divided into two camps.

Idealism--generally speaking that the idea that is thought exists before the material world manifests that idea,

and,

Materialism--generally speaking that the material world is reflected in ideas.

For example a idealist would answer the question to trees falling in forests when no one is around to hear them fall as not making a sound. The perception of the tree falling is necessary for it to make a sound in the act of falling--and some like Eric would even go so far as to say that the tree and gravity and sound do not exist without a human around to sense them (or some other conscious entity--like say other trees, rocks the earth and what not.) Suffice it to say his new age ideas go down the rabbit hole quickly and make absolutely no sense to anyone who is remotely rational.

Using the same example a materialist would say that the tree does make a sound because in the act of falling it hits the ground, other trees/objects and causes the compression of air to make sound.

I am of course a materialist, as are most rationalists.

I'd like to see you do the philosophy questionnaire sometime, just to see what your score is. Or taramarie, or anyone else. Some older posters here have done it.

http://philosopherswheel.com/questionnaire.htm

Edit: And by the way I don't disagree with kinser's summary, as far as it goes. More here:
http://philosopherswheel.com/philosophycircle.htm

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Because Brian is a Boomer and sermonizing is what Boomers do. Which is why I mostly ignore them these days.

Lol true. Funny he did not respond to my question. I guess his work was done.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Eric doesn't even know what he means by materialist, other than "something I don't agree with". Generally speaking though since we are talking about philosophy here the whole can be divided into two camps.

Idealism--generally speaking that the idea that is thought exists before the material world manifests that idea,

and,

Materialism--generally speaking that the material world is reflected in ideas.

For example a idealist would answer the question to trees falling in forests when no one is around to hear them fall as not making a sound. The perception of the tree falling is necessary for it to make a sound in the act of falling--and some like Eric would even go so far as to say that the tree and gravity and sound do not exist without a human around to sense them (or some other conscious entity--like say other trees, rocks the earth and what not.) Suffice it to say his new age ideas go down the rabbit hole quickly and make absolutely no sense to anyone who is remotely rational.

Using the same example a materialist would say that the tree does make a sound because in the act of falling it hits the ground, other trees/objects and causes the compression of air to make sound.

I am of course a materialist, as are most rationalists.

Ah, thank you now I know what he means by materialism. Idealism in reality (same in design school for an example of us design students who are a mix of the two.) I create ideas then bring them to life). Which is my mentality in other things as well. I am a mix. A rational idealist/materialist. Create the ideal within a group that is something that is achievable then work out how to make it happen. Btw if that is something Eric would believe, that is cray cray and not scientific at all. We can question things, sure but the reality never changes no matter how we want to translate what reality is. The universe was created through science and abides by it too. Much of it is still to be explained however for future generations. He is an interesting character though I will admit and sure makes you wonder and sometimes reconsider some ideas on other things like the human condition. I don't think he is completely batty and is rather interesting.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Like the cape in the bullring, we can be ignored but rarely are. We're just irritating that way.

Hahaha true that! They are everywhere and they will be noticed!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Why? I have materialists like you around to resent now.


Your premise fails. That's not the goal.


I said both; why are you misquoting me again? I know you have some mental skills, but you don't display them when arguing with me.



In my post you quote above, I was referring to the generation type only. Idealist is the original name, = prophets.

But I also subscribe to Idealism as a philosophy.

You always think we need to fix the outer world as opposed to inner peace. It doesn't matter which turning or generation you are in. Because you are a Materialist. I don't condemn materialists however, even if you condemn idealists or spiritualists.

Here you seem to say that what nomads and civics do is to fix the outer world, but whatever prophets and artists are supposed to do is "nonsense." So, you don't believe in the generations theory then?

I am just guessing but he may think what they do is nonsense for our current era. But then again he is an xer so he may have seen the cults I have only read about and only sees the inner focused world as mainly nonsense. I can only guess. But even then I would disagree because we do need the vision in order to create it. The generations are all very necessary says this idealist/materialist mix millie

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I'd like to see you do the philosophy questionnaire sometime, just to see what your score is. Or taramarie, or anyone else. Some older posters here have done it.

http://philosopherswheel.com/questionnaire.htm

Ok i will do it now and tell you my score

Originally Posted by Taramarie

Ah, thank you now I know what he means by materialism. Idealism in reality (same in design school for an example of us design students who are a mix of the two.) I create ideas then bring them to life). Which is my mentality in other things as well. I am a mix. A rational idealist/materialist. Create the ideal within a group that is something that is achievable then work out how to make it happen. Btw if that is something Eric would believe, that is cray cray and not scientific at all. We can question things, sure but the reality never changes no matter how we want to translate what reality is. The universe was created through science and abides by it too. Much of it is still to be explained however for future generations. He is an interesting character though I will admit and sure makes you wonder and sometimes reconsider some ideas on other things like the human condition. I don't think he is completely batty and is rather interesting.

