Originally Posted by mockingbirdstl

And what point was that? That "angry, alienated" 3T music is "garbage" that will be regulated to the dustbin of history? I hate to say it, but the truth is you guys just got old. Our music was too intense for you. So because you couldn't feel it, you call it garbage. Now of course, many Boomers were more youthful and open to new ideas and experiences, and they could "get it."

Getting old is nothing to be ashamed of. Some of us Xers are starting to get old and out of touch now, too. Just have a little humility and perspective. Yours is not the only view out there, and it is certainly not the only correct view.



And I very much agree with this. But we can totally do without the Boomer morality police, regarding artistic expression.

Love this post so much!

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The "angry, alienated music" of recent times will become "attic clutter" -- still in nominal existence yet effectively ignored. But I speak of the "angry, alienated" music, and not of what will prove fun or otherwise attractive.



For many people, artistic endeavors are good for those who do them -- often tantamount to therapy. People do creative activities because such is their character. For the money? That is suspect.



True. Bach isn't for everyone. Goya isn't for everyone. Even Shakespeare isn't for everyone. But they all seem necessary for many.




I can't speak for Eric on this... but the line between 'pop' and 'sophisticated' can often blur. High culture has frequently reached to folk traditions to avoid going into the excessively-theoretical. Some of the greatest works of classical music of the 20th century are the folk-influenced string quartets of Bela Bartok and Dmitri Shostakovich. The most enduring pop music, that of the Beatles, shows the undeniable influence of the British folk tradition.

One of the 3T bands of the 90s was actually named Garbage. And produced some of the best music of the decade ("Queer", "I'm only happy when it rains", "Stupid Girl!") As for 3T music being "attic clutter", I wouldn't call Ragtime and Dixieland Jazz "attic clutter". They brought improvisation into music. And improvisation may come back, since the only way bands can stay in front of the downloading curve is to make every performance a little bit different than the last to motivate fans to collect them all.

Originally Posted by mockingbirdstl

And what point was that? That "angry, alienated" 3T music is "garbage" that will be regulated to the dustbin of history? I hate to say it, but the truth is you guys just got old. Our music was too intense for you. So because you couldn't feel it, you call it garbage. Now of course, many Boomers were more youthful and open to new ideas and experiences, and they could "get it."

Getting old is nothing to be ashamed of. Some of us Xers are starting to get old and out of touch now, too. Just have a little humility and perspective. Yours is not the only view out there, and it is certainly not the only correct view.

Surprise, surprise; I totally disagree! And I don't see why my "lack of humility" should bother you, when most people here agree with you. Mine is the voice crying in the wilderness of our times.

I certainly got out of touch, but that was a decision I made to tune it out because it got so bad. But I tuned in to more specialized kinds of music I was interested in (like ambient/new age), which Xers as well as Boomers contribute to, and still contribute to nicely today. I was preoccupied with my specialty, as well as classical music, and so I had no need to keep up with commercial and youth pop at that time. The 3T was a time when Boomers at least got more specialized in their interests.

Too intense! Well, that's nice, but Led Zeppelin and The Who satisfied the intensity scale of boomer youth music; I didn't need intensity that was reduced to mere shouting and noise and boredom, rather than uplifting beauty, sensitivity and artistry, as it was reduced to in much or most of American 3T pop and rock. But I am always open to hear music that is exceptional to this 3T trend.

I'm afraid it was not a question of my age. I appreciate today's pop probably more than any of you guys do.

So it's a question of a different attitude and philosophy of the times, based partly on Gen X's rejection of boomer ideals and experience. So I was just not in sympathy with the approach to "music" taken by most metal, punk, rap, grunge and commercial pop "artists" during the 3T, just as I was quite out of sympathy with the political trends of those times, which was usually supported by Xer youth too at that time (and unfortunately I am still out of sympathy with much of the political trend of today to the extent that it's GOP, and with Xer "younger generation" leaders who proclaim that their outdated 18th century philosophy is the "way of the future"-- e.g. Rubio, Cruz, Ryan, etc.).

And I see direct connections between the cynicism of 3T trickle-down economics, and the cynicism of a commercial music industry dominated by a few big commercial media moguls, a concentration of power justified by that same trickle-down economics, and the cynicism of "alternative" bands whose answer to their frustrations was to put out stuff that merely expressed noisy destructive anger, instead of a way out and up of our times toward wisdom and unfolding of human potential.

And I very much agree with this. But we can totally do without the Boomer morality police, regarding artistic expression.

Well I agree we don't need morality police, although from evidence here, the morality police includes all generations! But no we don't need another Tipper Gore, if that's what you mean. On the other hand, a lessening of the glamorous, oversexed pop of recent times is welcome to me.

But in general I had no comment on 3T or Xer youth music based on morality. My comments are about quality; and it's not police, just my opinion. I don't assume that all my opinions are correct, but they are my opinions as far as I know. And again, if you can show me music from the 3T that has quality, according to my understanding of that, I am always open to hear it. It's not all garbage, although I stand by my opinion so far too, unpopular here, that a certain song linked in my signature line far outshines anything I have heard going back to 1973, and that in general even the best of 3T American pop and rock does not come close to the music of the core early Awakening in those categories, and probably not to the best of earlier turnings either.

