Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[jerlands]

This is where I diverge because for me the Bible is not just any other ancient text but it is spell binding.

I found NDGT's remake of Sagan's Cosmos spellbinding too, much more so than the Bible. You no doubt feel the opposite. I still have the whole Cosmos series at home as you would your Bible and, like you, I would access it at times for clarity and inspiration. The Bible, like Cosmos, was certainly one of the better efforts of its genre. Hence its enduring resonances (the same can be said for the Tao, the Gita, the Koran and some others.

I never got into Sagan much so I'm not familiar with "Cosmos" but I can see how truth should resonate in all things and in those things which hold it.

Generally I gain more philosophical inspiration from nature in general than just the human part of it. Humans are not apart from nature but extending and refining it to ultimately make make life less cruel and ruthless than it has been for the past billion years. To that end, the Bible, Cosmos and many other parcels of knowledge handed down have contributed.

If you're interested in the refinement of nature you might mull over the philosophy of biodynamics. There seems to be a balance to refinement that includes a little pain, a little pleasure. Stress is one of those things that support health but also can deteriorate it.
.

[Namelesss]

The soul though I think more closely related with identity.

Yes and no.
Ultimately all 'identity' is God's identity.
What we think ourselves to be exists in/as 'thought'. 'Thought' is ego, who and what we 'think/feel' ourselves to be (feelings are thoughts), to the exclusion of all else (schizophrenic).
Then, We Are ALL unique Conscious Perspectives (Souls) of the One Truth/Reality.. God.
Thus are We Known.
Souls exist for a moment, are completely transcendental, unaffected by anything, any of the flickering images that we call 'physical existence'.
The 'we' that 'owns' the Soul is a figment of thought/ego.
Every point in the entire Universe, ever, is a unique Soul with unique Perspective!
Thus is ALL Known.

Not anything ever 'changes', there are simply numerous Perspectives of the same Thing.
All 'motion' and 'time' and 'gravity' are mere 'appearances'.

God is the same forever, the proverb goes.
That means that no thing ever 'really' changes.

Tell me, when science and philosophy demonstrate that all is One, 'connected', 'entangled', that there is no place that science has ever found where one thing definitively leaves off and another begins, ALL inclusive, how is your duality of 'separate autonomous opposite existences' that APPEAR apparent, possible?
Your daily experience belies all science and philosophy? Your common experience better reflects the metaphysical transcendent Reality is some superior fashion?

I have never argued against interconnectedness, that there are relations between all things. I do however perceive duality in all states of matter.

Yes! Of course 'we' do!
It is by 'duality' that there can be 'matter' to be perceived.
We Know that is not the ultimate Reality any more than the telescope is the Reality of the moon that happens to be before it. Or the photograph of the moon, with lines and arrows and labels... all... not the moon.
But without the telescope of Perspective and duality, there is no moon to be Known.

Current cosmological theory suggests the universe emanated forth from the expansion of contraction and I see all things echoing their origin.

Theories abound from observations, feelings, uncritically accepted assumptions, appearances, mirages uncritically accepted.
"We SAW that pond, right in the desert! Are you asking me to doubt my eyes?!"
Yes, I am.
'Time' is a theory used to explain/describe the mirage of 'motion'.
None of these theories is a Universal Law, all are faulty and none ever 'resolve'.
They just spiral around until a philosopher informs science, or science just happens to, eventually, stumble on the 'truth'.
Motion, time, gravity... are persistent illusions.
Thus, evolution (as commonly thought) will, eventually be critically updated, as will all theories founded on 'motion' and 'time'.
Reality is always Here! Now!
Existence, all of it, IS The Singularity!

Perhaps you are merely defending/justifying a 'belief'?

Maybe I am justifying my belief. What's wrong in that?

Nothing 'wrong', but as I pointed out, the 'logic' used to justify beliefs (emotional/egoic) is very different then the logic that I am using, which is 'intellectual/egoic'. Apples and oranges.

The sermon on the mount, the golden rule, a phrase within many. Matthew 7:12 - “In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets. So where did I go wrong there?

