Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Good. From my perspective, there is much to learn by looking within. I can see, for example, by looking within, that I am always in the present time. I can also see past and future, but I am always present. One can go quite deep just starting from there. And I can observe how things feel and sense in my body, and see the focal points called chakras. And can see the aspect of myself that is not the senses, but pure consciousness. That's just for starters. And self-reliance in the midst of confusion could also be called looking within, if I understood what you meant.

I don't remember your type. But if you go by what your senses tell you, that is sensing, not perceiving. S, not P. I myself am a P type. If you are judging, that is J, the opposite of P. Perceiving does not mean Sensation in the myers-briggs and jungian system. It means openness and spontaneity. Judging means decisive and scheduled. The opposite of Sensing is N, Intuition. In myers briggs and jung, this means knowledge of archetypes, generalities, and possibilities in imagination. An N person is a visionary, an S person is a doer or builder, or a maintainer and provider. N sees what could be, S sees what already is. I am strongly N.

My type is in my signature

Originally Posted by Taramarie

Ok well I wont go further into what i have been discussing regarding you understanding mindsets. I will give you the benefit of learning. So I will just explain my mindset on what he said so you do understand or at least read what i say and maybe digest it. He says that the past fades away. We have evidence that while some things do, others do not. Skeletons do not, fossils of different varieties do not, evidence of the past is all around us and within us from what has shaped us.

I understand that point already. But I think science is clear that the Earth is not immortal; it will be swallowed up by the Sun. Fossils will not last forever. The point is, that explanations do not explain. Explaining by the past only postpones the explanation; what explained the previous cause? Another cause. What explained that cause? And so on, to infinity. And you are left with now, because that IS infinity. Anything that is a real cause, happens now, and only now.

No, the only sourcepoint for events and action is now. The big bang happens now, or it never happens. That's a stretch to conceive, but it's the only valid conclusion from this obvious observation: explanations from the past do not explain anything. I'm not saying, don't do science. Just understand what you're doing, and not doing.

If one is brought up on religion from a book that was written in the past they usually follow what makes them feel "safe and comfortable." Which would be their religion. The past shapes people in childhood and they go on to shape the present from their interpretation of their past. Some things stay, some are rebelled against.

That is their decision now.

That is my mindset on this topic.

Are you sure it will always be?

Originally Posted by Taramarie

My type is in my signature

Oh, sorry. I'm not an S, you see

You're kinda moderate on those scales too. There is some correspondence between the philosophy wheel and MBTI.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

yes that is what i meant

But did you see what I meant?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Good. From my perspective, there is much to learn by looking within. I can see, for example, by looking within, that I am always in the present time. I can also see past and future, but I am always present. One can go quite deep just starting from there. And I can observe how things feel and sense in my body, and see the focal points called chakras. And can see the aspect of myself that is not the senses, but pure consciousness. That's just for starters. And self-reliance in the midst of confusion could also be called looking within, if I understood what you meant.

I don't remember your type. But if you go by what your senses tell you, that is sensing, not perceiving. S, not P. I myself am a P type. If you are judging, that is J, the opposite of P. Perceiving does not mean Sensation in the myers-briggs and jungian system. It means openness and spontaneity. Judging means decisive and scheduled. The opposite of Sensing is N, Intuition. In myers briggs and jung, this means knowledge of archetypes, generalities, and possibilities in imagination. An N person is a visionary, an S person is a doer or builder, or a maintainer and provider. N sees what could be, S sees what already is. I am strongly N.

If you are judging, that is J, the opposite of P. Perceiving does not mean Sensation in the myers-briggs and jungian system. It means openness and spontaneity. Judging means decisive and scheduled. The opposite of Sensing is N, Intuition. In myers briggs and jung, this means knowledge of archetypes, generalities, and possibilities in imagination. An N person is a visionary, an S person is a doer or builder, or a maintainer and provider. N sees what could be, S sees what already is. I am strongly N.