But people here are more likely to agree with you than with me, so why worry

And as I pointed out before too, it's not necessarily a generational put down on my part at all, because I like some of the new pop that some Xers are putting out. So, rather than necessarily generational or age-related, my preferences are based on quality as I understand it, and on different attitudes from those too prevalent, in my opinion, during the 3T.

And again, Mordecai, I mean this recent 3T (in commercial US pop and rock), not the jazz age or earlier 3Ts.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Surprise, surprise; I totally disagree! And I don't see why my "lack of humility" should bother you, when most people here agree with you. Mine is the voice crying in the wilderness of our times.

I certainly got out of touch, but that was a decision I made to tune it out because it got so bad. But I tuned in to more specialized kinds of music I was interested in (like ambient/new age), which Xers as well as Boomers contribute to, and still contribute to nicely today. I was preoccupied with my specialty, as well as classical music, and so I had no need to keep up with commercial and youth pop at that time. The 3T was a time when Boomers at least got more specialized in their interests.

Too intense! Well, that's nice, but Led Zeppelin and The Who satisfied the intensity scale of boomer youth music; I didn't need intensity that was reduced to mere shouting and noise and boredom, rather than uplifting beauty, sensitivity and artistry, as it was reduced to in much or most of American 3T pop and rock. But I am always open to hear music that is exceptional to this 3T trend.

I'm afraid it was not a question of my age. I appreciate today's pop probably more than any of you guys do.

So it's a question of a different attitude and philosophy of the times, based partly on Gen X's rejection of boomer ideals and experience. So I was just not in sympathy with the approach to "music" taken by most metal, punk, rap, grunge and commercial pop "artists" during the 3T, just as I was quite out of sympathy with the political trends of those times, which was usually supported by Xer youth too at that time (and unfortunately I am still out of sympathy with much of the political trend of today to the extent that it's GOP, and with Xer "younger generation" leaders who proclaim that their outdated 18th century philosophy is the "way of the future"-- e.g. Rubio, Cruz, Ryan, etc.).

And I see direct connections between the cynicism of 3T trickle-down economics, and the cynicism of a commercial music industry dominated by a few big commercial media moguls, a concentration of power justified by that same trickle-down economics, and the cynicism of "alternative" bands whose answer to their frustrations was to put out stuff that merely expressed noisy destructive anger, instead of a way out and up of our times toward wisdom and unfolding of human potential.



Well I agree we don't need morality police, although from evidence here, the morality police includes all generations! But no we don't need another Tipper Gore, if that's what you mean. On the other hand, a lessening of the glamorous, oversexed pop of recent times is welcome to me.

But in general I had no comment on 3T or Xer youth music based on morality. My comments are about quality; and it's not police, just my opinion. I don't assume that all my opinions are correct, but they are my opinions as far as I know. And again, if you can show me music from the 3T that has quality, according to my understanding of that, I am always open to hear it. It's not all garbage, although I stand by my opinion so far too, unpopular here, that a certain song linked in my signature line far outshines anything I have heard going back to 1973, and that in general even the best of 3T American pop and rock does not come close to the music of the core early Awakening in those categories, and probably not to the best of earlier turnings either.

But people here are more likely to agree with you than with me, so why worry

And as I pointed out before too, it's not necessarily a generational put down on my part at all, because I like some of the new pop that some Xers are putting out. So, rather than necessarily generational or age-related, my preferences are based on quality as I understand it, and on different attitudes from those too prevalent, in my opinion, during the 3T.

And again, Mordecai, I mean this recent 3T (in commercial US pop and rock), not the jazz age or earlier 3Ts.

Why do xers reject boomer ideals and experience? From listening to them I think it could partly be due to what they saw you guys get up to in your youth, but rejecting boomer ideals entirely is not doing society any justice. It is just creating a divisive and hateful environment that is stagnating. I wonder what we could do to bring the generations together to finally bring the 4T to a close.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

One of the 3T bands of the 90s was actually named Garbage. And produced some of the best music of the decade ("Queer", "I'm only happy when it rains", "Stupid Girl!") As for 3T music being "attic clutter", I wouldn't call Ragtime and Dixieland Jazz "attic clutter". They brought improvisation into music. And improvisation may come back, since the only way bands can stay in front of the downloading curve is to make every performance a little bit different than the last to motivate fans to collect them all.

Bands have given up on selling music. Songwriters still need to sell music, but today, bands are selling shows. We have a quasi-local act (Southern Culture on the Skids) that does roughly 50 shows a year in the immediate area, and tours the rest of the time. They also record, but it's more for promotion than income. That mates well with the Ragtime and Dixieland eras, where it was sheet music and shows ... with the shows paying the bills.

Coming out of the materialist/skeptic closet, with Dr. Sheldrake-- a real scientist.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

Why do xers reject boomer ideals and experience? From listening to them I think it could partly be due to what they saw you guys get up to in your youth, but rejecting boomer ideals entirely is not doing society any justice. It is just creating a divisive and hateful environment that is stagnating. I wonder what we could do to bring the generations together to finally bring the 4T to a close.