What if I am a masochist, and I want people to hurt and 'abuse' me.
Am I being ordered to treat others in this way?
Or if I am a sadist, same thing.
Of if I had a rape fantasy, shall I rape others?
That is the error of the mistranslation!
Another justification for devolved sinful behavior.
Now, ponder the correct version for awhile;
"Do NOT do to others what you don't want done to you!"
I can be masochist, and don't want others to steal from me! Or I don't want others to cheat me. Or to hate me. Or to...
See? It allows for my 'peculiar tastes', yet still makes the point!!
Do think about it.

This is basically the same as found in "the greatest commandment" Matthew 22:36-40 where you should love your neighbor as yourself.

The Love that Jesus taught is unconditional.
One cannot Love one self and not Love the neighbor. That would be the dark egoic pastiche of 'Love'. The golem. Conditional Love.
It says that unconditional Love Loves all rqually, all the same, without duality, without distinction, without judgment, without seeing 'evil' and 'good'... the eye of Love only sees the Beloved, God/Self! *__-

These laws given us in Christianity I see as those which we base our system of justice upon.

The new testament transcends all laws (of the old), which cannot 'save you'.
That's why it is necessary that we are 'saved' by 'Faith', unconditional Love!
The only 'law' is Love! - Jesus

I'm not saying Christs teachings are the only source for these concepts but they are the ones that western civilization carried through time and built upon.

Wouldn't it be nice if only!
But the justifications for sin (only use for the bible) by the false Xtians are proven by their dark fruits all over the world, not just in the degraded and corrupt West.

Mark Twain It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so

Twain has it. (Twain... Cut it in twain! = Duality? Two?)
"Knowledge = experience." - Aristotle and me
Anyone 100% certain of anything, is insane!

I seems to me the only thing unconditional in our existence is we can't escape reality no matter our perception of it.

I can live with that! *__-

You make the statement "there is no free will/choice" which to me seems totally unfounded and also a bit far fetched.

Let me offer some food for thought regarding 'free-will/choice' that I have written previously;

"To have 'free-will' is to have the ability to 'do otherwise'.
In the complete history of the Universe, no being has ever 'done otherwise', no moment has ever been 'otherwise'!"

'Free-will/choice' exists as a *thought*, a 'belief', a 'feeling'. That's all. But it exists! Everything exists!
The notion of 'free-will/choice' is unsupportable both from a scientific or philosophical perspective.
Yet it exists in/as 'ego/thought'.
'Thoughts' come in various flavors; memory, anticipatory/expective, imagination, ...
That which exists as 'thought', exists! (as 'thought')
Everything exists!

Benjamin Libet's famous experiment certainly pounded another nail in the 'free-will/choice' coffin! Demonstrating the the brain initiated the action "prior" to the 'choice' being made, 100% of the time!
There are so many nails in that obsolete vain belief's coffin already, but i don't have the space, here, to elaborate.

'Free-will/choice' depends on some moment of existence being 'otherwise'! Never, never in the existence of existence has (or can be) any moment ever been 'otherwise'! Ever! What is, is, and that's all that is or ever can be!
What is, (already) is!

Every moment of existence exists Now!

"The Laws of Nature are not rules controlling the metamorphosis of what is, into what will be. They are descriptions of patterns that exist, all at once... " - Genius; the Life and Science of Richard Feynman
All 'eternity' at once; Here! Now!!

There is only one moment (Planck moment; 10^-43/sec; "almost" one billion trillion trillion trillionths of a second!!!) of the entirety of existence/Reality/the Universe!
All existence, ever, is one, literally, 'timeless' moment!
Now!

A 'moment' is a unit of perception, a percept!

"Reality is a synchrony of moments!"

Another point.
To completely define something, the context in which it is perceived must be included in the description.
Ultimately, the COMPLETE context of anything is the entire Universe! (at any moment!) So, to actually 'change' something from what is, to what you find more comfortable (the usual basis of 'desires' and the 'thoughts' of 'will' and 'free-will/choice'), you would have to alter the entire Universe (think Butterfly Effect)!
What an egoic/godlike ability! And just for your own comfort! You might have to ignorantly wipe out 17 galaxies and 486 civilizations so you can 'create' that new chair...
Get the drift?
Thank GOD! that it is impossible for us to 'change' anything!!!
(Any more than a telescope can have 'creative powers' over what it is pointed at!)