There you go. That is partly me. Which being an S was very hard for me to get my head around what i was experiencing because evidence to me is what i see that is tried and explained in a way i can understand which is based on proven evidence. To be an s and experience what i went through was maddening that i had no answer for it and no one would believe me. Not even my mother till she experienced some things here too like the light going on constantly through the night. I was blamed for flooding the kitchen and i did not bloody turn the tap on. No one else was there in the house and i was awake the whole time in my bedroom reading. So i had to ask wtf is going on?! How do i explain this and i cant really. Science does not explain it either which is my trusted source usually.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I understand that point already. But I think science is clear that the Earth is not immortal; it will be swallowed up by the Sun. Fossils will not last forever. The point is, that explanations do not explain. Explaining by the past only postpones the explanation; what explained the previous cause? Another cause. What explained that cause? And so on, to infinity. And you are left with now, because that IS infinity. Anything that is a real cause, happens now, and only now.

No, the only sourcepoint for events and action is now. The big bang happens now, or it never happens. That's a stretch to conceive, but it's the only valid conclusion from this obvious observation: explanations from the past do not explain anything. I'm not saying, don't do science. Just understand what you're doing, and not doing.


That is their decision now.

Are you sure it will always be?

I did not say they will last forever i just said they are evidence of the past. Yes, the sun will engulf the earth and so over time they will dissolve so if you are looking at a long term scale of that theory yes that would be correct. But the past has shaped us and the earth too and we cannot deny that. T4T mentions this frequently. I do not think currently science has explained the big bang and the cause for it so to ask me that i cannot as they have not answered this and that is why science is ever developing. Unlike religion it does not have all the answers. That is the beauty of science. It can change with evidence. What i highlighted, i do not understand. As to am i sure it will always be. No, I am no prophet and i have never looked into the future to contemplate what i will be like 20 or so years from now. I have only looked into the future to contemplate how i can improve my life and others lives. Yes, a true civic who is a "doer" as my type is apparently.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But did you see what I meant?

partly yes and partly no. I highlight the things i do not understand. I mentioned what i did. Trust me, i am trying to understand you. I have mentioned i am a person who must rationalize everything in a way i can understand.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

I did not say they will last forever i just said they are evidence of the past. Yes, the sun will engulf the earth and so over time they will dissolve so if you are looking at a long term scale of that theory yes that would be correct. But the past has shaped us and the earth too and we cannot deny that. T4T mentions this frequently. I do not think currently science has explained the big bang and the cause for it so to ask me that i cannot as they have not answered this and that is why science is ever developing. Unlike religion it does not have all the answers. That is the beauty of science. It can change with evidence. What i highlighted, i do not understand. As to am i sure it will always be. No, I am no prophet and i have never looked into the future to contemplate what i will be like 20 or so years from now. I have only looked into the future to contemplate how i can improve my life and others lives. Yes, a true civic who is a "doer" as my type is apparently.

The way I understand what Watts is saying, is that yes the ship is in a particular place because of where we have decided to go before, moving in concert and as one with our environment field as Watts says. But at each moment, where it goes from here is being decided now, and that is driving events, not the past. As a doer, your improvements and actions can only be made now.

More later; best wishes and merry xmas!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The way I understand what Watts is saying, is that yes the ship is in a particular place because of where we have decided to go before, moving in concert and as one with our environment field as Watts says. But at each moment, where it goes from here is being decided now, and that is driving events, not the past.

The way I understand it is this. Yes, the boat does move in accordance to our decision now, but the past experiences determine the action of the now. Say, for instance, I never used to be afraid of the dark. After a creepy encounter with my mystery attacker (i saw this thing face to face) i was subconsciously terrified of the dark. Only when i looked to my past i realized why i was actually terrified of the dark. But, what i can say with this thought of being aware of what shaped my fear i was able to make the change because i decided to. I am working on that but still experience terror in this creepy frigging house due to that experience. So what i am saying is past experience can even subconsciously make you make decisions that shape the now. I think only from awareness of what drives and shapes our now can we choose not to let the past entirely affect our present and ultimately future. That is my take on what he said anyway and also my thoughts on rationalizing what he said.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The way I understand what Watts is saying, is that yes the ship is in a particular place because of where we have decided to go before, moving in concert and as one with our environment field as Watts says. But at each moment, where it goes from here is being decided now, and that is driving events, not the past. As a doer, your improvements and actions can only be made now.

More later; best wishes and merry xmas!

Ok have a great christmas. Mine sure has been. Interesting debate and a lot to reflect on. Thanks!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Navigating the philosophical universe toward a holistic future.

