Originally Posted by Taramarie

LMAO that makes it even funnier!

I don't even understand Odin's critique. So I guess that's kinda funny too.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't even understand Odin's critique. So I guess that's kinda funny too.

Oh i need popcorn for this!

What, for a conversation about nothing that's going nowhere?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

What, for a conversation about nothing that's going nowhere?

Stick around i am sure it will go somewhere hahahaha! Maybe not where you want it to but it will!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

What, for a conversation about nothing that's going nowhere?

Want an interesting or engaging topic? Why did you ask me on another thread about what happens after death? Especially as you called me a "materialist" and while that would be mostly true we must consider the fact i was a wiccan and still hold interest in that religion and have seen some things that made me question some aspects of life after death. I think that would make me a target for real materialists to ridicule me but for me seeing is at least something to make me question a lot of things regarding that. So, there is your interesting conversation starter, Eric. I know you love that topic.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

Want an interesting or engaging topic? Why did you ask me on another thread about what happens after death? Especially as you called me a "materialist" and while that would be mostly true we must consider the fact i was a wiccan and still hold interest in that religion and have seen some things that made me question some aspects of life after death. I think that would make me a target for real materialists to ridicule me but for me seeing is at least something to make me question a lot of things regarding that. So, there is your interesting conversation starter, Eric. I know you love that topic.

Well, you've said a lot of materialist things, but I know from your questionnaire that the label doesn't fit you. But if you watch the videos I posted above, that's a good start. It appears no-one watched them. Rags commented on the picture, and Odin knocked Dr. Sheldrake, and that's not a conversation with any content about the issue. But the videos and the other link there opened the conversation already. You might find some interesting ideas there.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Well, you've said a lot of materialist things, but I know from your questionnaire that the label doesn't fit you. But if you watch the videos I posted above, that's a good start. It appears no-one watched them. Rags commented on the picture, and Odin knocked Dr. Sheldrake, and that's not a conversation with any content about the issue. But the videos and the other link there opened the conversation already. You might find some interesting ideas there.

I am mostly a materialist, but not quite and that is me being honest. I was honest with the questionnaire. There have been a lot of questionable things that have happened in this house. Doors opening that are not in the position to be moved by wind that i literally have to kick open due to the wood swelling from the damp. kitchen taps being turned on and flooded the kitchen. No one in the house but me and i was in my room reading the whole time. Lights being turned on constantly through the night. That was in my mothers room and mine. No, the materialist view cannot explain this and i still have no clue other than they happened and the unusual things i have seen. Luckily i have not seen for quite a while. I would say aww about ten years ago. I blocked it out. I cant remember the label the questionnaire gave me but it did not call me a materialist.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Well, you've said a lot of materialist things, but I know from your questionnaire that the label doesn't fit you. But if you watch the videos I posted above, that's a good start. It appears no-one watched them. Rags commented on the picture, and Odin knocked Dr. Sheldrake, and that's not a conversation with any content about the issue. But the videos and the other link there opened the conversation already. You might find some interesting ideas there.

But that cannot be the only thing that does not qualify me as a materialist due to the fact your questionnaire did not mention this topic at all.

It takes time to understand these issues. Watching a video might take some time, rather than just making fun of its picture as Rags did, but any sincere inquiry takes time.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It takes time to understand these issues. Watching a video might take some time, rather than just making fun of its picture as Rags did, but any sincere inquiry takes time.

Nothing has explained this phenomena satisfactorily yet unfortunately. I could dismiss things i have seen, but the physical things i cannot dismiss. It is creepy and puzzling.

Philosophical materialism holds that the universe is simply the result of the interactions of energy and matter down to the level of sub-atomic particles, and that all reality (including human behavior) can in theory be reduced to the interactions of energy and subatomic particles.

Physical reality demonstrates that understanding the interaction of energy and subatomic particles can only explain... the interaction of energy and subatomic particles. The Uncertainty principle establishes that one cannot know the position and velocity of an electron, the subatomic particle whose behavior most defines chemical reactions. Basically one can't determine the position of an electron without changing its velocity or its velocity without forcing a change in its position.

For practical reasons we can rarely reduce mental activity to biochemistry. If we could, then many of the assumptions of human behavior necessary for judging people would no longer be valid. To say that the difference between Albert Schweitzer and Charles Manson is simply the result of difference in the biochemistry of the two. Then Albert Schweitzer has no claim to any moral superiority because his biochemistry and upbringing (a consequence of the biochemistry of those who raised him) made him the humanitarian that he was and Charles Manson would have no culpability for what he did because his biochemistry and upbringing made him what he is.