Religiously speaking;
The 'belief' in 'free-will/choice' is the physical manifestation of the one and only sin, Pride! (Insanity!)
It is saying, in essence; "Let MY Will B Done! Now! Abracadabra in Jesus' name (or whatever magic...)... Ah-me!"
Believing that we can 'change' the Universe, that which 'Is', for what usually amounts to 'personal comfort', is quite the ego masturbation!!

You 'believe', I observe.

Observance is the posture of one in relation to the other and that requires duality

I can observe self. No 'duality, as in 'other'.

and in duality there is choice (the recognition of state.)

There is the THOUGHT od 'choice', there is the 'FEELING' of 'choice'.
That's all.

Truncating the rest because I need to go make Boopsie her dinner.
Later.

[jerlands]

This thread seems like a train wreck so I'm cutting the cars apart.

The soul though I think more closely related with identity.

Yes and no.
Ultimately all 'identity' is God's identity.
What we think ourselves to be exists in/as 'thought'. 'Thought' is ego, who and what we 'think/feel' ourselves to be (feelings are thoughts), to the exclusion of all else (schizophrenic).

We don't have common ground with this term "Ego" because to me it's a child that hasn't learned. It is the part of self that wants to fulfill a desire like hunger, thirst, pleasure etc., As for thought? Thought arises from 'perception of difference' similar to how other senses work. The measurement between two factors creates some rational association, a deduction so I see little connection with ego and thought other than it arising from self in contrast with something else. As to what we think ourselves to be is our identity, but our perception of ourselves obviously can be incorrect and out of line with what we truly are. As in this discussion we have differences between what we consider man to be.

Then, We Are ALL unique Conscious Perspectives (Souls) of the One Truth/Reality.. God.
Thus are We Known.

I would agree that we are all part of a whole that is considered to be "God" and that we are all unique in some ways.

Souls exist for a moment, are completely transcendental, unaffected by anything, any of the flickering images that we call 'physical existence'.
The 'we' that 'owns' the Soul is a figment of thought/ego.
Every point in the entire Universe, ever, is a unique Soul with unique Perspective!
Thus is ALL Known.

Umm, souls are said to that part of us that lives indefinitely. I'm not going to pretend to fully understand the concept of a soul but the most complete and expressive version for me has been that from Ancient Egypt. Ib (the Heart) was the key to afterlife and that which was weighed after death to allow entry to the afterlife. I don't think we can dismiss the possibility of afterlife or the possibility of not. In the Egyptian Story the heart (Ib) was weighed against Ma'at who is that which opposes chaos.

Not anything ever 'changes', there are simply numerous Perspectives of the same Thing.
All 'motion' and 'time' and 'gravity' are mere 'appearances'.

God is the same forever, the proverb goes.
That means that no thing ever 'really' changes.

I think there are possibilities in our existence and it is our free will, the choice to fulfill our responsibilities or not that is the determinative factor in the outcome.

.

[jerlands]

The sermon on the mount, the golden rule, a phrase within many. Matthew 7:12 - “In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets. So where did I go wrong there?

What if I am a masochist, and I want people to hurt and 'abuse' me.
Am I being ordered to treat others in this way?
Or if I am a sadist, same thing.
Of if I had a rape fantasy, shall I rape others?
That is the error of the mistranslation!
Another justification for devolved sinful behavior.
Now, ponder the correct version for awhile;
"Do NOT do to others what you don't want done to you!"
I can be masochist, and don't want others to steal from me! Or I don't want others to cheat me. Or to hate me. Or to...
See? It allows for my 'peculiar tastes', yet still makes the point!!
Do think about it.

You would think the "Golden Rule" should support itself but I've heard from you we don't all hold the same things with equal value. However, I've heard this argument before and it's flaw is the "Golden Rule" asks you to consider others. That simple act requires contemplation as to what the self is and what the other is. If someone has the propensity to murder, rape or maim I don't think they're going to be inspired to do so by the "Golden Rule." That's not necessarily going to stop them either but in your version (Do NOT do to others what you don't want done to you) you're not asking people to give but to not give.
.