Generation X didn't really reject ideals or Boomers, that's just Eric's skewed perception. People on here make a lot of noise, but that's the nature of the beast; generation analysis tends to generalization which in these public forums can contribute to an "us vs them" mentality, and Eric is as much guilty as the rest of us, for all his "mindfulness." I had hoped, when I came to these forums earlier, that enough time had passed that older people might be more receptive to our generation's music--less reflexively condemning; but I guess not--not here at least. Perhaps more time needs to pass, or perhaps some from that generation never will understand.

As far as politics go, I suppose the reason Generation X tended to conservatism in their youth was because their parents were largely Silent Generation, who tended to be more conservative than Aquarian Boomers. Someone posted a chart on these forums some time back which illustrated voting patterns in America based upon the years in which people were born, and you could observe that Atari Xers tended to vote Republican while Nintendo Xers (the ones more likely to have Boomer parents) tended to vote Democrat. Speaking from my own personal experience (as someone in between the Ataris and the Nintendos), I had conservative, Silent Generation parents (though my dad was a Democrat in his youth), and at first I tended to have either conservative or indifferent views regarding politics until I grew older and more independent and better educated. I became strongly disillusioned by the Republicans during the Iraq War, and they haven't done anything to restore my confidence since then.

I should also point out, since Eric mentioned them, that Xers like Cruz and Rubio are hardly "rejecting Boomer ideals and experience," their rhetoric is in fact heir to the same kinds of ideologies of Boomer politicians like George W. Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, and Karl Rove, and Boomer right-wing pundits like Rush Limbaugh, that dominated the soul-crushing 2000s. So when you talk of Boomer ideology, you have to ask: what ideology was that?

Originally Posted by mockingbirdstl

Generation X didn't really reject ideals or Boomers, that's just Eric's skewed perception. People on here make a lot of noise, but that's the nature of the beast; generation analysis tends to generalization which in these public forums can contribute to an "us vs them" mentality, and Eric is as much guilty as the rest of us, for all his "mindfulness." I had hoped, when I came to these forums earlier, that enough time had passed that older people might be more receptive to our generation's music--less reflexively condemning; but I guess not--not here at least. Perhaps more time needs to pass, or perhaps some from that generation never will understand.

As far as politics go, I suppose the reason Generation X tended to conservatism in their youth was because their parents were largely Silent Generation, who tended to be more conservative than Aquarian Boomers. Someone posted a chart on these forums some time back which illustrated voting patterns in America based upon the years in which people were born, and you could observe that Atari Xers tended to vote Republican while Nintendo Xers (the ones more likely to have Boomer parents) tended to vote Democrat. Speaking from my own personal experience (as someone in between the Ataris and the Nintendos), I had conservative, Silent Generation parents (though my dad was a Democrat in his youth), and at first I tended to have either conservative or indifferent views regarding politics until I grew older and more independent and better educated. I became strongly disillusioned by the Republicans during the Iraq War, and they haven't done anything to restore my confidence since then.

I should also point out, since Eric mentioned them, that Xers like Cruz and Rubio are hardly "rejecting Boomer ideals and experience," their rhetoric is in fact heir to the same kinds of ideologies of Boomer politicians like George W. Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, and Karl Rove, and Boomer right-wing pundits like Rush Limbaugh, that dominated the soul-crushing 2000s. So when you talk of Boomer ideology, you have to ask: what ideology was that?

Guess I just listen too much to a lot of the xers here who seem to loathe boomers with a passion. I just do not see anything being done to bring the ideologies to life. Boomers are too busy screaming and I wonder if the xers even care at all. Here in NZ, our xers that I have seen are turned off and tune out of boomer ideology and I notice the same attitude with some xers here. And yes, I have noticed that Eric seems to have a chip on his shoulder regarding xers and especially a lot of their music which is odd to me. But then again, I am younger and I grew up with that wonderful xer music. I think what is really going on, thinking about it, xers are as divided as boomers are when it comes to what we should make of this world regarding ideals. Neither seems to want to compromise the bone they have their teeth sunk in.

Originally Posted by mockingbirdstl

Generation X didn't really reject ideals or Boomers, that's just Eric's skewed perception. People on here make a lot of noise, but that's the nature of the beast; generation analysis tends to generalization which in these public forums can contribute to an "us vs them" mentality, and Eric is as much guilty as the rest of us, for all his "mindfulness." I had hoped, when I came to these forums earlier, that enough time had passed that older people might be more receptive to our generation's music--less reflexively condemning; but I guess not--not here at least. Perhaps more time needs to pass, or perhaps some from that generation never will understand.

As far as politics go, I suppose the reason Generation X tended to conservatism in their youth was because their parents were largely Silent Generation, who tended to be more conservative than Aquarian Boomers. Someone posted a chart on these forums some time back which illustrated voting patterns in America based upon the years in which people were born, and you could observe that Atari Xers tended to vote Republican while Nintendo Xers (the ones more likely to have Boomer parents) tended to vote Democrat. Speaking from my own personal experience (as someone in between the Ataris and the Nintendos), I had conservative, Silent Generation parents (though my dad was a Democrat in his youth), and at first I tended to have either conservative or indifferent views regarding politics until I grew older and more independent and better educated. I became strongly disillusioned by the Republicans during the Iraq War, and they haven't done anything to restore my confidence since then.