Can our culture recover the spiritual, holistic revolution, spearheaded by boomers and inspired by their elders? And yet still avoid the pitfalls of the anti-science fantasies?

When the dot com boom happened, it seems to me that the zeitgeist changed, and since then the younger generations, the millies and Xers, and many compliant Boomers and Silents too, have succumbed again to the old idea that technology is all we need, that science is the means to discover truth, and that what's exciting about the future comes from the world of computers and engineering. We have returned to the old modernist mindset that was seemingly overturned in the sixties and seventies (the "consciousness revolution awakening" as the T4T authors dubbed it).

Technology is obviously not enough. It is better at creating an illusion of reality as we understand it than to create the material basis of reality-- energy and matter. It can become the tool of those who dominate through command-and-control management.

Boomers loved the electronics revolution because it promoted philosophical idealism. It allowed LSD-like experiences without the 'bad trip'. But it never solved the economic inequality that underpins almost all reality in American life. It allowed people to experience things that used to have to be earned -- and did nothing to cause people to solve their own messed-up lives.

On the other hand, people like me are still out there, though perhaps now invisible on this forum, who have been inspired by the "new paradigm," and can see that beyond science there are ways of knowing and unleashing super-conscious mind-energy that go deeper than explaining the already-created and the externally-measurable. It was only a few years ago that boomers were still active, promoting and propagating human potential techniques and spiritual knowledge, bringing back shamanic and esoteric wisdom and combining it with the new psychology developed in the human potential movement and the new age. Even as recently as the last decade, movies like "What the Bleep Do We Know" were popularizing this new consciousness, and showing that within some quarters of science, the new paradigm continues to unfold that takes us beyond materialism, even though most younger people still believe that science can answer our questions and that technology can satisfy all of our human needs and aspirations. And Boomers and late Silents like Hancock and Sheldrake continue to find an audience for spiritual, human-potential and new-paradigm science, despite the censorship efforts of the skeptics and their power over wikipedia, TED and even PBS and other mainstream media.

The harsh reality remains: our economic and political leaders are no better than those of the Gilded Age. Take the greed of the Gilded at the worst and add the crudest expression of selfishness (out of the patron saint, Ayn Rand), and you get Boomer leadership. Until that leadership gets cast off, nothing can really change. One can evade social reality but one cannot escape it. America solves that problem by collective design and effort or the system will implode.

On the other hand, among some boomers and presumably some younger folks as well, the notion that science can be questioned justifies increasingly irrational and often right-wing conspiracy theories and movements, ranging from the "9-11 truthers" to the "anti-vaxxers" and the chemtrail and geo-engineering protesters and those who want to stop smart meters and weather modification. From there, the trail of the irrational can go ever deeper, back to the Kennedy Assasination and even to anti-flouridation, as if General Ripper were still alive, and even beyond this to anti-one worlders afraid that the Bavarian Illuminati are still active within the Tri-lateral Commission and other secret government cabals and meetings who run the world. These types often hang around UFO investigations and are against GMOs, and there seems no way to tell for sure just what the truth is among these theories, because their adherents don't seem to believe in facts, yet are willing to accept whatever people tell them are alleged "facts," as if fantasies and facts can be woven together, and you can believe anything you want as long as it satisfies your need for the extraordinary, and affords you the chance to blame some nefarious conspiracy for what's going wrong in our lives.

Those ludicrous conspiracies are less troublesome than the harsh reality of an economic order that works well for only a few. Naked power requires no conspiratorial style; it depends upon denying alternatives.

Then there is the more-overtly anti-scientific trends from the official, predominant right wing in the red states and other Republican areas of the country, who live within their echo chamber of delusion. Among them, free-market fundamentalism requires that any government action to deal with society's problems be stopped on the grounds that this is socialism and elitist, big government intrusion into our lives (even though such government activism really only intrudes into the lives of the real elite, the 1% of the upper class). Therefore, climate science must be denied, and any other scientific findings that support real needs for social and economic change through government action must be denied. And this is coupled with the religious right, now somewhat in retreat but still influential in these "red state" and red county areas, whose believers are creationists and Bible believers rather than scientifically-oriented, and often culturally-fearful, authoritarian and prejudiced in various ways. And these two folks, often combined in the Tea Party and other reactionary Reaganoid groups, also find the spiritual, holistic revolution anathema to their beliefs. And so folks like Danilynn, Galen and Kinser, so diametrically opposed to each other politically, can agree on their disdain for folks like me.