[jerlands]

These laws given us in Christianity I see as those which we base our system of justice upon.

The new testament transcends all laws (of the old), which cannot 'save you'.
That's why it is necessary that we are 'saved' by 'Faith', unconditional Love!
The only 'law' is Love! - Jesus

No. The new testament is the rub to the old. It's like light crossing matter that illuminates it. It's more easily transported and more easily understood. The Laws Jesus gave were specific in that you are to "love the lord with your whole self" and "love your neighbor as yourself" and these two laws were said to fulfill all the prophets and all the commandments.

Mark Twain It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so

Twain has it. (Twain... Cut it in twain! = Duality? Two?)

Two (2) Fathoms = safe passage.

"Knowledge = experience." - Aristotle and me
Anyone 100% certain of anything, is insane!

I understand Aristotle was wrong in his theory of falling bodies?

You make the statement "there is no free will/choice" which to me seems totally unfounded and also a bit far fetched.

Let me offer some food for thought regarding 'free-will/choice' that I have written previously;

"To have 'free-will' is to have the ability to 'do otherwise'.
In the complete history of the Universe, no being has ever 'done otherwise', no moment has ever been 'otherwise'!"

'Free-will/choice' exists as a *thought*, a 'belief', a 'feeling'. That's all. But it exists! Everything exists!
The notion of 'free-will/choice' is unsupportable both from a scientific or philosophical perspective.
Yet it exists in/as 'ego/thought'.
'Thoughts' come in various flavors; memory, anticipatory/expective, imagination, ...
That which exists as 'thought', exists! (as 'thought')
Everything exists!

Well, I do believe everything exists however I see that we do otherwise all the time. I understand it was "God's" desire that we make our existence better through learning about good and evil (the fall from the garden, a voluntary choice) and often we chose to harm our environment rather than benefit it.

Benjamin Libet's famous experiment certainly pounded another nail in the 'free-will/choice' coffin! Demonstrating the the brain initiated the action "prior" to the 'choice' being made, 100% of the time!

I wasn't aware of the experiment so I had to view a YouTube video on it (pardon my link but the youtube embed function doesn't work for me) and from what I can see the experiment is flawed. The latency in time from brain activity to action can be explained any number of ways.

"The Laws of Nature are not rules controlling the metamorphosis of what is, into what will be. They are descriptions of patterns that exist, all at once... " - Genius; the Life and Science of Richard Feynman
All 'eternity' at once; Here! Now!!

Again I happen to see things differently. I believe what we see manifest in our world is the expressions of the multitude of forces arising from creation.

There is only one moment (Planck moment; 10^-43/sec; "almost" one billion trillion trillion trillionths of a second!!!) of the entirety of existence/Reality/the Universe!
All existence, ever, is one, literally, 'timeless' moment!
Now!

A 'moment' is a unit of perception, a percept!

"Reality is a synchrony of moments!"

I can see how number and matter relate but as far as it being timeless because of perception that I don't see. All possibility may have existed at the moment of creation but it's taken time for that to develop.

Another point.
To completely define something, the context in which it is perceived must be included in the description.
Ultimately, the COMPLETE context of anything is the entire Universe! (at any moment!) So, to actually 'change' something from what is, to what you find more comfortable (the usual basis of 'desires' and the 'thoughts' of 'will' and 'free-will/choice'), you would have to alter the entire Universe (think Butterfly Effect)!
What an egoic/godlike ability! And just for your own comfort! You might have to ignorantly wipe out 17 galaxies and 486 civilizations so you can 'create' that new chair...
Get the drift?
Thank GOD! that it is impossible for us to 'change' anything!!!
(Any more than a telescope can have 'creative powers' over what it is pointed at!)

Ok.. I see contextual importance but the notion of comprehending the entirety to me is a kin to speaking "God's" name. Man just doesn't have the capacity because we're merely part of the whole. Free will however can be positive or negative. We can either support the lie or oppose the lie (the illusion.)

Religiously speaking;
The 'belief' in 'free-will/choice' is the physical manifestation of the one and only sin, Pride! (Insanity!)