I should also point out, since Eric mentioned them, that Xers like Cruz and Rubio are hardly "rejecting Boomer ideals and experience," their rhetoric is in fact heir to the same kinds of ideologies of Boomer politicians like George W. Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, and Karl Rove, and Boomer right-wing pundits like Rush Limbaugh, that dominated the soul-crushing 2000s. So when you talk of Boomer ideology, you have to ask: what ideology was that?

In my experience Atari Xers are on average just as shrill and preachy as Boomers, their preachiness is just more dark and cynical while Boomer preachiness tends towards the utopian and the ideal.

Also, I think the 2-saeculum pattern is evident, here. Boomers are an Atonement generation while Xers are an Advancement generation, and so Boomer preachiness and Xer preachiness target different things. Xer preachiness is both a throwback to the (advancement) GIs and a premonition of the next (advancement) Prophets.

Originally Posted by Taramarie

Guess I just listen too much to a lot of the xers here who seem to loathe boomers with a passion. I just do not see anything being done to bring the ideologies to life. Boomers are too busy screaming and I wonder if the xers even care at all. Here in NZ, our xers that I have seen are turned off and tune out of boomer ideology and I notice the same attitude with some xers here. And yes, I have noticed that Eric seems to have a chip on his shoulder regarding xers and especially a lot of their music which is odd to me. But then again, I am younger and I grew up with that wonderful xer music. I think what is really going on, thinking about it, xers are as divided as boomers are when it comes to what we should make of this world regarding ideals. Neither seems to want to compromise the bone they have their teeth sunk in.

Xers are actually more divided than Boomers. They have a red-blue (or alternatively black and white) false dichotomy as their narrative. One could argue that monochrome television impacted their thinking. Xers are much more diverse, more divided into various groups and subgroups of those groups. For us every culture has its own subculture and often subcultures of subcultures. We are broadcast in vibrant color as it were.

Originally Posted by mockingbirdstl

Generation X didn't really reject ideals or Boomers, that's just Eric's skewed perception. People on here make a lot of noise, but that's the nature of the beast; generation analysis tends to generalization which in these public forums can contribute to an "us vs them" mentality, and Eric is as much guilty as the rest of us, for all his "mindfulness." I had hoped, when I came to these forums earlier, that enough time had passed that older people might be more receptive to our generation's music--less reflexively condemning; but I guess not--not here at least. Perhaps more time needs to pass, or perhaps some from that generation never will understand.

What is fortunate is that some Xers are now making better music than they did in the 3T period. Since I mentioned that before, it should be plain that there is no "us vs. them" mentality in my case, or likely with others either. It is simply a matter of what we each hear as good music, or not. Music is not something to understand, but something to listen to. I can't tell myself that my perceptions lie. We can only go by what we hear. I can hope that you come to understand this.

As far as politics go, I suppose the reason Generation X tended to conservatism in their youth was because their parents were largely Silent Generation, who tended to be more conservative than Aquarian Boomers. Someone posted a chart on these forums some time back which illustrated voting patterns in America based upon the years in which people were born, and you could observe that Atari Xers tended to vote Republican while Nintendo Xers (the ones more likely to have Boomer parents) tended to vote Democrat. Speaking from my own personal experience (as someone in between the Ataris and the Nintendos), I had conservative, Silent Generation parents (though my dad was a Democrat in his youth), and at first I tended to have either conservative or indifferent views regarding politics until I grew older and more independent and better educated. I became strongly disillusioned by the Republicans during the Iraq War, and they haven't done anything to restore my confidence since then.

Xers were conservatives in youth because of the all-pervading influence of Ronald Reagan and his trickle-down, seemingly "libertarian" (but actually militarist) philosophy. But it was a ruse; not true, and some Xers realize that fact now. None of us can help absorbing some of society's lies when we are children. I did, and I grew out of them. So have some Xers. Their leading politicians, unfortunately, have not.

I should also point out, since Eric mentioned them, that Xers like Cruz and Rubio are hardly "rejecting Boomer ideals and experience," their rhetoric is in fact heir to the same kinds of ideologies of Boomer politicians like George W. Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, and Karl Rove, and Boomer right-wing pundits like Rush Limbaugh, that dominated the soul-crushing 2000s. So when you talk of Boomer ideology, you have to ask: what ideology was that?

The real Boomer ideals are from the Awakening, and not from the counter-awakening (what I call the sleepening, largely emerging in the late 2T) or from the Unravelling; not the Reaganoid delusions which are repeated by the Boomer and Xer fools you mentioned here. The real Awakening was something special and spectacular. Yet, in some sense, it always lives; is always there available to all. In the 2T, it was not only many Boomers but Silents and GIs too who awakened. I think those ideals are well-known enough that I should not have to make a list for you; you know them perfectly well. But, it is perfectly true, some Boomers did not awaken. Limbaugh is not only sleep-walking, he's sleep-talking.

International science based on LIGO

The Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory contributes a physics sound bite for the ages


http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip...E1PA8Z,EMYGZ,1


… "LIGO news stimulated interest worldwide. China Daily USA reported on 17 February that the news "has encouraged scientists around the world, with China set to accelerate research," and that "Chinese scientists are proposing a space gravitational wave detection project."Pakistan Today emphasized that the LIGO advance had involved Pakistani physicists Imran Khan and Nergis Mavalvala. In New Delhi, the Hindu, echoed by the Times of India, reported within a week of the news announcement that a “mega science proposal for research on gravitational waves” in collaboration with LIGO had received “in-principle approval” from the Indian government."...

