Pantheism

Some partial backups of posts from the past (Feb, 2004)
birdofhermes
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:34 pm

Re: ---

Post by birdofhermes »

Quote:Quote:<hr>Well, in the animal kingdom, such things are the way of survival. As we are animals, it is understandable that we would carry with us these tendencies to overrun others and destroy competition for resources.<hr> As you can see from my above recent post, I do not agree that this is the animal pattern. If it were, there would be very few species.

Quote:Quote:<hr>Trouble is are we really doing anything about it. We are in some small ways but I sense it will be too late,<hr> the situation is truly running amok at ths point, but it was fore ordained from the beginning. yes, there is something unique about our species.

We are too smart for our own good.

The puzzle lies in the roots of civilization.

The only way out is spiritual reform. If we want to be civilized (we have not achieved that) we must have a civilization that is focused on the refinement of how to live life well and in balance with nature, rather than on conquering and exploiting absolutely everything (including women of course).
Naturyl
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 6:12 am

Re: ---

Post by Naturyl »

Agreed. Philosophical Taoism envisions such a civilization.
jimhaz
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 7:28 pm

Re: ---

Post by jimhaz »

Jim: The ultimate end for any species that does not try and bend nature to its will is death. As all we do is nature we have no choice in that matter.

Birdy: A bizarre remark. No species, including QRS, is intelligent enough to interfere with the devlopment of nature, and none has ever bent nature to its will. I'm not saying there is no striving or competition, but their are bounds and laws which cannot be crossed.

Well I disagree. All human endeavour is about bending nature to our will - or more precisely, as I'm a determinist, about increasingly controlling how we allow the environment to effect us - it is obvious otherwise we would still be apes. I'm also not certain that there are bounds which cannot be crossed, evolution certainly doesn't believe so, we certainly don't believe so or we wouldn't have machinery on Mars, we wouldn't believe in god, we wouldn't believe in timelessness.

On the other hand if the universe is truly infinite, then almost by default that means somewhere some species have made themselves immortal, but there may be physical boundaries that prevent us from knowing of these creatures. But that just might be that humans haven't survived long enough and are too insignificant to warrant attention. Whenever I speak of godliness - and I do frequently - I do not mean all-encompassing, all-knowing beings that are aware of everything in the universe I simply mean beings that are immortal and are capable of doing anything physical that the laws of nature will allow. Personally, I think that such creatures evetually choose to die, after all once all individuals in a species knows everything knowable - what is the point.

If humans had not developed and bears had, would not they now eat us.
B: Another bizarre remark....

Why. My point was that if humans were not evolving then in time some other creature would evolve and would dominate the non-evolving humans. It is pointless to criticise humans because they dominate. It is however, not pointless to criticise humans because they destroy other life, as other life forms may be of use to us at some stage. We already learn so much about ourselves through them.

You seem to be saying that creatures as they are, will always roughly be the form of creature they are now, but clearly if you believe in evolution that is not the case.

Jim: Where are the creatures from 100 million years ago? I hope you like sharks, crocodiles and cockroaches.
Birdy: Well, they are here...

They are here yes, but they have no self-protection from us, from mutating bacteria, from meteorites crashing into the earth, unusual changes in temperature. While we don't have much control either we have started on that path. If you truly felt for other species then you would see the truth in the QRS wisdom, as only wisdom can protect us from ourselves.

We are too smart for our own good.
and
Naturyl: Laziness, greed, and indifference tempt us to ignore the problem until it goes away, but we are seeing increasing amounts of evidence that it won't. The time for procrastination is quite clearly at an end, and we need to do something significant about this environmental situation immediately.

Precisely what the QRS are trying to do. For every scientist that works for those aims - 10 more are working against it, along with 100,000 consumers. Edited by: jimhaz at: 1/27/04 9:58 pm
birdofhermes
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:34 pm

Re: ---

Post by birdofhermes »

Quote:Quote:<hr>Well I disagree. All human endeavour is about bending nature to our will - ...I'm also not certain that there are bounds which cannot be crossed, evolution certainly doesn't believe so, we certainly don't believe so or we wouldn't have machinery on Mars, we wouldn't believe in god, we wouldn't believe in timelessness.<hr>

I am talking here about deciding that we are separate from, above, and outside of nature, and exploiting it in ways that are ultimately destructive. Much of human endeavor is not at all about bending nature to our will, and much of it is - and this is the source of our despair about our future demise. It is sad to see the language that you and other deluded males have used in this context - all very violent, unloving and cruel metaphors for nature in which "she" is always described as being "used" "controlled" "bent" "forced" and other rather rapacious terms.