What is sIn anyway and if we have no free will how can we have pride?
.

[Sy Borg]

I understand it was "God's" desire that we make our existence better through learning about good and evil (the fall from the garden, a voluntary choice) and often we chose to harm our environment rather than benefit it.

I see absolutely no fall, rather a consistent rise. The only problem is we have been so successful that we have reached an unsustainable level of population so at some point the poor and unlucky will die at a rate unprecedented in human history, commensurate with our unprecedented populations. There is no other possible outcome at this stage.

There is no fall, though, rather a consistent rise. Nailing people to pieces of wood is now considered barbaric rather than a government sanctioned form of punishment, whose executions and resultant suffering were enjoyed by onlookers. And don't get me started on the torture methods used by indigenous people!

We have never been better. However, given the barbarity of our journey to arrive at this point, that's less a feather in the cap than a spur to keep improving because there is so far to go before we are no longer always in the balance, "nine meals from anarchy".

[Count Lucanor]

First, you dismiss imagination as having anything to do with research and development but shove it off to the realm of fiction. Fiction however is interesting because there are many instances where fiction has actually paralleled our technological development. But your notion myth is fiction, unfounded, untrue is dismissive and naive. I'm not critiquing all myth but simply removing it from the realm of generality. I know certain myth to be very rich in reality.

Myth depicts a false reality. By definition, a narration regarded as mythical implies that it's fictional, but the key factor that distinguishes a mythical narration from any other fictional tale is that it is intended to be believed as true. Perhaps at some time in the remote past the line of separation was blurred, but now we can make such distinctions between myth as a deceitful manipulative tool and any other made up story.

You are confusing imagination (a human faculty) with made up stories, but imagination is just the playful game of possibilities. It can be used to make up stories, but it can also be used to open minds to find new ways of working with reality, to design things, procedures and methods that function better than others. That's what makes creativity valuable for science, not for making up stories.

Archeology is just a branch of science and science is merely a branch of philosophy. Nothing alone explains the tree but the tree itself (if we can truly perceive it.) You speak of the Exodus. Fact.. if over 600,000 men (over a million including women and children) left Egypt at one time there would be a huge impact on the social structure of the time which consisted of maybe 3 million. Another fact.. there is no physical evidence of a large number of people wandering the Sinai... none... so we might conclude over a million people never wandered through the sinai for 40 years. However, the Exodus was a real thing and is evident through the transition of theological teaching from one group to the next. To understand this concept we have to understand what the teachings found in Egypt are; and coupled with that we have to understand how astrological time has any influence on man. And then we have to understand what man actually is.

So, even though you are aware of the fact that the Exodus story is a myth, a lie, you still decided to believe that it did happen. You might as well believe that Zeus lived in the Olympus.

Did I read "astrology"?

Egypt was not polytheistic. I understand conventional thought but the gods of egypt (neters) were natural forces emanating from a single source.

Conventional thought is right, of course, backed by a lot of evidence. Greek cosmogony also had natural forces that brought up the parents of Zeus, but no one regards Greeks as being monotheists.

[jerlands]

I understand it was "God's" desire that we make our existence better through learning about good and evil (the fall from the garden, a voluntary choice) and often we chose to harm our environment rather than benefit it.

I see absolutely no fall, rather a consistent rise. The only problem is we have been so successful that we have reached an unsustainable level of population so at some point the poor and unlucky will die at a rate unprecedented in human history, commensurate with our unprecedented populations.

The Fall of Man. It would be hard to understand without comparison of one state with the other.

There is no other possible outcome at this stage.

Cataclysm might be another possible alternative. I don't know if we fully understand what brings about these events.

There is no fall, though, rather a consistent rise. Nailing people to pieces of wood is now considered barbaric rather than a government sanctioned form of punishment, whose executions and resultant suffering were enjoyed by onlookers. And don't get me started on the torture methods used by indigenous people!

We have never been better. However, given the barbarity of our journey to arrive at this point, that's less a feather in the cap than a spur to keep improving because there is so far to go before we are no longer always in the balance, "nine meals from anarchy".