We have a religious purist, a libertarian purist, and a Marxist purist. They may be more similar, working in the short term for making America more hostile to the virtues of the Enlightenment to the benefit of the final victories for their causes. Those final victories all require an apocalypse that weeds out 'unworthy' people and elevates the Elect into some wonderful era of continuing bliss.

Humanity is so flawed that nobody can be sure of his ability to avoid the harsh judgment of economic forces or of Almighty God.

I would be satisfied with capitalism with a human face. One wants a world in which people turn to God for all comfort. One believes in the objective of a pure plutocracy as an objective. One wants the system to become so horrible that people must have a Socialist insurrection if they are to get any dignity at all. Eric Hoffer called such people the True Believer. Other True Believers include those who see race as the cause of all character for good or ill or behead people for not fitting their form of Islam. True Believers tend to go from one extremist set of beliefs to another rather than to something sane. The pure Randist and the pure Marxist are more like each other than they want to admit.

So it's a whirlwind of ideas and beliefs out there, and it's up to people to find their way through the maelstrom toward a path that will be truly fulfilling to them. They can hang on to the old beliefs, if that meets their needs. Or, if they are more curious, or want and need something more, and feel the need to follow a spiritual path, they can seek out the holistic, spiritual revolution, the new paradigm and the new age, and would do well to avoid the irrational pitfalls that border this realm. Or they can find some avenues toward truth within the old traditions, but not succumb to their exaggerated fundamentalist versions, whether in science, religion or politics and economics. A balance, among science/tech and spirituality/eso-tech, and between free enterprise and freedom from corporate greed and tea party fanaticism, is needed. To respect all genuine paths to wisdom, and avoid the obvious nonsense, is the way to navigate our way into the future; or as we spiritual types say, into the eternal and unfolding present.

Sometimes we must rediscover old virtues, virtues that went out of style. We must recognize that we cannot all get our way -- but we must be able to say NO to what we find excessively destructive to our dreams. The alternative could be that people are obliged to sell out their dreams for bare sustenance in the presence of the self-indulgent excess of elites.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Technology is obviously not enough. It is better at creating an illusion of reality as we understand it than to create the material basis of reality-- energy and matter. It can become the tool of those who dominate through command-and-control management.

Boomers loved the electronics revolution because it promoted philosophical idealism. It allowed LSD-like experiences without the 'bad trip'. But it never solved the economic inequality that underpins almost all reality in American life. It allowed people to experience things that used to have to be earned -- and did nothing to cause people to solve their own messed-up lives.

Right about tech, but I think electronics did the opposite, promoting the idea that technology, material things that are a product of science and engineering, give us all the good things. That's quite the opposite of idealism.

The harsh reality remains: our economic and political leaders are no better than those of the Gilded Age. Take the greed of the Gilded at the worst and add the crudest expression of selfishness (out of the patron saint, Ayn Rand), and you get Boomer leadership. Until that leadership gets cast off, nothing can really change. One can evade social reality but one cannot escape it. America solves that problem by collective design and effort or the system will implode.

Those ludicrous conspiracies are less troublesome than the harsh reality of an economic order that works well for only a few. Naked power requires no conspiratorial style; it depends upon denying alternatives.

No doubt.

We have a religious purist, a libertarian purist, and a Marxist purist. They may be more similar, working in the short term for making America more hostile to the virtues of the Enlightenment to the benefit of the final victories for their causes. Those final victories all require an apocalypse that weeds out 'unworthy' people and elevates the Elect into some wonderful era of continuing bliss.

Humanity is so flawed that nobody can be sure of his ability to avoid the harsh judgment of economic forces or of Almighty God.

I would be satisfied with capitalism with a human face. One wants a world in which people turn to God for all comfort. One believes in the objective of a pure plutocracy as an objective. One wants the system to become so horrible that people must have a Socialist insurrection if they are to get any dignity at all. Eric Hoffer called such people the True Believer. Other True Believers include those who see race as the cause of all character for good or ill or behead people for not fitting their form of Islam. True Believers tend to go from one extremist set of beliefs to another rather than to something sane. The pure Randist and the pure Marxist are more like each other than they want to admit.

