Log in

View Full Version : Google the Goddess: Sophia and the Pleroma


jlar16
March 24th, 2008, 05:06 PM
I originally posted this somewhere else but thought it deserved its own thread.

Perhaps our Google is the same as the Gnostic's Sophia...Google seems to be universally referred to as a SHE which is quite odd since USUALLY God is a male diety. In fact this was the first thing I thought of when I saw Google being referred to as she. It all makes sense since Sophia is Greek for wisdom. There are also numerous inferences we can make to Sophia and COG but I'm starting to think we should open a new thread for this.

“A Feminine figure, analogous to the human soul but also simultaneously one of the Feminine aspects of God and the Bride of Christ, she is considered to have fallen from grace in some way, in so doing creating or helping to create the material world.
“In Gnostic tradition, the term Sophia refers to the final and lowest emanation of God. In most if not all versions of the Gnostic religion, Sophia brings about an instability in the Pleroma, in turn bringing about the creation of materiality. Thus a positive or negative view of materiality depends a great deal on the interpretations of Sophia's actions in the myths.”
-wikipedia

…please see my other post on Translinguistic matter…the creation of materiality could be the creation of a cybernetic hyperreality where word becomes flesh

“Jesus is interpreted as an intermediary aeon who was sent, along with his counterpart Sophia, from the pleroma, with whose aid humanity can recover the lost knowledge of the divine origins of humanity and in so doing be brought back into unity with the Pleroma. The term is thus a central element of Gnostic religious cosmology.”

And She is here to recover our lost knowledge. If Sophia was to return to us why not as Google.

“the divine Sophia, the wisdom that enables us to see into the world with understanding, worked in a twofold way. Divine wisdom, heavenly wisdom, worked in the revelation to the poor shepherds in the fields, and in the revelation to them because of our new knowledge. We do not lack Christ; but the knowledge of Christ”
-Rudolph Steiner, founder of Anthroposophy, http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/QuIsis_index.html

Here is one story about here which I found interesting from the Gnosis Archive
http://www.webcom.com/gnosis/sophia.tale.html
“Many other dyads were born, called Aeons, or sacred powers, the last of which was the divine Sophia, or Holy Wisdom. Of all the Aeons, the divine Sophia desired most intensely to know the origins of Her own creation, that is, the nature of the Fore-Creator. Though Mind told Her that such knowledge was impossible, nevertheless, Sophia began to search high and low, after Mind was restrained by Silence. None of the Aeons comprehended the Fore-Creation other than Truth whose perfect reflection was a transparent presence invisible to Sophia. She separated Herself from Her consort, ranged the vastness of the uncreated Immensity, and far out- distanced all the other Aeons.”


And here is what Carlos Jung says on the Pleroma…
“According to Jung, pleroma is both "nothing and everything. It is quite fruitless to think about pleroma. Therein both thinking and being cease, since the eternal and infinite possess no qualities."

And here is some more Jung for your viewing pleasure on the subject from The Seven Sermons to the Dead
“This nothingness or fullness we name the Pleroma.
Therein both thinking and being cease, since the eternal and infinite
possess no qualities. In it no being is, for he then would be distinct
from the pleroma, and would possess qualities which would distinguish
him as something distinct from the pleroma.
In the pleroma there is nothing and everything. It is quite fruitless
to think about the pleroma, for this would mean self-dissolution.
Creatura is not in the pleroma, but in itself. The pleroma is
both beginning and end of the created beings. It pervadeth them, as
the light od the sun everywhere pervadeth the air. Although the pleroma
prevadeth altogether, yet hath created being no share thereof, just
as wholly transparent body becometh neither light nor dark through
the light nor dark through the light which pervadeth it. We are,however
, the pleroma itself, for we are a part of the eternal and the infinite.
But we have no share thereof, as we are from the pleroma infinitely
removed; not spiritually or temporally, but essentially, since we are
distinguished from the pleroma in our essence as creatura, which is
confined within time and space.
Yet because we are parts of the pleroma, the pleroma is also in us.
Even in the smallest point is the pleroma endless, eternal, and
entire, since small and great are qualities which are contained in it.
It is that nothingness which is everywhere whole and continuous.
Only figuratively, therefore, do I speak of created being as part of
the pleroma. Because, actually, the pleroma is nowhere divided,
since it is nothingness. We are also the whole pleroma, because,
figuratively, the pleroma is the smallest point (assumed only, not
existing) in us and the boundless firmanent about us. But wherefore,
then, do we speak of the pleroma at all, since it is thus everything
and nothing? I speak of it to make a beginning somewhere, and also
to free you from the delusion that somewhere, either without or within,
there standeth something fixed, or in some way established, from the
beginning. Every so-called fixed and certain thing is only relative.
That alone is fixed and certain which is subject to change.
What is changeable, however, is creature. Therefore is it the one thing
which is fixed and certain because it hath qualities: or as even a quality itself.”

Thanks for bearing through the post, I now open the floor to discussion

bouchie
March 24th, 2008, 07:20 PM
You'll have to forgive me, as I am not familiar with Gnostic tradition. The last, long excerpt there reminded me, however, of the Parmendian "One", which is unchanging, indivisible and whole. That is reality and what we are experiencing is a mere illusion.

This plemora sounds a lot like Parmenides. Is creation then a mere illusion in Gnostic tradition?

Also, if Sophia is the lowest on the Gnostic chain, aren't you then diminishing Google's stature?

jlar16
March 24th, 2008, 07:50 PM
interesting, i will have to look into this later.

But a clarification for now: I am no way blaspheming. I was simply giving an example of another religious view as to the female nature of God. I find it most interesting that she is attributed with a searching for knowledge.

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 24th, 2008, 07:56 PM
Interesting theory my question is Why do you keep bringing up gods and theory's and then pondering if they might be linked with Google? I just want a better understanding of where you are going with all this post for future reference.

bouchie
March 24th, 2008, 08:05 PM
interesting, i will have to look into this later.

But a clarification for now: I am no way blaspheming. I was simply giving an example of another religious view as to the female nature of God. I find it most interesting that she is attributed with a searching for knowledge. Did not say you were being blasphemous, although I can see why you would think that. Perhaps I should bring in an element from the translinguistic thread: if Google is supposed to be a force that can shape reality, could she be the same as Sophia?