I offer this line of thought not as a dogma (believe it or not), but as something I am considering and exploring. This is a possible way in which science and religion can come together within the New Paradigm.

As I understand it, the scientific method seeks to protect inquiry against subjective prejudice, and develop knowledge that can be replicated by any observer rather than just an observer who declares an opinion or proposes a theory.

To some extent, this approach dovetails with that of Buddhists, and monks in Buddhism, Christianity and other mystical religions. The aim of meditation is to quiet the mind and the feelings, so they are not dominated by personal fears and reactions, so that the seeker can see beyond individual ideas to a transcendental vision of the whole, a common experience of cosmic consciousness that anyone can gain through practice or mystical experience.

Thus, the view of each is to put aside personal "subjective" fears and delusions or individual opinions to gain knowledge that is replicable.

On the other hand, the approach of mystical religion or philosophy postulates the supremacy of the consciousness within over the "world" of apparent causes that are presumed to dominate the individual.

The old put-down of the "subjective" by science, as unreliable and something to put aside and not consider, is akin to the notion of "original sin" in religion, and may be the later version of it. The individual's own consciousness can't be trusted and has to be expunged and expelled from the Garden, as it were. Thus, imagination, free-will, creativity and self-reliance must all be subsumed and eliminated in favor of the objective, verifiable authority, whether of sacred text or replicated experiments.

But this confluence of the old paradigms of science and religion, is echoed by a similar confluence among the new paradigms.

In the new paradigm of science, the observer is brought back in as affecting the outcome of experiments. Objects appear like particles only when observed; otherwise as waves. Matter is not solid, but dissolved into energy and vibration. Non-locality and entanglement happen and complementarity is rampant.

The new spiritual paradigm affirms creativity as beyond replication, since empirical observation only can test for the already-created. Imagination is essential to understanding reality. Yet, freedom from prejudice and fear is still valued. To control and protect against compulsive states of mind, and thus attain spiritual freedom, does not conflict with scientific procedures of seeking validation beyond personal opinions and prejudices. But science cannot expel consciousness itself, and cannot explain it in empirical terms. Observer and observed become complementary and interdependent, as Buddhism has explained, and as the more-advanced (rather than the reactionary materialist) quantum theorists proclaim. "Subjective" Consciousness, which is creative and imaginative, is as much a part of the "objective" world, since the the objective world only exists within subjective consciousness.

The Christ in me greets the Christ in you. Namaste!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I offer this line of thought not as a dogma (believe it or not), but as something I am considering and exploring. This is a possible way in which science and religion can come together within the New Paradigm.

As I understand it, the scientific method seeks to protect inquiry against subjective prejudice, and develop knowledge that can be replicated by any observer rather than just an observer who declares an opinion or proposes a theory.

To some extent, this approach dovetails with that of Buddhists, and monks in Buddhism, Christianity and other mystical religions. The aim of meditation is to quiet the mind and the feelings, so they are not dominated by personal fears and reactions, so that the seeker can see beyond individual ideas to a transcendental vision of the whole, a common experience of cosmic consciousness that anyone can gain through practice or mystical experience.

Thus, the view of each is to put aside personal "subjective" fears and delusions or individual opinions to gain knowledge that is replicable.

On the other hand, the approach of mystical religion or philosophy postulates the supremacy of the consciousness within over the "world" of apparent causes that are presumed to dominate the individual.

The old put-down of the "subjective" by science, as unreliable and something to put aside and not consider, is akin to the notion of "original sin" in religion, and may be the later version of it. The individual's own consciousness can't be trusted and has to be expunged and expelled from the Garden, as it were. Thus, imagination, free-will, creativity and self-reliance must all be subsumed and eliminated in favor of the objective, verifiable authority, whether of sacred text or replicated experiments.

But this confluence of the old paradigms of science and religion, is echoed by a similar confluence among the new paradigms.

In the new paradigm of science, the observer is brought back in as affecting the outcome of experiments. Objects appear like particles only when observed; otherwise as waves. Matter is not solid, but dissolved into energy and vibration. Non-locality and entanglement happen and complementarity is rampant.

The new spiritual paradigm affirms creativity as beyond replication, since empirical observation only can test for the already-created. Imagination is essential to understanding reality. Yet, freedom from prejudice and fear is still valued. To control and protect against compulsive states of mind, and thus attain spiritual freedom, does not conflict with scientific procedures of seeking validation beyond personal opinions and prejudices. But science cannot expel consciousness itself, and cannot explain it in empirical terms. Observer and observed become complementary and interdependent, as Buddhism has explained, and as the more-advanced (rather than the reactionary materialist) quantum theorists proclaim. "Subjective" Consciousness, which is creative and imaginative, is as much a part of the "objective" world as the the objective world only exists within subjective consciousness.

The Christ in me greets the Christ in you. Namaste!

Religion should stay away from science as it is the total opposite of science. Science is exploring the physical world while religion is exploring the interior.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I offer this line of thought not as a dogma (believe it or not), but as something I am considering and exploring. This is a possible way in which science and religion can come together within the New Paradigm.

As I understand it, the scientific method seeks to protect inquiry against subjective prejudice, and develop knowledge that can be replicated by any observer rather than just an observer who declares an opinion or proposes a theory.