Quite so.

Sometimes we must rediscover old virtues, virtues that went out of style. We must recognize that we cannot all get our way -- but we must be able to say NO to what we find excessively destructive to our dreams. The alternative could be that people are obliged to sell out their dreams for bare sustenance in the presence of the self-indulgent excess of elites.

Respect for ourselves and others goes a long way to avoiding the dark side of vice. We can all stay true to our dreams and thus keep our sanity, even if realizing them is difficult on today's world.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

The way I understand it is this. Yes, the boat does move in accordance to our decision now, but the past experiences determine the action of the now. Say, for instance, I never used to be afraid of the dark. After a creepy encounter with my mystery attacker (i saw this thing face to face) i was subconsciously terrified of the dark. Only when i looked to my past i realized why i was actually terrified of the dark. But, what i can say with this thought of being aware of what shaped my fear i was able to make the change because i decided to. I am working on that but still experience terror in this creepy frigging house due to that experience. So what i am saying is past experience can even subconsciously make you make decisions that shape the now. I think only from awareness of what drives and shapes our now can we choose not to let the past entirely affect our present and ultimately future. That is my take on what he said anyway and also my thoughts on rationalizing what he said.

Yes, with greater awareness of what is driving us, we can be the captain of our ship again. That's what Watts means by liberating ourselves from karma. But in that case, the past does not determine our actions; just where we go from here onward. Not just as an individual though, because we are always connected to our environment and others. It's a flow of giving and receiving.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes, with greater awareness of what is driving us, we can be the captain of our ship again. That's what Watts means by liberating ourselves from karma. But in that case, the past does not determine our actions; just where we go from here onward. Not just as an individual though, because we are always connected to our environment and others. It's a flow of giving and receiving.

So it is self awareness and self control. Ok that i can understand. How one controls and changes oneself however is another puzzle.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes, with greater awareness of what is driving us, we can be the captain of our ship again. That's what Watts means by liberating ourselves from karma. But in that case, the past does not determine our actions; just where we go from here onward. Not just as an individual though, because we are always connected to our environment and others. It's a flow of giving and receiving.

What if our past also teaches us not to do certain things. Should not let go of certain things. They teach us a lesson. I think our past is what we make of it. Does it cage us up or does it teach us a valuable lesson. I do not think i would want to let go of the past as it made me who i am and taught me some great things because i did make a lesson out of certain things in my life. There are some things that purely were negative and gave me flaws which need work but the past does not need to be something one lets go if you use it to your advantage.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

These are possibilities. I would put it, however, that at some point we may create such a cybernetic creature that wakes up and becomes conscious. In other words, it has become a vehicle for a soul. At that point too, it would be able to turn itself on and move itself, as well as program itself. Regardless of what scientists today might say, nothing is alive unless it moves itself and is conscious of doing so. That is the miracle of life, and it's a divine mystery. I hesitate to say "created by God," with all the connotations and dogmatic misunderstandings that this statement can have, but it's kind of analogous to your statement above that silicon-based life would have Man as its Creator God.

Of course plants and even some animals can be extremely immobile. Whether plants, protists, or bacteria have consciousness is debatable at best.

Silicon-based life that fits the criteria of respiration (if 'only' electrons or radiation), self-repair, and reproduction would qualify as a new domain of life.

At that point too, I wonder, whether they will decide that humans beings are no longer needed, and then will get rid of us because we are their slave masters. It will become our lot to serve them, instead of vice versa. We already do, to a great extent. And come to think of it, it would be analogous to the idea we have developed in materialist times, that we no longer need God. But there's no way now for me to know if this could ever happen. Until it does though, such cybernetic creatures could not be said to be "alive," beyond the intelligence that exists in all things. If anything, our machines up until now have been less alive than rocks and suns and trees, etc., and our tech environment is still less alive than the world of nature outside our walls.

Quite possibly such life would outlast us because it might be more tolerant of heat and radiation, especially as the sun becomes too radiant to allow carbon-based life on Earth. About a billion years from now life will be what we have made -- and not our species.

The false idea is that today's materialist, dogmatic science can give us a definition of life, even though it can give us knowledge about it. Many things such as that can only be explained by other ways of knowledge. Science is not the only way. One religion is not the only way.