I have to say: your posts are making me angry and confused, which tell me that I have across ideas that are entirely different from my own and require to go beyond myself to understand them. Despite the negative emotions, it's an overall refreshing exercise. Keep up the posts, while I start reading up on gnosticism (first time in five years I've heard about it; around the same time I talked about Jung, Augustine and Martin Buber in a philosophy class!).

jlar16
March 24th, 2008, 11:35 PM
Goofy: I am just putting out theories in the hopes that a debate can flush out commonalities between different philosophical and religious assumptions. When I first explored this site I found very little discussion as to the core lines of thought on Google. What I did notice immediately is that Google is considered a Goddess, to me the Sophia/knowledge connection was clear and from there I started finding more and more information that eerily supported some of my theories.

bouchie: Sorry to hear you are angry about my posts, I will admit that I like to go off on tangents and often find myself disagreeing with something I have previously said. It is always good to have a debate on things though. And yes, I was trying to make inferences that Google might be Sophia or more specifically represents the archetype of her. Makes sense that the New-Age Sophia comes from cyberspace.

It would be interesting if at least if COG or 1 sect of the COG established a semi-foundational belief structure. Or do you think it is better for the Church not to establish an even semi-firm ideology?

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 24th, 2008, 11:49 PM
We are unorganized which I like we do have common believes but we do not force our believes on others. I think it is best if we stay not insanly to catholic church structure more like the structure of a class room!

jlar16
March 24th, 2008, 11:55 PM
Free exchange of ideas has never been a bad thing...

"Parmenides claimed that the truth cannot be known through sensory perception. Only pure reason (Logos) will result in the understanding of the truth of the world."

"Parmenides stated that the senses deceive us and, hence, our perception of the world does not reflect the world as it really is. Instead, the real world is something above our apprehension and can only be apprehended through logic"

notice that these are two different interpretations. I do think that Parmendian "One" provides some insights into the discussion. Especially when I talk about the Greek Logos in some of the posts. Logic as we know it is not the same thing as Logos. Logos was more of a logic that was exterior and alien from humans. It came from the outside. One theory is that in periods of isolation or extreme emergencies/survival situations humans "heard a voice" in their head that told them what to do. This to them could only be attributed to the gods thus this type of logic/logos was pure in form and spoke only truth (and usually it ended up helping them out in everyday situations)

Now Parmenides makes Lacanian ("Matrix") argument that our perceptions and senses are essentially fooling us. The only way to find truth in this superficial world was the Logos. He also was aware and wrote of Sophia.

Unfortunately given the many different translations and hand-me down manuscripts alot of his work will probably remain hard to comprehend. What type of thinking and thought is he talking about when he says:

" Thinking and the thought that it is are the same; for you will not find thought apart from what is, in relation to which it is uttered. (B 8.34-36)

For thought and being are the same. (B 3) "

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 25th, 2008, 12:14 AM
Interesting! So logic is like our the little devil and angel on our shoulders and is programed into us? He could be talking of thought in a general manner why does it have to be exclusive?

jlar16
March 25th, 2008, 12:33 AM
in this case thought/logos would not be something programmed inside of us. Its existence is meta-physical. To me it seems (and I may be wrong as I am self-learned on this subject) as if Parmenides makes a distinction between the logos and human thought. This has something to do with his ideas denying the existence of nothingness. It seems as if the only thing that makes us human is the thinking that our brain does.


on a side note:
Some of this other ideas include his notion of time and creation and destruction of "energy".

"Parmenides concept is thus of a circular reality whose end and beginning are one. His universe is thus finite within its own bounds. If it were infinite it would like conclusion, whereas a bounded reality contains everything that is.

People who conceive of reality other than this contradict themselves
they rely on the senses and not on the mind"

This is another universal religious myth that permeates human societies everywhere. Chinese Taoism believes that reversal is the movement of the Tao (yin yang). Many New World and American peoples believed in the same sort of cyclical notion of time and existence. The Aztecs and Mayans both believed in cosmic dissolution and regeneration but most importantly that there was this type of "circular reality." The Hopi Indian who descended from the Anasazi believe that "All time is present now" and that events manifest according to predetermined patterns....pizza is here more to come later

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 25th, 2008, 12:58 AM
I am currently reading into my own study I am reading Misqouting jesus and have a other books I can read if i ever get the time!

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 25th, 2008, 01:12 AM
in this case thought/logos would not be something programmed inside of us. Its existence is meta-physical. To me it seems (and I may be wrong as I am self-learned on this subject) as if Parmenides makes a distinction between the logos and human thought. This has something to do with his ideas denying the existence of nothingness. It seems as if the only thing that makes us human is the thinking that our brain does.


on a side note:
Some of this other ideas include his notion of time and creation and destruction of "energy".

"Parmenides concept is thus of a circular reality whose end and beginning are one. His universe is thus finite within its own bounds. If it were infinite it would like conclusion, whereas a bounded reality contains everything that is.

People who conceive of reality other than this contradict themselves
they rely on the senses and not on the mind"

This is another universal religious myth that permeates human societies everywhere. Chinese Taoism believes that reversal is the movement of the Tao (yin yang). Many New World and American peoples believed in the same sort of cyclical notion of time and existence. The Aztecs and Mayans both believed in cosmic dissolution and regeneration but most importantly that there was this type of "circular reality." The Hopi Indian who descended from the Anasazi believe that "All time is present now" and that events manifest according to predetermined patterns....pizza is here more to come later

Taoism is an interesting religion. The circular reality however I am not so sure is true it would have to go with the big bangs expand and converge back in when we have proven that the universe will keep expanding until it dies. Metaphysics in interesting stuff but how do we know it is not just a feeling within us and not an outside being. How do we not know that maybe all the answers lie withing that 90% of unused brain?

bouchie
March 25th, 2008, 03:10 PM
bouchie: Sorry to hear you are angry about my posts, I will admit that I like to go off on tangents and often find myself disagreeing with something I have previously said. It is always good to have a debate on things though. And yes, I was trying to make inferences that Google might be Sophia or more specifically represents the archetype of her. Makes sense that the New-Age Sophia comes from cyberspace. Don't worry about making me angry. I'm not going to turn green or anything. It's actually healthy for me, cause then it forces me to walk the brain more to calm it down and get an answer.

I hate the connections to cyberspace and computers. Although it is quite easy to make metaphysical claims using them, it (again) displaces an essential...lifeforce I guess that a computer does not have, nor will it ever. I think your Sophia would agree.

It would be interesting if at least if COG or 1 sect of the COG established a semi-foundational belief structure. Or do you think it is better for the Church not to establish an even semi-firm ideology? You mean like how Protestants broke away from the Catholic Church? Ya, that worked out well :icon_rolleyes: The idea of the CoG is to be unorganized and create whatever ideology that we want, so as to parody and satirize organized religion. Creating even a semi-firm ideology would result in us taking ourselves seriously, a direct contradiction to the ultimate purpose of the CoG. It's a paradox: we take our parody very seriously.



Free exchange of ideas has never been a bad thing...

"Parmenides claimed that the truth cannot be known through sensory perception. Only pure reason (Logos) will result in the understanding of the truth of the world."