Well don't ever rely on mr. kinser for any accurate description of me or my ideas

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Well don't ever rely on mr. kinser for any accurate description of me or my ideas

Ok true only you can tell me who you are. So, I just finished the test. It took a long time because I really had to think about it. I do not understand why it needs to be subtracted because that is really scores that are a part of who I am but I did it anyway. 5R = 1-25 R = somewhat intellectual; You rely on reason and distrust feelings and experiences
3S = 1-25 S = somewhat spiritualist; Spiritual realities are prior to and explain material ones
If you are R and S, you are essentialist: universal ideas and archetypes are primary reality
R/S essentialist = N intuitive
I agree with most of it except for (distrust feelings and experiences. That is really very much not me. To understand me in certain situations, I am an artist, my work is my vent of who i am which is a highly emotional individual. My feelings are as much of a guide as the scientific world. However, science and feelings are very separate things and do not tend to cross. If I see something I do not understand I try to rationalize it, but cannot deny I saw it. So, I do not distrust experiences or feelings. For me, the two I try to keep separate but they can sometimes clash. When they do, I try to make it logical. But that does not mean I distrust feelings and experiences. It really depends on the situation. Would I try to explain the experience of sex or love from a logical viewpoint? No, because that is part of the emotional creature that we are.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

Ok true only you can tell me who you are. So, I just finished the test. It took a long time because I really had to think about it. I do not understand why it needs to be subtracted because that is really scores that are a part of who I am but I did it anyway. 5R = 1-25 R = somewhat intellectual; You rely on reason and distrust feelings and experiences
3S = 1-25 S = somewhat spiritualist; Spiritual realities are prior to and explain material ones
If you are R and S, you are essentialist: universal ideas and archetypes are primary reality
R/S essentialist = N intuitive
I agree with most of it except for (distrust feelings and experiences. That is really very much not me. To understand me in certain situations, I am an artist, my work is my vent of who i am which is a highly emotional individual. My feelings are as much of a guide as the scientific world. However, science and feelings are very separate things and do not tend to cross. If I see something I do not understand I try to rationalize it, but cannot deny I saw it. So, I do not distrust experiences or feelings. For me, the two I try to keep separate but they can sometimes clash. When they do, I try to make it logical. But that does not mean I distrust feelings and experiences. It really depends on the situation. Would I try to explain the experience of sex or love from a logical viewpoint? No, because that is part of the emotional creature that we are.

Thank you. It seems to me that you are in flux to some degree, and your score is very moderate. Later on your score might change somewhat. Your small S score surprises me, given your past comments; but then again, Rags also got a small S score. It makes sense that you are both feeling and logic/science oriented, being moderate on the R/E scale.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Thank you. It seems to me that you are in flux to some degree, and your score is very moderate. Later on your score might change somewhat. Your small S score surprises me, given your past comments; but then again, Rags also got a small S score. It makes sense that you are both feeling and logic/science oriented, being moderate on the R/E scale.

No problem. Yes, it really depends on the situation and what is asked. I have had some experiences that i cannot explain scientifically and emotion, is a huge driver of myself and my work so I am of course, moderate. Yes, it may change later on. My real s score before the subtraction was the second highest at 28R 24M 23E 27S before the subtraction.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Thank you. It seems to me that you are in flux to some degree, and your score is very moderate. Later on your score might change somewhat. Your small S score surprises me, given your past comments; but then again, Rags also got a small S score. It makes sense that you are both feeling and logic/science oriented, being moderate on the R/E scale.

also when asked of me, reality is there but also reality is what we make it and make of it. Meaning, reality is there but we interpret it on a very individual scale. Say, for instance, some believe in a God. I do not.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs. In terms of society as a whole, self-actualization would be a goal during Awakening, especially those of the Dionysus type.

During a 4T, the physiological needs tend to experience a short fall. Shortages of food, shelter, etc.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Maslow's hierarchy of needs. In terms of society as a whole, self-actualization would be a goal during Awakening, especially those of the Dionysus type.