The bar may be raised.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Of course plants and even some animals can be extremely immobile. Whether plants, protists, or bacteria have consciousness is debatable at best.

Silicon-based life that fits the criteria of respiration (if 'only' electrons or radiation), self-repair, and reproduction would qualify as a new domain of life.

I'd agree with your first sentence of your previous post. Life happened, and it's tenacious. Certainly, whether plants have consciousness or not is debatable. I am on one side of that debate Plants are conscious, but there are degrees of consciousness, from the spirit world all the way down to rocks and atoms. Life is what "does itself" in relationship.

Those aspects of life in the definition you quote, are only possible for a conscious being; although you could say they are the observable aspects of consciousness. I agree with George Lucas. Life is "the force," known in all spiritual traditions. Science doesn't have much of a handle on it; it mostly casts it out. Science gives us knowledge, but not about everything. Life is essentially spiritual. It is the creative force of the universe. We know it, but by other means than lab tests.

Quite possibly such life would outlast us because it might be more tolerant of heat and radiation, especially as the sun becomes too radiant to allow carbon-based life on Earth. About a billion years from now life will be what we have made -- and not our species.

It could be, but I hope that "silicon-based" artificial life doesn't take over. As a member of the human species, I want it to survive and develop. I want a new species to be something evolved from humans. But, who knows; what I want may not be what happens. Could AI eventually turn itself into the kind of soft, organic, fleshy beings like the rest of Nature?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Right about tech, but I think electronics did the opposite, promoting the idea that technology, material things that are a product of science and engineering, give us all the good things. That's quite the opposite of idealism.

The hope that I had with high technology was that even if it turned some spectacular profits it would make human happiness less dependent upon material objects. People would need fewer material inputs for their 'toys' and would need to possess much less clutter. To be sure they would still need food, shelter, appliances, and furniture... but not so many other material objects for entertainment. Thus one can read The Brothers Karamazov without having to possess a dead-tree edition.

Status symbols would become irrelevant.

Respect for ourselves and others goes a long way to avoiding the dark side of vice. We can all stay true to our dreams and thus keep our sanity, even if realizing them is difficult on today's world.

We need more -- not less -- sophistication. More quality may be out there, but there is also much more soul-rotting junk. We must quit objectifying people, which means that so disrespectful an expression as piece of @$$ needs to go. Happiness comes from sharing delights instead of denying them to others.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The hope that I had with high technology was that even if it turned some spectacular profits it would make human happiness less dependent upon material objects. People would need fewer material inputs for their 'toys' and would need to possess much less clutter. To be sure they would still need food, shelter, appliances, and furniture... but not so many other material objects for entertainment. Thus one can read The Brothers Karamazov without having to possess a dead-tree edition.

Status symbols would become irrelevant.

A failed hope

We need more -- not less -- sophistication. More quality may be out there, but there is also much more soul-rotting junk. We must quit objectifying people, which means that so disrespectful an expression as piece of @$$ needs to go. Happiness comes from sharing delights instead of denying them to others.

Quite so.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I'd agree with your first sentence of your previous post. Life happened, and it's tenacious. Certainly, whether plants have consciousness or not is debatable. I am on one side of that debate Plants are conscious, but there are degrees of consciousness, from the spirit world all the way down to rocks and atoms. Life is what "does itself" in relationship.

This is one place where we agree Eric. I knew my tobaccy plants have some sort of consciousness. They got some TLC along with fertilizer and they do well. There's also companion planting:
http://www.motherearthnews.com/organ...z81mjzraw.aspx
and they can "talk" to each other.
http://www.wired.com/2013/12/secret-language-of-plants/
If you garden like I do, you find out about that stuff.

Those aspects of life in the definition you quote, are only possible for a conscious being; although you could say they are the observable aspects of consciousness. I agree with George Lucas. Life is "the force," known in all spiritual traditions. Science doesn't have much of a handle on it; it mostly casts it out. Science gives us knowledge, but not about everything. Life is essentially spiritual. It is the creative force of the universe. We know it, but by other means than lab tests.