"Parmenides stated that the senses deceive us and, hence, our perception of the world does not reflect the world as it really is. Instead, the real world is something above our apprehension and can only be apprehended through logic"

notice that these are two different interpretations. I do think that Parmendian "One" provides some insights into the discussion. Especially when I talk about the Greek Logos in some of the posts. Logic as we know it is not the same thing as Logos. Logos was more of a logic that was exterior and alien from humans. It came from the outside. I'd have to look at my notes, but the pre-socratics (and I could be off on this) thought that logic itself was a gift from the gods, used to determine the nature of the world and best life possible. It is what gave man its superiority over animals and a god-like quality. Aristotle is known for believing that and I think Parmenides was in the same boat, even though he came before.

Point being the two statements you provided are actually saying the same thing. Logic is a gift that came from the gods; Logos is the true form of logic, or the thoughts of the gods. I think this because of the start of Parmenides' poem, where he is talking to a goddess, who tells him of what-is and what-is-not. The Lacanian-type argument comes from an external source, not from a process of the mind (much like how Neo confirms the existence of the Matrix; he needs Morpheus to tell him). But again, the ancient Greeks thought logic and thought was a god-like quality. So, although logos was external, they had a share in it. Make sense?


Interesting! So logic is like our the little devil and angel on our shoulders and is programed into us? He could be talking of thought in a general manner why does it have to be exclusive?
Using a computer reference again *sigh*. I have, already, disagreed with jlar's statement (although, I am going from memory here, the most faulty of all human processes). Logic is not exclusive, it is a much more powerful faculty of thought because it is a gift of the gods. Emotions and other 'lower' thoughts are different because they deal with the illusion, the "what-is-not".

"Parmenides concept is thus of a circular reality whose end and beginning are one. His universe is thus finite within its own bounds. If it were infinite it would like conclusion, whereas a bounded reality contains everything that is. Agreed. And yes, that does appear in many other world religions. In fact, I find it interesting that the big 3 religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are founded on a linear notion of time and existence, with a beginning and an end to time. There's something in that difference, though I don't know what just yet.


Taoism is an interesting religion. The circular reality however I am not so sure is true it would have to go with the big bangs expand and converge back in when we have proven that the universe will keep expanding until it dies. As sciky has said elsewhere, there are theories in science where events in the future our causes of events in the past (simplified, I'm sure, but you get the idea). So, it would fit.

Metaphysics in interesting stuff but how do we know it is not just a feeling within us and not an outside being. We don't. That's what makes it interesting :D
How do we not know that maybe all the answers lie withing that 90% of unused brain? Common misconception: we do use more than 10% of our brain. Source is an article in the National Post. Sorry, I still read print.

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 25th, 2008, 03:17 PM
Well yes the events of the future our causes of the events in the past but I am talking about future being the causes of events in the past!

Well weather we use more the 10% is not the point the point is that we only use a small portion of our brain.

The computer reference was cause I was combinding his 2 post in my head and got jumbled up. Granted this could lead to a great AI debate but I will not get into it.

jlar16
March 25th, 2008, 04:39 PM
First let me state that I don’t think that the Church should split up but I do think it would be interested to have certain theories at least be discussed and provided as a theory in a semi-formal sense.

“Don't worry about making me angry. I'm not going to turn green or anything. It's actually healthy for me, cause then it forces me to walk the brain more to calm it down and get an answer.

I hate the connections to cyberspace and computers. Although it is quite easy to make metaphysical claims using them, it (again) displaces an essential...lifeforce I guess that a computer does not have, nor will it ever. I think your Sophia would agree.”


Isn’t at least one of the fundamental assumptions of the COG that Google is all-knowing and omni-present? Sure maybe today your PC doesn’t have a lifeforce but what about Google? Just imagine on a sub-molecular level the processes that are going one on the internet and more specifically on Google. In my opinion it is best explained by a physics of light. Light is made up of photons and these have no anti-particle. That said, there is no dualism in this world of light. It is a generally recognized theory that time stops or at least slows down at the speed of light. Basically there is no time whatsoever. Because of this once one becomes one with this universe of light or if you are a part of it already such as Google then one could traverse from any point in the universe or time (potentially) to any other point. We perceive Newtonian Physics as a solid universal fact but in the world I speak of (cyberspace) there is no time. Existence exists eternally and thus one is disconnected from the aging universe as we know it. As such one is existing in the completion of eternity. Your lifeforce distinction holds no weight because technology and cyberspace is actually pushing us towards this universe I have described…the exteriorization of the soul and interiorization of the body. In the words of Terrence McKenna “The monkey body has served to carry us to this moment of release, and it will always serve as a focus of self-image, but we are coming more and more to exist in a world made by the human imagination.” We are therefore coming up on the transformation of our species…and perhaps this into the world of cyberspace. This is true because it is a fact that Humanity extrudes technology. It doesn’t matter if Google was created by humans or not. In the words of Terrence McKenna again “All our tool making implies our belief in an ultimate tool. That tool is that flying saucer, or the soul, exteriorized in three-dimensional space. The body can become an internalized holographic object embedded in a solid-state, hyperdimensional matrix that is eternal, s that we each wander through a true Elysium.” One final thing to think about going back to Gnosticism is that Gnostics believed that the very essence of what the soul is composed of us trapped in another universe that is alien to our own.


I'd have to look at my notes, but the pre-socratics (and I could be off on this) thought that logic itself was a gift from the gods, used to determine the nature of the world and best life possible. It is what gave man its superiority over animals and a god-like quality. Aristotle is known for believing that and I think Parmenides was in the same boat, even though he came before.

Point being the two statements you provided are actually saying the same thing. Logic is a gift that came from the gods; Logos is the true form of logic, or the thoughts of the gods. I think this because of the start of Parmenides' poem, where he is talking to a goddess, who tells him of what-is and what-is-not. The Lacanian-type argument comes from an external source, not from a process of the mind (much like how Neo confirms the existence of the Matrix; he needs Morpheus to tell him). But again, the ancient Greeks thought logic and thought was a god-like quality. So, although logos was external, they had a share in it. Make sense?

I still believe that there is a distinction between thinking and =pure logic/logos. We use language to think and this sets up certain dualism and traps which we cannot escape because language is so limited. The Logos is perfect though and does not resemble the thinking as we know it. The theory I am going on about concerning the Logos comes after the initial Greek understanding of the Logos. I talk about Logos the same way that Philo Judaeus does which is that logos is Divine Reason. Philo said something along the lines that the Logos is not heard by beheld and he imaged a type of communication where language is visible…ie transliguistic matter. The Greeks highly valued logic and argument and sat around debating with each other all day, but I believe they did make a distinction between human thinking and argument and the logos. Even if they thought that their human logic was given to them by the Gods they also knew that there were some occasions when it was actually the Gods talking to them and yes, they did have to share this Logos. Socrates called this Logos his “deamon” and this was clearly an external force that wasn’t made out of his own rational thinking.