To some extent, this approach dovetails with that of Buddhists, and monks in Buddhism, Christianity and other mystical religions. The aim of meditation is to quiet the mind and the feelings, so they are not dominated by personal fears and reactions, so that the seeker can see beyond individual ideas to a transcendental vision of the whole, a common experience of cosmic consciousness that anyone can gain through practice or mystical experience.

Thus, the view of each is to put aside personal "subjective" fears and delusions or individual opinions to gain knowledge that is replicable.

On the other hand, the approach of mystical religion or philosophy postulates the supremacy of the consciousness within over the "world" of apparent causes that are presumed to dominate the individual.

The old put-down of the "subjective" by science, as unreliable and something to put aside and not consider, is akin to the notion of "original sin" in religion, and may be the later version of it. The individual's own consciousness can't be trusted and has to be expunged and expelled from the Garden, as it were. Thus, imagination, free-will, creativity and self-reliance must all be subsumed and eliminated in favor of the objective, verifiable authority, whether of sacred text or replicated experiments.

But this confluence of the old paradigms of science and religion, is echoed by a similar confluence among the new paradigms.

In the new paradigm of science, the observer is brought back in as affecting the outcome of experiments. Objects appear like particles only when observed; otherwise as waves. Matter is not solid, but dissolved into energy and vibration. Non-locality and entanglement happen and complementarity is rampant.

The new spiritual paradigm affirms creativity as beyond replication, since empirical observation only can test for the already-created. Imagination is essential to understanding reality. Yet, freedom from prejudice and fear is still valued. To control and protect against compulsive states of mind, and thus attain spiritual freedom, does not conflict with scientific procedures of seeking validation beyond personal opinions and prejudices. But science cannot expel consciousness itself, and cannot explain it in empirical terms. Observer and observed become complementary and interdependent, as Buddhism has explained, and as the more-advanced (rather than the reactionary materialist) quantum theorists proclaim. "Subjective" Consciousness, which is creative and imaginative, is as much a part of the "objective" world as the the objective world only exists within subjective consciousness.

The Christ in me greets the Christ in you. Namaste!

Although the goal of scientists is to be objective , they are human and many times subjective bias creeps in. Hopefully, over the long run, these subjective errors will be caught and eliminated. But this requires constant vigilance.


There has been a lot of research on consciousness, but I don’t see any consensus.


The effects of observation on matter does show up for small scale particles. This effect is not seen for ordinary objects such as a salt shaker.

http://www.gizmag.com/quantum-theory-reality-anu/37866/


… "Researchers working at the Australian National University (ANU) have conducted an experiment that helps bolster the ever-growing evidence surrounding the weird causal properties inherent in quantum theory. In short, they have shown that reality does not actually exist until it is measured – at atomic scales, at least.”…


: http://phys.org/news/2015-03-particle.html#jCp
… "Quantum mechanics tells us that light can behave simultaneously as a particle or a wave. However, there has never been an experiment able to capture both natures of light at the same time; the closest we have come is seeing either wave or particle, but always at different times. Taking a radically different experimental approach, EPFL scientists have now been able to take the first ever snapshot of light behaving both as a wave and as a particle.”…

Originally Posted by radind

Although the goal of scientists is to be objective , they are human and many times subjective bias creeps in. Hopefully, over the long run, these subjective errors will be caught and eliminated. But this requires constant vigilance.

Science can refine its results. But the objects studied are always changing, so in many cases new experiments and new frameworks are always needed. Objective proof is always uncertain, to some extent. Exact objective knowledge is impossible, and supposed laws are really only habits or patterns of behavior. But that does not make science wrong.

There has been a lot of research on consciousness, but I don’t see any consensus.

Yes; there can't be consensus, unless consciousness is recognized for what it is; basic and central, yet not explainable with conventional empirical methods. Consciousness can't be made into an object. The subjective/objective wall needs to crumble before any understanding of consciousness can be gained. Science can't expect the non-objective to be objective.

The effects of observation on matter does show up for small scale particles. This effect is not seen for ordinary objects such as a salt shaker.

Nevertheless, if all objects consist of the smaller level of reality, it is true of the larger. Science will progress once we get out of the idea of assuming that everything is objective. That is impossible because the objective presumes the subjective. Science is the work of scientists. That doesn't just mean that there is always possible bias. It means science is inherently limited without the other modes of knowledge. The sacred and the conscious is always there, in everything, and requires a different mode of study.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Science can refine its results. But the objects studied are always changing, so in many cases new experiments and new frameworks are always needed. Objective proof is always uncertain, to some extent. Exact objective knowledge is impossible, and supposed laws are really only habits or patterns of behavior. But that does not make science wrong.

My point is that I have heard of cases and seen a few personally where the subjective judgment of the scientists was put into so called scientific results( usually this involved the interpretation of data rather than disputes about the actual raw data). The resulting reports were wrong and correction required time and effort by others.
Eventually most of this is corrected, but there is no way to know if all the subjective inputs have been removed.
Scientists are still human even if they don't all admit to this.