During a 4T, the physiological needs tend to experience a short fall. Shortages of food, shelter, etc.

Of course. It swings but not completely eliminated (philosophy) Getting things done is the main goal in 4T and in 2T the internal is the main goal. But neither completely die out just one or the other is the majority priority. If some believe one or the other is not needed they are ignorant.

It's interesting that the PBS program on Einstein showed how his ideas were outgrowths of his predecessors like Faraday, Lavoissier, Newton, and Maxwell. But Faraday was interesting because he was a Christian, whose inquiry was motivated by his need to understand God. His ideas were also derived from the philosopher Leibniz. Newton and Einstein themselves had spiritual interests and views. And yet their work has led to the materialist and atheist worldviews. Meanwhile today, quantum theory is showing that the empirical, physical methods of inquiry are revealing God again. It's funny how that all works.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics...-big-idea.html

It's always worth looking at Rupert Sheldrake again. Science comes from philosophy and religion, and leads back to it again.
https://youtu.be/JKHUaNAxsTg

I have thought that Einstein's famous equation, E=mc2 is a later version of Newton's basic equation of Force=mass x acceleration. The PBS shows the relationship of the two ideas, and the other ideas that led to Einstein's equation, which takes Newton's materialistic physics and shows that matter is really energy, or force; that the two are aspects of one reality, whatever we might call it. And which comes first? The big bang theory suggests that it's energy that comes first. And where does energy come from? It can only come from God = first cause. Once we understand that, we can see that the first cause is now, and operates all the time.

Alan Watts talks a lot of sense on Christ and Christianity



Hear the good news!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It's interesting that the PBS program on Einstein showed how his ideas were outgrowths of his predecessors like Faraday, Lavoissier, Newton, and Maxwell. But Faraday was interesting because he was a Christian, whose inquiry was motivated by his need to understand God. His ideas were also derived from the philosopher Leibniz. Newton and Einstein themselves had spiritual interests and views. And yet their work has led to the materialist and atheist worldviews. Meanwhile today, quantum theory is showing that the empirical, physical methods of inquiry are revealing God again. It's funny how that all works.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics...-big-idea.html

The best case that anyone can have for God is that the Universe makes sense. That's not a God Who interferes in everything -- He needs not do so. Indeed, if He did we would be in trouble. Matter and energy could come into being without obvious cause, and 2 + 2 could be something other than 4 at His Will.

It's always worth looking at Rupert Sheldrake again. Science comes from philosophy and religion, and leads back to it again.
https://youtu.be/JKHUaNAxsTg

That's how it goes! On the desk of Albert Einstein at the time of his death was a large book of philosophy.

The increase in scientific knowledge seems to work in a strange way: if one answers one question one ends up with even more unanswered question. It's somehow like an old ethnic joke:

"Why do ***** answer a question with a question?"

"Why shouldn't ***** answer a question with a question?"

I have thought that Einstein's famous equation, E=mc2 is a later version of Newton's basic equation of Force=mass x acceleration. The PBS shows the relationship of the two ideas, and the other ideas that led to Einstein's equation, which takes Newton's materialistic physics and shows that matter is really energy, or force; that the two are aspects of one reality, whatever we might call it. And which comes first? The big bang theory suggests that it's energy that comes first. And where does energy come from? It can only come from God = first cause. Once we understand that, we can see that the first cause is now, and operates all the time.

Derivation of E = mc²

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The best case that anyone can have for God is that the Universe makes sense. That's not a God Who interferes in everything -- He needs not do so. Indeed, if He did we would be in trouble. Matter and energy could come into being without obvious cause, and 2 + 2 could be something other than 4 at His Will.

In a sense that's true. God does not create Himself, in the sense that He is the realities that exist eternally. Although I think that matter and energy do probably come into being without obvious cause.