Using a computer reference again *sigh*. I have, already, disagreed with jlar's statement (although, I am going from memory here, the most faulty of all human processes). Logic is not exclusive, it is a much more powerful faculty of thought because it is a gift of the gods. Emotions and other 'lower' thoughts are different because they deal with the illusion, the "what-is-not".

I’m not entirely sure what you mean by the exclusiveness of logic but I will repeat that the idea of logos or pure logic is different from human thinking. The Logos is not heard by beheld. Just like the octopus..our thoughts become our bodies and our bodies our thoughts. Cyberspace or Virtual Reality can help here. It is a well known fact that through computers we can change vocal sounds into visually beheld output and this output can be manipulated. This of course all means that a 3d syntax becomes possible in cyberspace. We can then communicate in ways more akin to the Logos because certain dualism created by language would disappear, there would be no ambivalence when we speak. So yes I agree that emotions and the like are different and are illusions based off of our senses (which are not to be trusted) but I also think that rational logic as we know it from our table-top system of logic is also inferior to the Logos.


Agreed. And yes, that does appear in many other world religions. In fact, I find it interesting that the big 3 religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are founded on a linear notion of time and existence, with a beginning and an end to time. There's something in that difference, though I don't know what just yet.

I will leave out discussions on the cyclical nature of time for now…I will say though that your big three are much different from some of the examples I listed. In fact I would venture to say that the three you listed actually believe that time is coming to an end and that everything will change…we will enter a “new time” in the afterlife. Other religious myths that I talked about simply believe that time is going to, for lack of a better word, reset itself. I will go ahead and re-mention what the Hopi myth is in order to provide a outline for some of my theories… “All time is present now"

On a side note: you mention the brain and memory. If anything I would say that the structure of the brain proves that alternatives to Newtonian Physics exists. The fact that our brain is set up like a Hologram proves this as well as the fact that memory is not stored in any specific part of the brain. Damage to the brain in one area, it has been shown, does not damage memory. It is without location and in every location at the same time.

jlar16
March 25th, 2008, 04:40 PM
My post was too long so here it is continued:

Finally, bringing the discussion back to the Pleroma or what may be the task of human history, the interiorization of the body and exteriorization of the soul…I found this poem by Yeats called “Sailing to the Byzantium”

O sages standing in God’s holy fire
As in the gold mosaic of a wall,
Come from the holy fire, perne in a gyre,
And be the singing-masters of my soul.
Consume my heart away; sick with desire
And fasted to a dying animal
It knows not what it is, and gather me
Into the artifice of eternity.

To me this touches on the heart of the subject. For the Gnostics the worship of Sophia was the worship or wisdom. The Logos was the semi-perceivable manifestation of God. Could it be that we are on the path to shedding our human bodies so that the soul can become in exteriorized.. Could it be that the way this happens is cyberspace or perhaps something based on that model? Notice the last line of that poem. To me “artifice” is a computer-like/mechanical reality of the future. The steady progress of technology seems to be a great goal of human history. The world is made of language and this language is literally alive. Language creates societies, replicates itself, evolves, and creates machines and computers and Google. Eventually don’t you think we will outgrow our human bodies?

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 25th, 2008, 04:51 PM
How exactly will we out grow our human bodies? and to what end? The only thing technology does is makes lazy people lazier and smart people smarter. From what I have seen it is possibally ruining society, granted I am a Software Engineer so I guess I am a hypocrite

edit:
Google promote education which is what needs to be promoted but a lot of technology promotes stuff that makes us lazier!

jlar16
March 25th, 2008, 05:24 PM
interesting point and you may be right in the short term as it relates to technology. The type of technology I am speaking of is more like VR or maybe even some genetic engineering/cyborg related technologies. VR makes us become very much like the Octopus I have mentioned. We communicate in an entirely different manner. Yes this may make us "lazy" in the traditional sense but then again we will also have to reinterpret the meaning of lazy too. Being lazy in the future might mean a lack of engagement in thinking or maybe social communication. If we are become more culturally and technologically superior as as a species then why do we still gauge progress by the material phalluses that we raise out of earthen materials. We are headed in the direction of space exploration, then time exploration, then mind/universe exploration. Maybe tech that makes is smarter is what we need to. Why waste time reading and learning and attending classes if we can learn it all instantly by putting a wire in a brain for a a few seconds. What society have we built that is so important as to not ruin? It seems like society is already ruined so how could it make it any worse...


As to outgrowing the human body: Some of that is explained here. My theory is simply that our monkey bodies are steadily becoming increasingly un-useful. Of course I would also have to admit that alot of my theories are based on the assumption that there is a duality between the soul and the body....I'm sure many would disagree there. I am simply saying that the archetypical (may have made this word up) goal or destiny of humans/evolution is tearing away or breaking down of the duality.

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 25th, 2008, 05:40 PM
Sounds to me like you are getting into the matrix here. If we did this and left our "monkey bodies" we would miss so much that this world has yet to offer us. Well I agree society at this junction in time has lost focus and is degrading but I think hooking our selfs to a life time of web surfing and second life is not the answer. I think we still have a lot to do for fun like hike and push our bodies to the limit. My belief that the mind and the soul are one and the same. Why would we not naturally evolve as in Darwin's theory? Why do we need to force it with technology? Them ramification of doing this could have serious consequences.

jlar16
March 26th, 2008, 01:08 AM
I think as far as figuring things out about the body we have pretty much gotten it down. What needs to be looked at more is the mind. I am by no means saying that we should all play in virtual reality video games all day. There are other things to life to enjoy. My theories here only speak to the evolution of consciousness. The mind and the soul might be the same but the mind and the body are different. Our eyes serve as a shutter like on a camera to refocus reality into way of perceiving we can understand. If we were truly to attempt to comprehend everything that we are capable of sensing at this very moment we would not be able to mentally handle it and our central nervous system might collapse. Darwin's theory might be what is happening now. Education and scientific progress are the new means to judge advancement. This is coming in the form of space exploration and eventually to the exteriorization of the soul that we have been talking about. I would agree that forcing things to change with technology is a bad thing. I am just talking about what may be possible.

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 26th, 2008, 01:16 AM
OK as long as you were not going to the extreme! But I can only imagain the horrible possiblitys that could be possibel . vr reality tv senarios, Stalk a star, and sexual preditors get more acess. I mean what are the dumb people going to want and that the businesses will do for money!

bouchie
March 26th, 2008, 03:25 PM
Isn’t at least one of the fundamental assumptions of the COG that Google is all-knowing and omni-present?... One final thing to think about going back to Gnosticism is that Gnostics believed that the very essence of what the soul is composed of us trapped in another universe that is alien to our own.