When I think about "better" I think of the state of mind. I believe the highest state of mind is union with truth or possibly reality. It's not only an individual's union with truth but a unity of man with truth that brings about a truly higher state of mind. Dimension is perceived and our world lacks dimension. Our science is removed from reality and reality is Man in relationship with his environment. We can see this schism in the way we approach medicine. It's a drug for this and a drug for that and the cure never involves a change other than the pill in the patients behavior.
.

[jerlands]

First, you dismiss imagination as having anything to do with research and development but shove it off to the realm of fiction. Fiction however is interesting because there are many instances where fiction has actually paralleled our technological development. But your notion myth is fiction, unfounded, untrue is dismissive and naive. I'm not critiquing all myth but simply removing it from the realm of generality. I know certain myth to be very rich in reality.

Myth depicts a false reality. By definition, a narration regarded as mythical implies that it's fictional, but the key factor that distinguishes a mythical narration from any other fictional tale is that it is intended to be believed as true. Perhaps at some time in the remote past the line of separation was blurred, but now we can make such distinctions between myth as a deceitful manipulative tool and any other made up story.

Myth is simply a story that relays an analogy to some event through language. So to fully comprehend the myth we have to understand the language and also the words as they were told.

You are confusing imagination (a human faculty) with made up stories, but imagination is just the playful game of possibilities. It can be used to make up stories, but it can also be used to open minds to find new ways of working with reality, to design things, procedures and methods that function better than others. That's what makes creativity valuable for science, not for making up stories.

Imagination is simply placing one foot in front of the other before you do it. It's the mind following some progression through the minds medium which is thought and which we comprehend through reason.

Archeology is just a branch of science and science is merely a branch of philosophy. Nothing alone explains the tree but the tree itself (if we can truly perceive it.) You speak of the Exodus. Fact.. if over 600,000 men (over a million including women and children) left Egypt at one time there would be a huge impact on the social structure of the time which consisted of maybe 3 million. Another fact.. there is no physical evidence of a large number of people wandering the Sinai... none... so we might conclude over a million people never wandered through the sinai for 40 years. However, the Exodus was a real thing and is evident through the transition of theological teaching from one group to the next. To understand this concept we have to understand what the teachings found in Egypt are; and coupled with that we have to understand how astrological time has any influence on man. And then we have to understand what man actually is.

So, even though you are aware of the fact that the Exodus story is a myth, a lie, you still decided to believe that it did happen. You might as well believe that Zeus lived in the Olympus.

You are concluding the Exodus story is a lie based on your ability to understand it.

Did I read "astrology"?

Is astrology a four letter word? Something that has been perverted so we no longer recognize it? Astrology is space-time. The earth's relationship to other heavenly bodies and the influence those relationships create. Similar is the influence a full moon has on the earth vs. a new moon's.

Egypt was not polytheistic. I understand conventional thought but the gods of egypt (neters) were natural forces emanating from a single source.

Conventional thought is right, of course, backed by a lot of evidence. Greek cosmogony also had natural forces that brought up the parents of Zeus, but no one regards Greeks as being monotheists.

I can't convince you fluoride isn't good for you or that vaccines are disadvantageous or that eating chemical laden foods in unhealthy without you first taking those issues into true consideration for yourself. If you merely negate based on belief that we are an advanced society then you'll find yourself subject to societies errors. Have you ever hear "as you judge so shall you be judged?" all that's hogwash too huh?

[jerlands]

We have never been better.

Here's the state of the union. 50% of our population has one form or another of a chronic degenerative disease. We are polluting our waters at unprecedented rates as are we losing topsoil. This is not to mention the widely disputed theory that man is negatively impacting his environment in a global manner. If we're looking for a solution I think it might lie in our behavior which seems to be dictated by what we believe.
.

[Sy Borg]

I believe the highest state of mind is union with truth or possibly reality. It's not only an individual's union with truth but a unity of man with truth that brings about a truly higher state of mind. Dimension is perceived and our world lacks dimension. Our science is removed from reality and reality is Man in relationship with his environment.

Not at all, not a bit. People keep repeating these lines - "the fall of Man" and "out of touch with nature".