This guy may not be respected by some people, but this is a strong statement of the philosophy paradigm that we need to consider as we move into a sustainable and humanized future. A Boomer assuming his role as an elder advisor and champion.


http://youtu.be/Y0c5nIvJH7w?t=9m37s

(excerpt quote)

What is death? Our materialist science reduces everything to matter. Materialist science in The West says that we are just meat; we're just our bodies. So when the brain is dead, that's the end of consciousness; there is no life after death, there is no soul. We just rot and are gone. But actually, many honest scientists should admit that consciousness is the greatest mystery of science, and that we don't know exactly how it works. The brain is involved in it in some way, but we're not sure how; it could be that the brain generates consciousness the way a generator makes electricity. If you hold to that paradigm, then of course you can't believe in life after death; when the generator's broken, consciousness is gone. But it's equally possible that the relationship, and nothing in neuroscience rules it out, that the relationship is more like the relationship of the TV signal to the TV set, and in that case, when the TV set is broken, of course the TV signal continues, and this is the paradigm of all spiritual traditions; that we are immortal souls, temporarily incarnated in these physical forms, to learn and to grow and to develop. And really if we want to know about this mystery, the last people we should ask are materialist, reductionist scientists. They have nothing to say on the matter at all.

Let's go rather to the ancient Egyptians who put their best minds to work for 3000 years on the problem of death, and the problem of how we should live our lives to prepare for what we will confront after death. And the ancient Egyptians expressed their ideas in transcendent art which still touches us emotionally today, and they came to certain very specific conclusions: that the soul does survive death, and that we will be held accountable for every thought, every action, every deed that we have lived through in our lives. So we'd better take this precious opportunity to be born in a human body seriously, and make the most of it. And in these inquiries into the mystery of death, and ancient Egyptians weren't just exercizing their imaginations. They highly valued dream states. And it's now known that they used visionary plants, like the halucinogenic blue water lily. And it's interesting that the ancient Egyptian Tree of Life has recently been identified as the acacia nilotica, which contains high quantities of DMT, Dimethyltryptamine, the same active ingredient that we find in ayahuasca.

Now it's difficult to imagine a society more different from the society of ancient Egypt, than our society today. We hate visionary states in this society. In our society if we want to insult somebody we call them a dreamer. In ancient societies that was praise. And we have erected huge apparatuses of armed bureaucracy who will invade our privacy, who will break down our doors, who will arrest us, who will send us to prison, sometimes for years for possessing even small quantities of psilocyben or substances like DMT, whether in its smokeable form or in the ayahuasca brew, and yet ironically DMT is we now know a natural brain hormone; we all have it in our bodies. It's just that its function remains unknown for lack of research. And it's not as though our society is opposed in principle to altered states of consciousness. I mean billions are being made by the unholy alliance of psychiatrists and big pharma in over-prescribing drugs to control so-called syndromes like depression or attention deficit disorder in teenagers. And we have a love affair in our society with alcohol. We glorify this most boring of drugs, despite the terrible consequences that it often has. And of course we love our stimulants; our tea, our coffee, our energy drinks, our sugar, and huge industries are built around these substances, which are valued because of the way they alter consciousness.

But what all these approved altered states of consciousness have in common is that none of them contradict or conflict with the basic state of consciousness valued by our society, which I would call the alert, problem-solving state of consciousness, which is good for the more mundane aspects of science, it's good for the prosecution of warfare, it's good for commerce, it's good for politics. But I think everybody realizes that the promise of a society over-monopolistically based on this state of consciousness has proved hollow. And that this model is no longer working, that it's broken in every possible sense that a model can be broken, and that urgently we need to find something to replace it. The vast problems of global pollution that have resulted from the single-minded pursuit of profit, the horrors of nuclear proliferation, the specter of hunger-- that millions every night go to bed starving, that we can't even solve this problem despite our alert, problem-solving state of consciousness. And look what's happening in the Amazon, the lungs of our planet, the precious home of biodiversity, the old growth rainforest being cut down and replaced with soyabean farms so that we can feed cattle so that we can all eat hamburgers. Only a truly insane global state of consciousness could allow such an abomination to occur.

And I did a back of an envelope calculation during the Iraq War. It seems to me that 6 months expenditure on the Iraq War would have solved the problem of the Amazon forever; would be sufficient to compensate the peoples of the Amazon so that no single tree ever needed to be cut down again, to garden and look after that amazing resource. But we can't make that decision as a global community. We can spend countless billions on warfare, on hatred, on fear, on suspicion, on division, but we can't get together the collective effort to save the lungs of our planet. And this is perhaps why shamans from the Amazon are now mounting a kind of reverse missionary activity. When I've asked shamans about the sickness of The West, they say it's quite simple. "You guys have severed your connection with Spirit. Unless you reconnect with Spirit and do so soon, you're gonna bring the whole house of cards down around your heads, and ours."