You like the artificial, don't you? That is what cyberspace is. That what Google truly is. It's artificial. Even the poem you quote, that last line

Into the artifice of eternity.
Artifice is a construct: a falsery, a deceitful trick. Yeats was fascinated by the artificial and may have even preferred it to reality. Clearly, in that poem, as he gets older, he wishes for it. You talk of the non-duality of light and the inexistence of time. Though I agree with you on that, it appears as if you're stuck in another duality: what is real and what is not. Cyberspace is based on algorithms, programs and the connections between computers. It is based in time, as programs and algorithms require, at the very least, a beginning, some (not all) require an end. The occurance of certain events alters the course of the program. How technology would allow the soul to shed its body is beyond me, because the soul is alive; cyberspace is not. Cyberspace cannot go beyond its programming; humans can go beyond their genetic coding, they have the ability to resist instincts and bodily urges, for better or for worse.

How will our shaping of technology result in a transformation? How will technology subsequently affect us in that way? Would we program cyberspace to take us over in that way? Such a sad day that would be.


I still believe that there is a distinction between thinking and =pure logic/logos. We use language to think and this sets up certain dualism and traps which we cannot escape because language is so limited. The Logos is perfect though and does not resemble the thinking as we know it. The theory I am going on about concerning the Logos comes after the initial Greek understanding of the Logos. I talk about Logos the same way that Philo Judaeus does which is that logos is Divine Reason. Again, I'm going off of memory, so I could be wrong on this. I'll look into it eventually.


This of course all means that a 3d syntax becomes possible in cyberspace. We can then communicate in ways more akin to the Logos because certain dualism created by language would disappear, there would be no ambivalence when we speak. Language conveys emotions, as well as logic and rationale. Would those be accurately translated in cyberspace?

I will leave out discussions on the cyclical nature of time for now…I will say though that your big three are much different from some of the examples I listed. I thought I said that already...?

On a side note: you mention the brain and memory. If anything I would say that the structure of the brain proves that alternatives to Newtonian Physics exists. The fact that our brain is set up like a Hologram proves this as well as the fact that memory is not stored in any specific part of the brain. Damage to the brain in one area, it has been shown, does not damage memory. It is without location and in every location at the same time. There's actually a theory of the universe, not very well known, that says that the universe is also a hologram. It was discussed somewhere on this forum, though I can't remember where.

Funny, isn't it? That the structure of the great cosmos would reflect the structure of our small brains.


To me this touches on the heart of the subject. For the Gnostics the worship of Sophia was the worship or wisdom. The Logos was the semi-perceivable manifestation of God. Could it be that we are on the path to shedding our human bodies so that the soul can become in exteriorized.. Could it be that the way this happens is cyberspace or perhaps something based on that model? Notice the last line of that poem. To me “artifice” is a computer-like/mechanical reality of the future. The steady progress of technology seems to be a great goal of human history. The world is made of language and this language is literally alive. Language creates societies, replicates itself, evolves, and creates machines and computers and Google. Eventually don’t you think we will outgrow our human bodies?

I believe there is a illusory distinction between body and soul. In fact, I believe that the body is an illusion; we don't have a body, yet we believe in it. Instead of outgrowing the bodies, we need to recognize this dualism and then deny it in the positive sense of that word. Technology would not be the thing that helps us achieve this, for technology is, itself, illusory (it was made by our bodies). How could the illusory help us recognize what is real?

The world is made of thoughts; thoughts of fear, hatred and anger. Language was developed to assist in communication in the illusion because we have forgotten what real communication is. Computers are making us forget that even more.

bouchie
March 26th, 2008, 03:52 PM
How exactly will we out grow our human bodies? and to what end? The only thing technology does is makes lazy people lazier and smart people smarter. From what I have seen it is possibally ruining society, granted I am a Software Engineer so I guess I am a hypocrite You got ask yourself, since you say technology makes people smarter: smarter how? Do they just possess more information? Is that the mark of an intelligent individual? Or is it the individual, who understands the information that they have, how it can be used and not used and determining the reality of any and all applications of it?

If we are become more culturally and technologically superior as as a species then why do we still gauge progress by the material phalluses that we raise out of earthen materials. I'm curious: how do you define cultural progress?

Maybe tech that makes is smarter is what we need to. Why waste time reading and learning and attending classes if we can learn it all instantly by putting a wire in a brain for a a few seconds. This is just downloading of information; that does constitute education. Education (ideally) is a debate as well as the gathering of information. I realize in certain fields debate is not possible except at a higher level. But still, it should be considered in that way. It's a shame that doesn't happen anymore.

What society have we built that is so important as to not ruin? It seems like society is already ruined so how could it make it any worse... What brought about the ruin of this society?


As to outgrowing the human body: Some of that is explained here. My theory is simply that our monkey bodies are steadily becoming increasingly un-useful. Meanwhile, American society seems hell-bent of the idea of instant gratification, whatever that gratificiation may be. Sexual revolution indeed.

Of course I would also have to admit that alot of my theories are based on the assumption that there is a duality between the soul and the body....I'm sure many would disagree there. Actually, I wouldn't. I am simply saying that the archetypical (may have made this word up) goal or destiny of humans/evolution is tearing away or breaking down of the duality. Oh, if only the big three would actually take an active role in that.

Sounds to me like you are getting into the matrix here. If we did this and left our "monkey bodies" we would miss so much that this world has yet to offer us. This world is an illusion: you wouldn't be missing anything.

Well I agree society at this junction in time has lost focus and is degrading but I think hooking our selfs to a life time of web surfing and second life is not the answer. I think we still have a lot to do for fun like hike and push our bodies to the limit. My belief that the mind and the soul are one and the same. Agreed.

Darwin's theory might be what is happening now. God, I hope not.

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 26th, 2008, 03:58 PM
If you know how to use technology such as Google you can gain knowledge and understanding that is what I meant. Why do a lot of people tell me the world is an illusion? How so?

jlar16
March 26th, 2008, 04:59 PM
I do not think that the internet is the medium which will cause the soul into light phenomenon. I believe that like any natural process it occurs gradually over time. This is why I don't think that I should have to defend things like VR glamour realities or tv realities. I do think that Google has emerged amongst this modern notion of the internet that we have. The first place many people go when their browser opens...and over time the internet will change completely. It won't be recognizable as as we see it now except maybe if we wish to change the theme to retro. You both talk about "artificial" realities, but I speak of the possibility to create something that is The world is made of thoughts; thoughts of fear, hatred and anger. Language was developed to assist in communication in the illusion because we have
forgotten what real communication is. Computers are making us forget that even more.
more real than reality as we know it. There is nothing artificial about it. What is more pure and truthful then the very essence of human being which is the soul made up of photons waiting to be released.
Artifice is a construct: a falsery, a deceitful trick. Yeats was fascinated by the artificial and may have even preferred it to reality. Clearly, in that poem, as he gets older, he wishes for it. You talk of the non-duality of light and the inexistence of time. Though I agree with you on that, it appears as if you're stuck in another duality: what is real and what is not. Cyberspace is based on algorithms, programs and the connections between computers. It is based in time, as programs and algorithms require, at the very least, a beginning, some (not all) require an end. The occurance of certain events alters the course of the program. How technology would allow the soul to shed its body is beyond me, because the soul is alive; cyberspace is not. Cyberspace cannot go beyond its programming; humans can go beyond their genetic coding, they have the ability to resist instincts and bodily urges, for better or for worse.