Science is out of touch with nature and the environment? Is this, as compared with the days when humans had no idea about the problems of fossil fuels and built a great oil industry?

How in touch with nature and reality was it to believe that other animals were be non-sentient biological machines, justifying shocking treatment?

How in touch with reality was sacrificing animals and people to bring rain?

How in touch with reality was about the Inquisition?

How in touch with nature and reality were the humans of Europe, completely unaware of nature and sanitation, brought the Black Death upon themselves?

The Incas who sacrificed and overproduced themselves out of existence were in touch with nature?

Are exorcisms and faith healing in response bacterial and viral illness more in touch with nature and reality?

It's not that our world lacks dimension but your perception of it lacks dimension because you have fallen for the "people have gone bad" narrative and closed your eyes to the positives of modernity. That humanity is organising itself into rough castes in no secret, but don't think that the especially dumb rump of today's societies' LCD is what humanity is about - they just make a lot of noise.

[jerlands]

I believe the highest state of mind is union with truth or possibly reality. It's not only an individual's union with truth but a unity of man with truth that brings about a truly higher state of mind. Dimension is perceived and our world lacks dimension. Our science is removed from reality and reality is Man in relationship with his environment.

Not at all, not a bit. People keep repeating these lines - "the fall of Man" and "out of touch with nature".

Science is out of touch with nature and the environment?

Well bring in the kitchen sink Yes, the fall of man. I guess we have to develop an understanding what man is, what time is, what creation is about so that we might bring things into perspective. You have no idea what you're speaking other than the fact the universe itself is full of violence as we perceive it and today we are seemingly sheltered.. right?
.

[Sy Borg]

Not at all, not a bit. People keep repeating these lines - "the fall of Man" and "out of touch with nature".

Science is out of touch with nature and the environment?

Well bring in the kitchen sink :) Yes, the fall of man. I guess we have to develop an understanding what man is, what time is, what creation is about so that we might bring things into perspective. You have no idea what you're speaking other than the fact the universe itself is full of violence as we perceive it and today we are seemingly sheltered.. right?

Kitchen sinks have no doubt improved too :)

I will keep trying to clarify. It's long so I'll use sub-headings: If you try to fit my views with group, it won't work. As far as I can tell my views in this are unique, which I consider more reason for disappointment than pride.

The Earth is controlling humans, not the other way around
Simply, I see humans as part of nature, not apart from it. I see us as being agents of change in the biosphere, not destroyers. Cancers and parasites turn order into chaos. Humans creates concentrations of exceptional order (noting that, due to the first law, any attempt to resist entropy shifts the burden of the entropy onto others - to the environment). We are acting on the environment in a manner that is strikingly analogous with the actions of imaginal discs in metamorphosing insects - turning the animal's innards to mush, and then using that mush as the ingredients for the adult body parts. It appears to be vanity for people to believe that we are above the systems of the Earth, that we are somehow dominating and destroying it.

Rather, we are clearly subject to the Earth - and being manipulated by it - rather than dominating it.

Consider this: Do you think humans want to live the way we do? Or does it seem that we simply fell into this way of living in tight, uncomfortable and environmentally unsustainable clusters? Almost everyone has a fair gripe about the way they are living - too crowded, too dangerous, too unsustainable, too wasteful, too competitive, too expensive, etc. The internet is replete with "people are no darn good" commentary. I personally think humans are incredible (and other species too, but humans are truly mind-boggling when you consider what we are without taking it all for granted).

So the Earth has shaped humanity to be as we are. It was not our idea. We humans don't want to be crammed up in smelly, polluted cities amongst uncaring hordes. We don't want to be forced to work long hours for not enough money, or to sit on our hands as nature is treated wastefully, etc. We would rather live a life of love and freedom and kindness and learning, running free through the trees or relaxing in a hammock, swimming in clean water holes, rivers and beaches, with clean air and a vivid night sky not blotted out by light pollution, to have the time to reflect, learn and savour life etc.

We want that but nature coerced us into structuring ourselves into crowded cities. A failure to cram up resulted in less crowded societies being taken over by those the crowded. As always, our behaviour has been dictated by suffering - and we chasing peace and freedom from suffering around as if they were cakes of soap in a bath. This is the challenge of life - to overcome suffering, to reduce it.