The more commonplace use of the word materialism suggests that human happiness is the result of material reality, and that getting more and indulging more is the way to happiness than learning, friendships, culture, religion, or praiseworthy behavior. The extreme materialist might be shallow, but might still be happy operating his bookmaking operation and living a more plush life than the typical factory worker.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Philosophical materialism holds that the universe is simply the result of the interactions of energy and matter down to the level of sub-atomic particles, and that all reality (including human behavior) can in theory be reduced to the interactions of energy and subatomic particles.

Physical reality demonstrates that understanding the interaction of energy and subatomic particles can only explain... the interaction of energy and subatomic particles. The Uncertainty principle establishes that one cannot know the position and velocity of an electron, the subatomic particle whose behavior most defines chemical reactions. Basically one can't determine the position of an electron without changing its velocity or its velocity without forcing a change in its position.

For practical reasons we can rarely reduce mental activity to biochemistry. If we could, then many of the assumptions of human behavior necessary for judging people would no longer be valid. To say that the difference between Albert Schweitzer and Charles Manson is simply the result of difference in the biochemistry of the two. Then Albert Schweitzer has no claim to any moral superiority because his biochemistry and upbringing (a consequence of the biochemistry of those who raised him) made him the humanitarian that he was and Charles Manson would have no culpability for what he did because his biochemistry and upbringing made him what he is.

The more commonplace use of the word materialism suggests that human happiness is the result of material reality, and that getting more and indulging more is the way to happiness than learning, friendships, culture, religion, or praiseworthy behavior. The extreme materialist might be shallow, but might still be happy operating his bookmaking operation and living a more plush life than the typical factory worker.

For me that one is not true. My happiness comes from family and my furbabies. I suppose one could argue being rich and getting stuff could get rid of unhappiness but things cannot love you back. I think he was calling me a materialist for believing in science. Then again as i have mentioned, it has not explained everything that has happened to me and i know it would actually say it is not possible.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Philosophical materialism holds that the universe is simply the result of the interactions of energy and matter down to the level of sub-atomic particles, and that all reality (including human behavior) can in theory be reduced to the interactions of energy and subatomic particles.

Physical reality demonstrates that understanding the interaction of energy and subatomic particles can only explain... the interaction of energy and subatomic particles. The Uncertainty principle establishes that one cannot know the position and velocity of an electron, the subatomic particle whose behavior most defines chemical reactions. Basically one can't determine the position of an electron without changing its velocity or its velocity without forcing a change in its position.

For practical reasons we can rarely reduce mental activity to biochemistry. If we could, then many of the assumptions of human behavior necessary for judging people would no longer be valid. To say that the difference between Albert Schweitzer and Charles Manson is simply the result of difference in the biochemistry of the two. Then Albert Schweitzer has no claim to any moral superiority because his biochemistry and upbringing (a consequence of the biochemistry of those who raised him) made him the humanitarian that he was and Charles Manson would have no culpability for what he did because his biochemistry and upbringing made him what he is.

The more commonplace use of the word materialism suggests that human happiness is the result of material reality, and that getting more and indulging more is the way to happiness than learning, friendships, culture, religion, or praiseworthy behavior. The extreme materialist might be shallow, but might still be happy operating his bookmaking operation and living a more plush life than the typical factory worker.

If materialism is believing that it can explain human nature, i believe it may explain it somewhat, but certainly not everything connected to human behaviour. Environment (especially when the individual is a child) culture, what they consume at the time etc.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

For me that one is not true. My happiness comes from family and my furbabies. I suppose one could argue being rich and getting stuff could get rid of unhappiness but things cannot love you back. I think he was calling me a materialist for believing in science. Then again as i have mentioned, it has not explained everything that has happened to me and i know it would actually say it is not possible.

You did not understand what I said; I don't think you watched the Sheldrake videos. Materialism is a philosophy; science is a method. Science correctly applied can help us understand anything, although not everything about anything. It has its limits and good uses. But it is not the only knowledge. The "science delusion" mentioned by Sheldrake is the notion that science can understand everything, and that religion and spirituality are useless. It is a belief in science rather than "God." Materialist assumptions in this "science delusion" are held up as "the truth" not to be questioned. You have made statements denying possible spiritual realities, or saying we should not pursue them as much now. If you wish to be more open-minded about spiritual things, then that's good IMO. If not, that's your choice too. I just caution about automatic assumptions that people make.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

There is a huge difference between seeing a Pollock painting close up and seeing it on a video screen.

I have. I got dragged to the Metropolitan Museum of Modern Art, you know the one in NYC by an Ex. I couldn't tell the difference between a Pollock painting and a drop cloth a contractor uses to prevent messing up one's floors and etc when painting a room.