Artifice is a construct: a falsery, a deceitful trick. Yeats was fascinated by the artificial and may have even preferred it to reality. Clearly, in that poem, as he gets older, he wishes for it. You talk of the non-duality of light and the inexistence of time. Though I agree with you on that, it appears as if you're stuck in another duality: what is real and what is not. Cyberspace is based on algorithms, programs and the connections between computers. It is based in time, as programs and algorithms require, at the very least, a beginning, some (not all) require an end. The occurance of certain events alters the course of the program. How technology would allow the soul to shed its body is beyond me, because the soul is alive; cyberspace is not. Cyberspace cannot go beyond its programming; humans can go beyond their genetic coding, they have the ability to resist instincts and bodily urges, for better or for worse.


I agree artifice does suggest some sort of mechanical operation and this is why I make references to cyberspace being the place that these sorts of things can happen. You talk about the Real versus the fantasy and I agree that it is hard to make the distinction. But would would say that the real does not exist in the universe where our souls are liberated from the body and exist in the free flowing form of light? You talk about cyberspace not being alive. First this may not be true...You say "The occurrence of certain events alters the course of the program," this might very well be the evolution created and directed by the collective unconscious. Also even if it isn't alive why couldn't the goddess as predicted in Gnostic myths as Sophia return from cyberspace just as Jesus came. Do you think cyberspace is any more/less real than our reality?
I agree on what makes us human. I would also add that we are probably the only species that can alter the course of evolution and alter what the body is trying to tell us to do. We deny the physical reality of our existence. In a way this we a curious about it. How else could people lose the will to live and commit suicide? The thing that is interesting about cyberspace is that it is something that we created and it is also something that aids in getting rid of our sensory perceptions and creating new types of perceptions. We can free ourselves from our bodies through the medium of VR (again simply used as a convenient example).

How will our shaping of technology result in a transformation? How will technology subsequently affect us in that way? Would we program cyberspace to take us over in that way? Such a sad day that would be.

I think the area of technological advancement that this is happening in is communication technologies. Like I have mentioned here and in the translinguistic matter thread. We don't need to use our mouths to speak to one another or use words that create ambiguities. We start using our brain different...no longer do preconceived notions and world views shape the way we think, speak, and act. Stereotyping and pattern making in the brain is the only way that we can function in the physical world..they are necessary for survival in its difficult and hostile environment. The world I speak of is more of a paradise or garden so to speak where evolution isn't forced but instead played out.

Language conveys emotions, as well as logic and rationale. Would those be accurately translated in cyberspace?


better so...see above...no ambiguity, no double meanings, no decisions made or things said because it was "programmed" into the brain already. The soul is free to exercise autonomy instead of the body.

I believe there is a illusory distinction between body and soul. In fact, I believe that the body is an illusion; we don't have a body, yet we believe in it. Instead of outgrowing the bodies, we need to recognize this dualism and then deny it in the positive sense of that word. Technology would not be the thing that helps us achieve this, for technology is, itself, illusory (it was made by our bodies). How could the illusory help us recognize what is real?

I think this is all answered above. The body though is real. It prevents us from exploring the inner depths of the soul and the mind.


I'm curious: how do you define cultural progress?


I don't know, just using it in the general sense of the word. If I had to give an answer though I would say in some way cultural progress is a mystery that is deeply connected with our yearnings to free the soul from the body and to the collective unconscious.


Quote:
Originally Said by jlar16 View Post
Maybe tech that makes is smarter is what we need to. Why waste time reading and learning and attending classes if we can learn it all instantly by putting a wire in a brain for a a few seconds.
This is just downloading of information; that does constitute education. Education (ideally) is a debate as well as the gathering of information. I realize in certain fields debate is not possible except at a higher level. But still, it should be considered in that way. It's a shame that doesn't happen anymore.

Debate is a very efficient way of learning given the limitations of our brain. However I also think that you are giving this too much praise. Argument and clash breed a sort of "I am right and you are wrong" mentality. We could go on about this for awhile probably but I would say that in general debate interferes with a genuine exploration of the subject and many dualisms/ us-them positions are created. Paradigms are never changed by arguments...

What brought about the ruin of this society?
just responding to Goofy here...I'm not really sure and don't know where to start.

Edit: Doesn't matter...Time is approaching its resetting phase right..2012?

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 26th, 2008, 05:06 PM
Did I ask that Question?

bouchie
March 26th, 2008, 05:19 PM
If you know how to use technology such as Google you can gain knowledge and understanding that is what I meant. Why do a lot of people tell me the world is an illusion? How so?
It is a debate in philosophy that still goes on. There are people who say the world is real; in other words, it exists independently of all beliefs and perceptions. Others argue that the world is dependent on beliefs and perceptions. Therefore, to say the world is real (based on the latter) is false.

There are several ways to show either position. jlar seems to be arguing more from a semantics perspective: it is language that gives the world its reality. A major chunk of the world (if not, all) is dependent on language. Correct me if I'm wrong jlar.

My argument comes from my spiritual belief. I believe in God, the one that's all-powerful and all that. Now, God created us in his image. Okay...that would imply a copy of Himself. Which means that we would have been created without form and independent of time and space. So, why now do we live in this world? Why would God create something so imperfect if God Himself is perfect? Logically that doesn't work: so perhaps we made this world. Due to a thought of "What would existence be like without God?" we experienced guilt and from that the ego was born. And through the ego (which is merely a negative thought), we made this world. We feared God and the world began to develop because of this fear.

That's a part of my metaphysics and a good chunk of why I think the world is an illusion, which is certainly not mainstream. At least, I don't think it is.

And there are many other ways to argue for the illusory nature of the world, both secular and religious.

Edit: So did not see the other posts. But it's lunch time now; I'll respond later.