Directing the change
At this stage (many) humans have done this to varying extents, but at the expense of the poor and other animals, each of whom are now leading especially perilous and painful lives in reduced territories. That's entropy in action. Philosophy, as you allude, will certainly play an important role in this search for peace but the problem is ultimately physical. If you are a physical being then you will suffer; there is no escape.

Yet humans are wired to criticise, hector, complain, pressure and coerce each other into to being "better", so the current complaints, such as yours are understandable. Despite my perspective I still vote and donate like a lefty because 1) "conservatives" and their multinationals don't need my help and 2) just because change is inevitable does not mean we cannot direct the change rather than simply go through with the change, and generally attempts to slow change are helpful, with the challenges making the changes more robust. So I'm pro-conservation but accepting that it's a losing battle and the consequences in the very long term will be positive rather than negative.

It's sad, sure. I love animals and nature. Numerous beautiful and poignant species and environments will be replaced by the intelligence our species is generating. Change hurts and something irreplaceable is always lost. Consider all the sweet and innocent children who must "die" only to be replaced by some complete gimboid of an adult! Where did that nice kid go? Into history, s/he is "in there" somewhere, at least in part.

Where to from here?
Digitisation of human minds seems as the most likely solution to overpopulation, sustainability and suffering, although that's seemingly a long way off and much chaos will occur before it happens. If personalities reside in a digital domain then they don't impact the physical environment. As with all change, things will be lost and there will be aspects of physical reality that a digital existence will surely not be able to replicate, perhaps more refined and less intense sense of happiness and suffering. This would allow people to travel in space, to spread the Earth's material to other worlds and continue the Earth's story, just as breeding continues our own histories. Biology pushes to persist and perpetuate. Seemingly this applies both on an individual level and as aggregations.

What if we all did the right thing at this moment?
Now consider the alternative. Humans "do the right thing" and become sustainable with seven billion people. The oil companies go solar. Billionaires donate their monies to the cause. Governments become honest. Muslims embrace universal love and women's right. We all become environmentalists and return to forests, organising ourselves cleverly so that populations stabilise and we create a balance where we are as one with nature as any other species.

Life on Earth is about four billion years old. In about one billion years' time the Sun's expansion will increase its luminosity to the point where the oceans boil. A very long time before that, the Earth's surface will be largely uninhabitable. If the people of Earth all become sweet spiritual beings in touch with nature, then we will go extinct in probably a hundred thousand years. The biosphere will be largely underground by then. Eventually the Sun would keep expanding and destroy everything, the only remainders of this incredible journey of life being a few dead space craft and space junk drifting through the cosmos.

That would be the end of the story. For the story to continue we seemingly need a level of inequality that allows for massive space projects, which are ultimately preparing for the preservation of not only humanity but a perpetuation of the nature that evolved here via DNA storage.

[Namelesss]

What is sIn anyway and if we have no free will how can we have pride?

I think that we both expressed what we had to say of the bible, our Perspectives, sufficiently. At least I did.
I am going to respond to this, though, because it is simple, short.

Pride/sin is the belief that we have free-will/choice.

How so?
As I said, it is akin to saying "let MY Will B Done! Abracadabra, in Jesus name, Ah-men!"
If all is interconnected, for me to actually be able to make an autonomous choice to effect something, and it is effected, that means that we, our-special-creator-God-like selves altered the entire universe in order to attain a more comfortable chair for the den.
And who do we thank for it?
Our free-willin', choice making, selves, of course. Our choice!
(And people have the audacity to attend church on Sunday and 'thank God' for their new BMW! Perhaps they think that they can fool this God and cover their own a$$es!)

You cannot be Proud if you have no beliefs.

"I say that next to God there is no nobler thing than suffering. Right suffering is the mother of all virtues, for right suffering so subdues the heart, it cannot rise to pride but perforce is lowly." - Meister Eckhart

[jerlands]

Pride/sin is the belief that we have free-will/choice.

I think you wish to believe that as justification for not taking responsibility (not assuming the burden of choice.)
.