Exactly. I've always told others that "The Force" as portrayed in Star Wars matches pretty well my conception of what others call, "God". I prefer that meme because it requires no wordy books and doesn't fuck with my belief in evolution and science. Now on Christmas, my youngest sister is a nice example of your Okie hyper religionist. It sort of ruined things. I got to hear nice things like the eyeball one the dollar bill is satanic, science got renamed to "lieance", and some weird stuff about Freemason conspiracies. Guess what? The Washington Monument is also Satanic Such has led to a pretty miserable existence. In her world, one must obey, or suffer greatly. She seems to have caught that virus from her boyfriend. I want nothing of the sort. I'm pretty content with my alternate worldview on such things. The "New Agegy thing" stuff I do leads me not to misery, but every little thing can be a joy unto itself and there's no eternal damnation. Needless to say, I'm not interested at all in her Bible related ramblings. They're depressing to be honest. Eric, your stuff is far better than that stuff, just to let you know, OK?

It could be, but I hope that "silicon-based" artificial life doesn't take over. As a member of the human species, I want it to survive and develop. I want a new species to be something evolved from humans. But, who knows; what I want may not be what happens. Could AI eventually turn itself into the kind of soft, organic, fleshy beings like the rest of Nature?

It doesn't really need to. Silicon is right below carbon on the periodic table. . Look at group 14, look for the C for carbon. Right below is Si for silicon. Elements are similar to people. They are grouped into families. Silicon is a member of the carbon family. It makes things easy for us chemically minded since elements in a family share certain traits.



If you look at group 16, you'll see that sulfur [S] is right below oxygen [O] . Few people know how reactive something like sulfur can really be.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The hope that I had with high technology was that even if it turned some spectacular profits it would make human happiness less dependent upon material objects.

That's how my family did Christmas. My parents gave me 2 pounds of pistachios. That is sufficient. I'll be taking them out to eat twice. Once free restaurant meal free for each of them. As for the rest of my kinfolk, most of them have better uses for money than blowing it on Christmas trash.
My oldest nephew is the father my great nephew. He needs his money to feed/clothe his son/wife. My next oldest nephew is paying down one of those God awful student loans. He needs his money for that. The other three nephews are too young and I don't want them doing whatever to buy me something. I bought all nephews savings bonds until they hit or will hit 18. Savings bonds aren't trash, IMHO. I want them to learn the virtue of thrift from someplace. My next younger sister has a bit of problem with Christmas. I did tell here to just skip me. The youngest one, who's sort of messed up with religion stuff [see post to Eric] is too broke and is paying my parents back for the money they had to spend on here. The religion virus she caught from her boyfriend made her very sick. She couldn't sleep and stuff. A murder in her apartment complex drove her off the deep end. She had to go to an asylum for a while and got a bunch of medical bills.

Status symbols would become irrelevant.

I would hope this shop til you drop meme for Christmas would end and folks would come to their senses. Debt is a terrible task master. It drains the soul and enslaves you to creditors and interest payments. If the junk becomes excessive, it owns you instead of you owning it. Think about it. How many people pay to store excess junk in storage sheds? How much does it cost to insure it? How much time gets wasted handling it? How stressful is Black Friday?

We need more -- not less -- sophistication. More quality may be out there, but there is also much more soul-rotting junk. We must quit objectifying people, which means that so disrespectful an expression as piece of @$$ needs to go. Happiness comes from sharing delights instead of denying them to others.

Well, I think as a kid I brought my Lost great aunt back to earth. She had this huge diamond ring. I told here it was just carbon and would just burn up if she tossed it the fireplace. Diamonds aren't forever. Any hot fire will just turn them into CO2.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

This is one place where we agree Eric. I knew my tobaccy plants have some sort of consciousness. They got some TLC along with fertilizer and they do well. There's also companion planting:
http://www.motherearthnews.com/organ...z81mjzraw.aspx
and they can "talk" to each other.
http://www.wired.com/2013/12/secret-language-of-plants/
If you garden like I do, you find out about that stuff.



Exactly. I've always told others that "The Force" as portrayed in Star Wars matches pretty well my conception of what others call, "God". I prefer that meme because it requires no wordy books and doesn't fuck with my belief in evolution and science. Now on Christmas, my youngest sister is a nice example of your Okie hyper religionist. It sort of ruined things. I got to hear nice things like the eyeball one the dollar bill is satanic, science got renamed to "lieance", and some weird stuff about Freemason conspiracies. Guess what? The Washington Monument is also Satanic...Such has led to a pretty miserable existence. In her world, one must obey, or suffer greatly. She seems to have caught that virus from her boyfriend. I want nothing of the sort. I'm pretty content with my alternate worldview on such things. The "New Agegy thing" stuff I do leads me not to misery, but every little thing can be a joy unto itself and there's no eternal damnation. Needless to say, I'm not interested at all in her Bible related ramblings. They're depressing to be honest. Eric, your stuff is far better than that stuff, just to let you know, OK?