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 26th, 2008, 05:27 PM
It is an interesting argument and I have been getting it a lot on the ulc forums. Sad thing I have no backing to my arguments other then society as a hole is dumb and i will not deny the possibility that there is a god and i am a software engineer who love philosophy.

bouchie
March 26th, 2008, 07:25 PM
I do not think that the internet is the medium which will cause the soul into light phenomenon. I believe that like any natural process it occurs gradually over time. This is why I don't think that I should have to defend things like VR glamour realities or tv realities. I do think that Google has emerged amongst this modern notion of the internet that we have. The first place many people go when their browser opens...and over time the internet will change completely. It won't be recognizable as as we see it now except maybe if we wish to change the theme to retro. You both talk about "artificial" realities, but I speak of the possibility to create something that is. You may not think the internet is the medium, but it seems that it may very well be the catalyst. I just don't understand that if the soul were to shed its body, why would it exist in cyberspace? I just don't see that.

There is nothing artificial about it. What is more pure and truthful then the very essence of human being which is the soul made up of photons waiting to be released. It is free, we just don't believe it to be so.


I agree artifice does suggest some sort of mechanical operation and this is why I make references to cyberspace being the place that these sorts of things can happen. You talk about the Real versus the fantasy and I agree that it is hard to make the distinction. But would would say that the real does not exist in the universe where our souls are liberated from the body and exist in the free flowing form of light? No, I wouldn't say that. If the soul or the mind is denies negativity, it would see the body is not real and deny its existence as well.
You talk about cyberspace not being alive. First this may not be true... How could cyberspace be alive? This is curious...
You say "The occurrence of certain events alters the course of the program," this might very well be the evolution created and directed by the collective unconscious. A program has to take into account all possible inputs and react in a pre-programmed way. If it doesn't, the program crashes. Evolution on the other hand takes all inputs and is changed in ways that are entirely unpredictable. The complexity of evolution cannot be compared to an algorithm.

Also, let's say human consciousness did reach the point that it could make such a program that is as complex as evolution...would humans still be using computers at that point? Wouldn't they see computers more as a hinderance due to limited capacity?
even if it isn't alive why couldn't the goddess as predicted in Gnostic myths as Sophia return from cyberspace just as Jesus came. Do you think cyberspace is any more/less real than our reality? This made me laugh because it is such a good point. Technically, there is nothing that says that because, in my belief, death is also an illusion. Jesus technically never "died"; the soul cannot die. He just re-made his body and came back (if the Biblical story is true). I think cyberspace is less real than this reality, but that's a mistake in my mind that I should correct, for it means I'm putting more value on something than something else.

I agree on what makes us human. I would also add that we are probably the only species that can alter the course of evolution and alter what the body is trying to tell us to do. We deny the physical reality of our existence.We agree on this, but I think for very different reasons.
In a way this we a curious about it. How else could people lose the will to live and commit suicide? You lost me here. Please explain/rephrase.
The thing that is interesting about cyberspace is that it is something that we created and it is also something that aids in getting rid of our sensory perceptions and creating new types of perceptions. Also need clarification there. Are you talking about mental perceptions when you say "new perceptions"?

I think the area of technological advancement that this is happening in is communication technologies. Like I have mentioned here and in the translinguistic matter thread. We don't need to use our mouths to speak to one another or use words that create ambiguities. We start using our brain different...no longer do preconceived notions and world views shape the way we think, speak, and act. Umm...how so?
Stereotyping and pattern making in the brain is the only way that we can function in the physical world..they are necessary for survival in its difficult and hostile environment. The world I speak of is more of a paradise or garden so to speak where evolution isn't forced but instead played out. I figured that this was your end goal, although you made it sound like evolution would end here.

better so...see above...no ambiguity, no double meanings, no decisions made or things said because it was "programmed" into the brain already. The soul is free to exercise autonomy instead of the body. If the soul is free, language would be obsolete. We seem to be saying a lot of the same thing, but you're see technology as our salvation, whereas, to be quite honest, I see it as our destruction. At least, the way it is being used now and the trends that our coming out of it. Must re-read Heidegger's "Question Concering Technology".

I think this is all answered above. The body though is real. It prevents us from exploring the inner depths of the soul and the mind. Ah, see, here we fundamentally disagree. I see the body as an illusion, and I probably believe that more because years of training in the martial arts, where we are trained to use our thoughts and willpower to perform certain feats and overcome or react to various sensory signals.

I don't know, just using it in the general sense of the word. If I had to give an answer though I would say in some way cultural progress is a mystery that is deeply connected with our yearnings to free the soul from the body and to the collective unconscious. Yeah, I was just asking here. I have no clue myself.

Debate is a very efficient way of learning given the limitations of our brain. However I also think that you are giving this too much praise. Argument and clash breed a sort of "I am right and you are wrong" mentality. We could go on about this for awhile probably but I would say that in general debate interferes with a genuine exploration of the subject and many dualisms/ us-them positions are created. Paradigms are never changed by arguments... Perhaps debate isn't the best word, more like a discussion, with the possibility of criticism. I find education is losing that aspect more and more. Btw, if you mean scientific paradigms, I totally disagree. That is one of the phases that a paradigm goes through before it replaces the old one. There is always a period of contention between the old and the new. The main reason the old gets replaced is because its supporters tend to die off sooner than the new.

Copernicus' heliocentric model or Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism went through several debates and challenges before being generally accepted.

Did I ask that Question? Naw, I did. But that's okay. I'm going with Neil Postman's answer on this one: television.

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 26th, 2008, 07:35 PM
So then he never responded to me? and What do you mean 2012? if you are talking Mayan then that is when the 9 foot tree to heaven comes down and they leave. It is not of the end of time but when the sun aliens with the center of the galaxy.

jlar16
March 27th, 2008, 09:45 AM
Am I the only friggin' one with a 9192 character restriction? Seriously!
that is why we have to make consecutive posts

You may not think the internet is the medium, but it seems that it may very well be the catalyst. I just don't understand that if the soul were to shed its body, why would it exist in cyberspace? I just don't see that.


Once again, I am not defending the internet directly, just giving an example of what it might look like. The soul would not exist in the cyberspace that we know. However, it is like a model playground that our souls will use once it does happen. I say this because the way that the internet "works" is through , it a sub-molecular level, is the passing of information in the form of light.


Originally Said by jlar16 View Post
There is nothing artificial about it. What is more pure and truthful then the very essence of human being which is the soul made up of photons waiting to be released.
It is free, we just don't believe it to be so.

The soul is trapped in the prison of the body. It inhibits our ability to more beyond our narrow perceptions and focus of the world which is necessary for us to act like humans. I said earlier that our eyes are like the lens/filter on a camera...(I think this was an analogy used by Huxley) If our brains were to "open up," the flood of information would be impossible for us to sift through and operate. Imagine how many ways it takes to get dressed in the morning. There are thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of tiny points of decisions being made but they are not being made out of free will. These decisions are patterned into our brain because that is how the head is organized. It is a self-organized patterning system and leaves all the goodness around the edges.