Face it, Pollock was a drunk who found a good scam and made money. That is all, there is no content to his work.

Painting, unless you are discussing Seurat (whose works come up well on a video screen if the screen is large enough because his pointillism suggests a dot-based video display or photographic reproduction) is more subtly 3D due to brushstrokes that create texture. The paint-smeared apron looks good until one sees it up close and sees that it has no artistic merit.

A Jackson Pollock painting has no artistic merit even if one were to see it in person. It isn't art, it is a drop cloth.

Selective realism. I prefer to banish banality in such photos as I have taken by composing them to exclude parked cars.

It makes me wonder why you'd take a photo containing a parked car. I'm assuming we aren't talking about something like the photos I have of my car. I have a thing for maroon Cadillacs.

A Chopin Ballade is not trashy; it is a masterpiece. But it is possible to play a Chopin Ballade in a trashy manner or in a questionable context.

I disagree. A Chopin Ballade is a masterpiece whether it is played at the philharmonic or in a brothel. It would be a masterpiece if the person playing it is in a tux and tails or is wearing silver lamay. This is just your snobbery acting up.

PBS found that the Lawrence Welk Show was good for drawing an audience that then watched very little other PBS programming, and that it was great for pledge drives.

Doesn't matter why they played him. The fact is that they did. It couldn't sell detergent so PBS picked it up, and squeezed maybe a few cents out of the GIs before they checked out.

All in all, Big Band music may be the greatest pop music ever written and performed.

As far as pop music goes, I'd agree.

[quote]There are groups reviving it on tour, which would be impossible if the generation which first performed and enjoyed it were the only generation capable of enjoying it. I have introduced Big Band music to Millennial youth... who liked it. They did not have to live exactly as did the now-largely-extinct GI generation to appreciate it.

Aesthetic quality crosses barriers of time and nation. As I heard on an NPR program, Beethoven doesn't have to be Japanese to be beloved in Japan. Japanese woodblock prints are very successful in Peru. /quote]

Sounds to me like you're making a straw-man here. I don't think anyone has implied that one had to have lived as the GIs did to enjoy big band. I certainly have not lived like a Lost Black Man (you know cause of desegregation and all) but I absolutely love 20s jazz and blues.

I would say that for millies, big band music is mostly something they could possibly geek out over, it will not of course necessarily speak to them. That being said, it is pretty good dance music generally--and way better than EDM because you don't need psychotropic drugs to dance to it (or are they just having seizures now..I can't really tell anymore I just know it is too damn loud).

I'm prone to playing games with trite statements. Of course, a red sky might add some expression to a painting. A green or lavender sky would simply be absurd. As for the polluted sky around Greater Los Angeles... the reddish-brown effect of a nasty pollutant is ugly in itself. Were I to paint a scene out of Greater Los Angeles I would excise the reddish-brown color that nitrogen dioxide imparts upon an image just as I would excise telephone wires,

In other words you're just being an ass. Got it.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't even understand Odin's critique. So I guess that's kinda funny too.

Eric admitting to not understanding something? I knew it was cold today but I didn't expect it was that cold.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

I am mostly a materialist, but not quite and that is me being honest. I was honest with the questionnaire. There have been a lot of questionable things that have happened in this house. Doors opening that are not in the position to be moved by wind that i literally have to kick open due to the wood swelling from the damp. kitchen taps being turned on and flooded the kitchen. No one in the house but me and i was in my room reading the whole time. Lights being turned on constantly through the night. That was in my mothers room and mine. No, the materialist view cannot explain this

No materialist explaination can be had if you've already eliminated poor construction, faulty electrics and plumbing. When I was living in New Jersey I did construction off and on. I had a client (a Boomer incidentally) who claimed her basement was haunted due to the light fixtures flickering and behaving oddly. The problem come to find out was that the lines had shorted.

and i still have no clue other than they happened and the unusual things i have seen. Luckily i have not seen for quite a while. I would say aww about ten years ago. I blocked it out. I cant remember the label the questionnaire gave me but it did not call me a materialist.

It doesn't matter. "Materialist" for Eric means anyone who doesn't believe whatever Woo he's peddling at that very moment.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You did not understand what I said; I don't think you watched the Sheldrake videos. Materialism is a philosophy; science is a method. Science correctly applied can help us understand anything, although not everything about anything. It has its limits and good uses. But it is not the only knowledge. The "science delusion" mentioned by Sheldrake is the notion that science can understand everything, and that religion and spirituality are useless. It is a belief in science rather than "God." Materialist assumptions in this "science delusion" are held up as "the truth" not to be questioned. You have made statements denying possible spiritual realities, or saying we should not pursue them as much now. If you wish to be more open-minded about spiritual things, then that's good IMO. If not, that's your choice too. I just caution about automatic assumptions that people make.

umm and how is belief in an imaginary sky god real? and how is spirituality and religion (a man made delusion) useful?