Originally Posted by radind

My point is that I have heard of cases and seen a few personally where the subjective judgment of the scientists was put into so called scientific results( usually this involved the interpretation of data rather than disputes about the actual raw data). The resulting reports were wrong and correction required time and effort by others.
Eventually most of this is corrected, but there is no way to know if all the subjective inputs have been removed.
Scientists are still human even if they don't all admit to this.

The case of cholesterol is illustrative. Of a lot of things including the general public's misunderstanding of it.

The Framingham study found a correlation between total serum cholesterol and heart disease. For a long time, because of that, doctors and others assumed that cholesterol "caused" heart disease.

This led to people decreasing the cholesterol in their diets, etc. Then more research revealed that there was more than one kind of cholesterol, some "good" and some "bad." And further, it turned out that things like exercise improved the amount of "good."

As changes and modifications came about, the MSM and the public said, "Well, crap. These damn scientists can't make up their damned minds. What's wrong with them? Is cholesterol bad or not?" Which illustrates their total misunderstanding of the process of science.

And just recently we found out that the cholesterol in our diet really isn't much of a problem; it's the cholesterol that our liver synthesizes. Further, it turns out that the cholesterol in eggs, once thought to be pure poison (!) is a different kind that doesn't harm us much at all.

A cool example of how science works. My favorite of all time is the Phlogiston Theory!! Look that one up if you want a GREAT science story!!

Originally Posted by TnT

The case of cholesterol is illustrative. Of a lot of things including the general public's misunderstanding of it.

The Framingham study found a correlation between total serum cholesterol and heart disease. For a long time, because of that, doctors and others assumed that cholesterol "caused" heart disease.

This led to people decreasing the cholesterol in their diets, etc. Then more research revealed that there was more than one kind of cholesterol, some "good" and some "bad." And further, it turned out that things like exercise improved the amount of "good."

As changes and modifications came about, the MSM and the public said, "Well, crap. These damn scientists can't make up their damned minds. What's wrong with them? Is cholesterol bad or not?" Which illustrates their total misunderstanding of the process of science.

And just recently we found out that the cholesterol in our diet really isn't much of a problem; it's the cholesterol that our liver synthesizes. Further, it turns out that the cholesterol in eggs, once thought to be pure poison (!) is a different kind that doesn't harm us much at all.

A cool example of how science works. My favorite of all time is the Phlogiston Theory!! Look that one up if you want a GREAT science story!!

Good points. One of my favorite examples is the "extramission theory" of vision.

Something to ponder.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/?utm_source=Quanta+Magazine&utm_campaign=15ed4a68f a-Quanta_Newsletter_Feb_27_2015&utm_medium=email&utm _term=0_f0cb61321c-15ed4a68fa-389398509




… “we realize with a jolt that what we perceive is never the world directly, but rather our brain’s best guess at what that world is like, a kind of internal simulation of an external reality.”…


… "The formal theory of conscious agents I’ve been developing is computationally universal — in that sense, it’s a machine theory. And it’s because the theory is computationally universal that I can get all of cognitive science and neural networks back out of it. Nevertheless, for now I don’t think we are machines — in part because I distinguish between the mathematical representation and the thing being represented. As a conscious realist, I am postulating conscious experiences as ontological primitives, the most basic ingredients of the world. I’m claiming that experiences are the real coin of the realm. The experiences of everyday life — my real feeling of a headache, my real taste of chocolate — that really is the ultimate nature of reality.”

more to ponder:

" … “we realize with a jolt that what we perceive is never the world directly, but rather our brain’s best guess at what that world is like, a kind of internal simulation of an external reality.”… "

Since we extend beyond our brain, perception is not localized. Whatever we see, we are simply there. There are no representation of reality in the brain. There is no little virtual things or people inside us; we just see. We are there. We extend outward beyond our body to the ends of the universe, and all the universe is inside us.

Is your mind inside your brain?
https://youtu.be/mR1SLQwHDog?t=37m56s

" … "The formal theory of conscious agents I’ve been developing is computationally universal — in that sense, it’s a machine theory. And it’s because the theory is computationally universal that I can get all of cognitive science and neural networks back out of it. Nevertheless, for now I don’t think we are machines — in part because I distinguish between the mathematical representation and the thing being represented. As a conscious realist, I am postulating conscious experiences as ontological primitives, the most basic ingredients of the world. I’m claiming that experiences are the real coin of the realm. The experiences of everyday life — my real feeling of a headache, my real taste of chocolate — that really is the ultimate nature of reality.” "

The conscious experiences of everyday life are the ontological primitives indeed. We are not machines, then. The ontological basis of our lives is not cause and effect mechanical processes, but our being here and now. And there's no reason we have to restrict our idea of conscious experience to the experiences of the senses; like tasting chocolate or feeling a headache. Our immediate experience includes the senses, but the senses by themselves are just objects. As objects, they are objects of our experience; not subjects. So, there's the deeper and more fundamental aspect of our immediate experience and being-- ourselves. Our soul or spirit, as it's usually called. Without it, there's no sensation of chocolate at all. With it, we can shift our consciousness to that aspect of us that is pure and perfect, and this is a healing experience for us.

How our materialist assumptions screwed up our worldview and our way of life:
https://youtu.be/mR1SLQwHDog

Originally Posted by radind

My point is that I have heard of cases and seen a few personally where the subjective judgment of the scientists was put into so called scientific results( usually this involved the interpretation of data rather than disputes about the actual raw data). The resulting reports were wrong and correction required time and effort by others.
Eventually most of this is corrected, but there is no way to know if all the subjective inputs have been removed.
Scientists are still human even if they don't all admit to this.