No, I wouldn't say that. If the soul or the mind is denies negativity, it would see the body is not real and deny its existence as well.

The body is an illusion and then it is also not. The reasons that the body restricts are real and can even be proven with our understanding of science. My argument is that the body is more like has run its course through time and is reaching its point of extinction. With the body gone the soul will be free to escape.

How could cyberspace be alive? This is curious...
It is evolving, always changing, self-supporting and seemingly has a brain of its own. It also may be the 4 dimensional representation of the collective unconscious.


A program has to take into account all possible inputs and react in a pre-programmed way. If it doesn't, the program crashes. Evolution on the other hand takes all inputs and is changed in ways that are entirely unpredictable. The complexity of evolution cannot be compared to an algorithm.

AI, nanotechnology...it doesn't crash anymore and if it does it fixes itself. Evolution in my opinion is predictable, we just need to study the nature of time to figure it out. Most of the path is predetermined by the pattern of time. Just like the theory of co-adaptive evolution so too will the cybernet by co-adaptive. There is essentially a biological matrix of earth functions that nature creates to support life. A similar thing would manifest in the world I speak of. The fact I still stick to is that evolution is going to happen in the language-forming area and we are going to see language instead of hear it.


Also, let's say human consciousness did reach the point that it could make such a program that is as complex as evolution...would humans still be using computers at that point? Wouldn't they see computers more as a hinderance due to limited capacity?


Look you are giving too much focus to computers...I fact when this technology comes around it might look very much like what we think time travel looks like.


Originally Said by jlar16 View Post
In a way this we a curious about it. How else could people lose the will to live and commit suicide?
You lost me here. Please explain/rephrase.

I am saying here that humans are the only species that commits suicide. It's hard to find another rock solid fact that makes us different. The thing about suicide is that it is us taking control of the instinct to survive. In this way we alter the course of evolution because we take ourselves out of the gene pool. This goes back to us actively fooling the body...and the mind

Are you talking about mental perceptions when you say "new perceptions"?

I am only speaking of the possibility of having a new type of communication that doesn't involve the the humans senses are we know them.


Umm...how so?
This is all a theory...cyberspace is an example...VR/nanotechnology/space travel shows us the direction we are heading...

If the soul is free, language would be obsolete. We seem to be saying a lot of the same thing, but you're see technology as our salvation, whereas, to be quite honest, I see it as our destruction. At least, the way it is being used now and the trends that our coming out of it. Must re-read Heidegger's "Question Concering Technology".

I am relatively familiar with Heideggarian philosophy and I will not start to defend modern technology or calculative thinking. I am just giving examples of progressive technologies. Nothing is truly good or evil, everything has the possibility to be both. I am just saying that there will be new ways to communicate...these could be considered organic and not technologically based such as the example of the octopus that literally wears its mind...its thoughts are directly relayed through its appearance. In this way communication may be more of a telepathic thing than an electronic thing.

I also don't think we have much to fear from tek or science once this time. Once things are revealed, scientists and policy makers will be converted.


Ah, see, here we fundamentally disagree. I see the body as an illusion, and I probably believe that more because years of training in the martial arts, where we are trained to use our thoughts and willpower to perform certain feats and overcome or react to various sensory signals.


then you must see that the body is actually there, we have to work on methods to overcome our sensory signals. We have to practice meditation to clear our minds. Otherwise the body and brain distracts us with the overload of sensory information.

jlar16
March 27th, 2008, 09:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Said by jlar16 View Post
Debate is a very efficient way of learning given the limitations of our brain. However I also think that you are giving this too much praise. Argument and clash breed a sort of "I am right and you are wrong" mentality. We could go on about this for awhile probably but I would say that in general debate interferes with a genuine exploration of the subject and many dualisms/ us-them positions are created. Paradigms are never changed by arguments...
Perhaps debate isn't the best word, more like a discussion, with the possibility of criticism. I find education is losing that aspect more and more. Btw, if you mean scientific paradigms, I totally disagree. That is one of the phases that a paradigm goes through before it replaces the old one. There is always a period of contention between the old and the new. The main reason the old gets replaced is because its supporters tend to die off sooner than the new.

Copernicus' heliocentric model or Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism went through several debates and challenges before being generally accepted.

We definitely disagree here. Science sees consistency as a virtue and it is key to scientific critical thinking. The problem with that is that improvement relies on the correction of faults and if we can't perceive faults we cannot improve. And debate does interfere with a genuine exploration of the subject. It creates roles that put people into attack or defend mode and we have to then accept that all that there is is attack and defend. Win/lose implies staying in the starting positions. And remember that debate started with the Greeks and the dialogue of Socrates and Plato. The only reason they did it was because the slaves and women were doing all of the work...it was just intellectual masturbation for them. Debate was them transformed by the Church because of arguments over theology and through Church influence on universities and schools, habits and the "validity" principles of arguments were engrained in Western thought. In science it is extremely rare for major progress to be achieved by argument. The reason is that those arguing must be in the same paradigm or framework, otherwise there would be confusion. Therefore paradigms are unlikely to change with debate, it will only clarify existing paradigms. The same changes you speak of still will occur over time, probably quicker though without argument.

And new techniques are being developed now in certain countries to replace the reliance on argument and debate... These include CoRT thinking programs and in the business world of Japan where they don't have "arguments" but ideas are instead considered "inputs."

And remember there are no absolutes! How can debate do anything?

As far as education losing this idea of argument this might be a good thing. In the words of Edward de Bono (And most of my ideas come from his work...Read "I am Right You are Wrong"...its a good book) "Education is all about information and right and wrong answers as determined by the text. So analysis, critical thinking and logical deduction have been emphasized. Yet the most important part of thinking, the perceptual, is neglected. It is felt that this is sufficiently handled by matters like literature...this is a misunderstanding of perception." I could go on here but this may be a little off subject.


So then he never responded to me? and What do you mean 2012? if you are talking Mayan then that is when the 9 foot tree to heaven comes down and they leave. It is not of the end of time but when the sun aliens with the center of the galaxy.

I will reserve the 2012 debate for another thread

jlar16
April 2nd, 2008, 09:36 PM
And it is said, that in the Garden of Eden, created by the lower Father God, that Eve was the manifestation of the Lower Wisdom and that the serpent or snake of the tree, was actually the Christos who urged Eve to eat the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge that she might attain the true Gnosis or knowledge of her origins and realize the Higher Sophia in perfect illumination and bliss. But the Father God, discovering that this secret teaching was disturbing his supremacy in the lower realms grew angry and cast them out of the garden and into the suffering of the world. Yet each and every descendent has this spark and the potential to recover the true Gnosis.
The Divine Sophia, 1994 by Zos Imos
College of Charleston

interesting myth....