Originally Posted by Kinser79

No materialist explaination can be had if you've already eliminated poor construction, faulty electrics and plumbing. When I was living in New Jersey I did construction off and on. I had a client (a Boomer incidentally) who claimed her basement was haunted due to the light fixtures flickering and behaving oddly. The problem come to find out was that the lines had shorted.




It doesn't matter. "Materialist" for Eric means anyone who doesn't believe whatever Woo he's peddling at that very moment.

Yes, i could have said that about lighting too but one of the lights was a wall globe. Not connected to the mains. I could not explain how the tap was turned on. No one else was in the house and i was there awake the whole time. It flooded the kitchen, so that remains a mystery. And then the door. Now, this could be explained by wind, BUT the bathroom door was closed and the kitchen door swings in the opposite direction. Not in the direction that wind could interact with it (push it open). This door swells due to the damp and i have to kick it open about three times for it to even open. So, how did it with no one else in the house, open then close on its own? These are the physical things that have baffled me to this day.

You'll find this topic discussed in the video I posted; the second one and the link below it.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You'll find this topic discussed in the video I posted; the second one and the link below it.

ok i will give it a watch if it is discussing this topic

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You'll find this topic discussed in the video I posted; the second one and the link below it.

bloody hell it is nearly an hour long?! what is his point as i do not like something dragged on if it does not discuss something that is extremely interesting to me. I do not know his point.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

For me that one (The extreme materialist might be shallow, but might still be happy operating his bookmaking operation and living a more plush life than the typical factory worker.) is not true. My happiness comes from family and my furbabies. I suppose one could argue being rich and getting stuff could get rid of unhappiness but things cannot love you back. I think he was calling me a materialist for believing in science. Then again as i have mentioned, it has not explained everything that has happened to me and i know it would actually say it is not possible.

Good people could not stand to make a plush living by doing hurtful or horrible things to people. As Abraham Lincoln put it,

"As I would not be a slave, neither would I be a master".

I wouldn't get people to ruin their lives by betting on whether their team will win and suggesting that they confirm their beliefs by turning to loan sharks to supply the credit.

Poverty is miserable... but a wholesome economic order doesn't need much of it.

quite a few of these materialistic views he is listing i do not agree with due to experience. As you can tell by my type, i also go by what i sense and feel as well as have a good dose of trust in science. I am a mix.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

umm and how is belief in an imaginary sky god real? and how is spirituality and religion (a man made delusion) useful?

How can we make it useful? Or interpret it in such a way that it's useful? That's how I would ask it.

The sky god is a metaphor, an image. Lots of times people get confused and take the image as the reality. I don't know why that happens, except that most people are still not very evolved in their understanding. We are still a young species, only emerged from caves 10,000 years ago. That's an incredibly short time in the history of Earth. Imagine how much longer we may still be here, if we can learn to live in a sustainable and peaceful way. We have a lot to learn. If people want to think of God as our Daddy in the sky, its easier to grasp and it's easier to make it into an authority figure, which not-so-evolved people want, and which is suitable for social control.

I myself don't use the word "believe" for my relationship with God. Sheldrake used that phrase, as referring to a common saying among science believers: "I don't believe in God, I believe in science." And this belief in science instead of religion is a stage to go through, to go beyond "believing" in God and instead adopt a method supposed to be unprejudiced and non-authoritarian, verifiable by all. It frees us for a while from the oppressive and limiting tendencies of religious authority. It is a test for claims made, a test that is useful, and remains useful in many ways.

Saying religion and spirituality are man-made delusions, is a materialist position. That is your current opinion on those things. Delusions of course are not very useful, except perhaps for making horror movies. But those of us who see beyond materialism, or see more than it, don't look upon them as delusions, or imaginary. Our experience tells us that spirit is real, and that it's what we are. That is obvious to our awareness. It is useful to be more aware of this, because (as we see it) that's where wisdom and creative power are to be found. It is healing, it brings love, it brings us into harmony with life. It takes practice and discovery.

But to understand all that, would require doing more than perhaps you feel is relevant in our fourth turning times. These are not times of Awakening; so in fact in 4Ts it may take a bit of going against the grain and spirit of the times to find it. But Spirit can speak to us at any time, because it is eternal, it is our very self, and in healthy cultures it is always cultivated. Without this more-essential aspect of our being, we cannot really hope for success on the more worldly levels. The separation and dualism of our Western culture does not serve us well anymore. As Graham Hancock eloquently put it, this model is broken; it needs replacing.