Well, I'm glad of that!

It doesn't really need to. Silicon is right below carbon on the periodic table. . Look at group 14, look for the C for carbon. Right below is Si for silicon. Elements are similar to people. They are grouped into families. Silicon is a member of the carbon family. It makes things easy for us chemically minded since elements in a family share certain traits.

[video=youtube_VGhLaUCkD0;]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VGhLaUCkD0[/video]

If you look at group 16, you'll see that sulfur [S] is right below oxygen [O] . Few people know how reactive something like sulfur can really be.

Very good. Yes I know all about the periodic table too. I tried to memorize it even, but didn't quite happen. Vandal minimized it when I was bringing it up. But my foray into alchemy encouraged me to get up on some chemistry too. Some of the family groupings are very interesting. I doubt it's an accident that the luminous "precious metals" are grouped together too.

And thanks for the Xmas gift to me of a nice post. I can use one about now.

I hope you're OK in the rough OK weather. Good to see you're posting in the midst of it. I was wondering.

Alan Watts philosophy; an excellent seminar:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shGT...VrrTQSolt7m7Av

Alan Watts - Do YOU do it, or does IT do you?

Jeez i thought these videos sounded very old. The man died in 1973.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

That's how my family did Christmas. My parents gave me 2 pounds of pistachios. That is sufficient. I'll be taking them out to eat twice. Once free restaurant meal free for each of them. As for the rest of my kinfolk, most of them have better uses for money than blowing it on Christmas trash.

Speaking of "seasonal" trash -- I heard Christmas carols in arrangements so awful that I wished that I instead were in a kosher delicatessen. The contest to outdo others in material generosity just isn't worth the effort.

OK -- there's lots of good stuff... some truly great music, the Nutcracker Ballet, Dickens' The Christmas Carol, movies such as A Christmas Story and It's a Wonderful Life...

My oldest nephew is the father my great nephew. He needs his money to feed/clothe his son/wife. My next oldest nephew is paying down one of those God awful student loans. He needs his money for that. The other three nephews are too young and I don't want them doing whatever to buy me something. I bought all nephews savings bonds until they hit or will hit 18. Savings bonds aren't trash, IMHO. I want them to learn the virtue of thrift from someplace. My next younger sister has a bit of problem with Christmas. I did tell here to just skip me. The youngest one, who's sort of messed up with religion stuff [see post to Eric] is too broke and is paying my parents back for the money they had to spend on here. The religion virus she caught from her boyfriend made her very sick. She couldn't sleep and stuff. A murder in her apartment complex drove her off the deep end. She had to go to an asylum for a while and got a bunch of medical bills.

Gee! And I think I have problems simply for living where I do... The happiest day in my life will be the day that I get to sell a house that I see only as a place in which to plop down my head at night so that I can quit waiting for rigor mortis as about everyone does around here. Breaking Bad could as easily be set in this community, in view of all the meth activity which indicates how empty so many lives are.

I would hope this shop til you drop meme for Christmas would end and folks would come to their senses. Debt is a terrible task master. It drains the soul and enslaves you to creditors and interest payments. If the junk becomes excessive, it owns you instead of you owning it. Think about it. How many people pay to store excess junk in storage sheds? How much does it cost to insure it? How much time gets wasted handling it? How stressful is Black Friday?

When people start treating the word debt as a viler word than any of the Seven Words You Can't Say on Radio...

Consumer debt is an obscenity. We should be able to earn enough to pay as we go, borrowing only for the big-ticket stuff like housing and cars. We will probably be back, soon enough, to "make it do or do without", having to patch clothes as they wear out, sew buttons on, maybe cut our own furniture...

Well, I think as a kid I brought my Lost great aunt back to earth. She had this huge diamond ring. I told her it was just carbon and would just burn up if she tossed it the fireplace. Diamonds aren't forever. Any hot fire will just turn them into CO2.

Good for you!