And perhaps the more important point is that being human is the good and the fundamental, essential thing for any scientist to remember.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

more to ponder:

" … “we realize with a jolt that what we perceive is never the world directly, but rather our brain’s best guess at what that world is like, a kind of internal simulation of an external reality.”… "

Since we extend beyond our brain, perception is not localized. Whatever we see, we are simply there. There are no representation of reality in the brain. There is no little virtual things or people inside us; we just see. We are there. We extend outward beyond our body to the ends of the universe, and all the universe is inside us.

Is your mind inside your brain?
https://youtu.be/mR1SLQwHDog?t=37m56s

" … "The formal theory of conscious agents I’ve been developing is computationally universal — in that sense, it’s a machine theory. And it’s because the theory is computationally universal that I can get all of cognitive science and neural networks back out of it. Nevertheless, for now I don’t think we are machines — in part because I distinguish between the mathematical representation and the thing being represented. As a conscious realist, I am postulating conscious experiences as ontological primitives, the most basic ingredients of the world. I’m claiming that experiences are the real coin of the realm. The experiences of everyday life — my real feeling of a headache, my real taste of chocolate — that really is the ultimate nature of reality.” "

The conscious experiences of everyday life are the ontological primitives indeed. We are not machines, then. The ontological basis of our lives is not cause and effect mechanical processes, but our being here and now. And there's no reason we have to restrict our idea of conscious experience to the experiences of the senses; like tasting chocolate or feeling a headache. Our immediate experience includes the senses, but the senses by themselves are just objects. As objects, they are objects of our experience; not subjects. So, there's the deeper and more fundamental aspect of our immediate experience and being-- ourselves. Our soul or spirit, as it's usually called. Without it, there's no sensation of chocolate at all. With it, we can shift our consciousness to that aspect of us that is pure and perfect, and this is a healing experience for us.

How our materialist assumptions screwed up our worldview and our way of life:
https://youtu.be/mR1SLQwHDog

The links are interesting and I like his distinction between science as a methodology and science as a worldview. I have problems with some of Sheldrake's views( for example, I don't think that the sun is conscious) , but also reject a pure materialistic worldview.
I will continue with my attempt at a Christian worldview.

Originally Posted by radind

The links are interesting and I like his distinction between science as a methodology and science as a worldview. I have problems with some of Sheldrake's views (for example, I don't think that the sun is conscious), but also reject a pure materialistic worldview.
I will continue with my attempt at a Christian worldview.

Good, and thanks for watching the videos. I think one of the hallmarks of a Christian, religious, or spiritual worldview, is that we are souls, and that we are created by, or a part of, a greater spiritual being. That means we are conscious beings, and that this consciousness can't be swept under the rug and ignored, even if science can't explain it. Our consciousness or the soul is divine, so materialism cannot explain it.

I understand why you would not agree that the Sun is conscious. I think Sheldrake does not mean self-conscious and deliberate like a human being, but consciousness or mind on a lower level or of a different kind, as in the pan-psychism which he promotes. An important point that evolutionary philosophers like Teilhard de Chardin have made, is that whatever we come from, and are a part of, must have what we have on some level. Conscious souls don't come from unconscious matter. Whatever consciousness we experience in ourselves, must be extended in our worldview to all beings. I agree with that point of view that these philosophers express.

I think his point that we perceive things as they are, where they are, and not just virtually in our brains, is an important corrective. The result of belief in the traditional materialist model of perception is alienation. We think we're separate from what we see and feel. We think it's not part of who we are. Thus we feel entitled to use it or destroy it for our own ends, since it's not part of us. But we are not separate, and the world that we perceive is connected to us and we are a part of it. There is no intermediate process, even if something is happening in the brain that accompanies sensation; we are just here, and conscious.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Good, and thanks for watching the videos. I think one of the hallmarks of a Christian, religious, or spiritual worldview, is that we are souls, and that we are created by, or a part of, a greater spiritual being. That means we are conscious beings, and that this consciousness can't be swept under the rug and ignored, even if science can't explain it. Our consciousness or the soul is divine, so materialism cannot explain it.

I understand why you would not agree that the Sun is conscious. I think Sheldrake does not mean self-conscious and deliberate like a human being, but consciousness or mind on a lower level or of a different kind, as in the pan-psychism which he promotes. An important point that evolutionary philosophers like Teilhard de Chardin have made, is that whatever we come from, and are a part of, must have what we have on some level. Conscious souls don't come from unconscious matter. Whatever consciousness we experience in ourselves, must be extended in our worldview to all beings. I agree with that point of view that these philosophers express.

I think his point that we perceive things as they are, where they are, and not just virtually in our brains, is an important corrective. The result of belief in the traditional materialist model of perception is alienation. We think we're separate from what we see and feel. We think it's not part of who we are. Thus we feel entitled to use it or destroy it for our own ends, since it's not part of us. But we are not separate, and the world that we perceive is connected to us and we are a part of it. There is no intermediate process, even if something is happening in the brain that accompanies sensation; we are just here, and conscious.

You know what? You would be a good wiccan.