I agree with you about becoming immortal gods and godesses, although that will give us even more responsibility to use our powers wisely, within and in cooperation with nature.

Quote:Quote:<hr>It is however, not pointless to criticise humans because they destroy other life, as other life forms may be of use to us at some stage.<hr> This is the sort of thinking that is leading to our current danger. The life forms are not existent only for our use.

Quote:Quote:<hr>You seem to be saying that creatures as they are, will always roughly be the form of creature they are now, but clearly if you believe in evolution that is not the case.<hr>I'm not sure where I said that, but you must have noticed by now that I am skeptical of evolution theory. I do indeed think that the startup of new species is something we have no clue about, and that species are slowly evolving micro-evolutionarily to become ever more refined and perfect (more conscious?) versions of themselves.

Quote:Quote:<hr>They are here yes, but they have no self-protection from us, from mutating bacteria, from meteorites crashing into the earth, unusual changes in temperature. While we don't have much control either we have started on that path. If you truly felt for other species then you would see the truth in the QRS wisdom, as only wisdom can protect us from ourselves.<hr>Good point, but let us just say wisdom, not QRS wisdom. They think they are different, but I rather think of their wisdom as being somewhat like the medical wisdom that slowly bled President George Washington to death. One more dose of what they have got and we could be finished off. They are not new, they are old, not ancient by any means, but just more of the same old unconsciousness that got us into this mess in the first place.

And yes, the other species should not be in a position to fear us, rather, we should be the protectors and nurturers and enjoyers of the whole planet, if our godlike capacities allow us to do so.

Thomas Knierim
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Jul 17, 2002 6:20 pm

Re: ---

Post by Thomas Knierim »

<span style="color:white;">Anna: I do indeed think that the startup of new species is something we have no clue about...</span>

You don't think that adaptation (mutation, recombination, and selection being played out in evolutionary time) does account for it? Ah, but let me read Mr. Wells' book first, so I can understand your doubts.

<span style="color:white;">Anna: And yes, the other species should not be in a position to fear us, rather, we should be the protectors and nurturers and enjoyers of the whole planet, if our godlike capacities allow us to do so.</span>

That would be a new role for us. The faster we adopt it, the better.

Thomas Edited by: Thomas Knierim at: 1/28/04 1:10 pm
Naturyl
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 6:12 am

Re: ---

Post by Naturyl »

Quote:Quote:<hr>Good point, but let us just say wisdom, not QRS wisdom. They think they are different, but I rather think of their wisdom as being somewhat like the medical wisdom that slowly bled President George Washington to death. One more dose of what they have got and we could be finished off. They are not new, they are old, not ancient by any means, but just more of the same old unconsciousness that got us into this mess in the first place.<hr>Agreed. The authentic wisdom is found at the source. Science and even philsophy often favor modernity, but I think that spiritual insight becomes more pure the closer one gets to its origins. We could do a lot worse than to skip the middleman and go all the way back to the ancients who ushered in the dawn of wisdom - the prehistoric pantheists and the pre-Buddhist Eastern thinkers. There is truth in the fable of the Fall.
jimhaz
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 7:28 pm

Re: ---

Post by jimhaz »

Agreed. The authentic wisdom is found at the source. Science and even philsophy often favor modernity, but I think that spiritual insight becomes more pure the closer one gets to its origins. We could do a lot worse than to skip the middleman and go all the way back to the ancients who ushered in the dawn of wisdom - the prehistoric pantheists and the pre-Buddhist Eastern thinkers. There is truth in the fable of the Fall.

That is because too much religious garbage has been added to wisdom in the meantime. At least the QRS are prepared to remove this garbage from their philosophy.
Naturyl
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 6:12 am

Re: ---

Post by Naturyl »

But do they not add their own?
jimhaz
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 7:28 pm

Re: ---

Post by jimhaz »

No-one is perfect, but at least they express it in a manner which is readily understood, if one is open enough to understand it. I find most old texts are open to far too many interpretations, and where there is a consistent interpretation it is more like religious fever dominating the way people think. I sense it *can* often be more about mob acceptance of thought, than what the author necessarily meant. You can't ask the author what they meant so why bother investing too much time in it.

It matters litle to me that my opinions will be dismissed due to my lack of study. I care little about being right or wrong on technical issues as I think true creative thought can be a mixture of trial and error.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: ---

Post by David Quinn »

Naturyl wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr> The authentic wisdom is found at the source. Science and even philsophy often favor modernity, but I think that spiritual insight becomes more pure the closer one gets to its origins. We could do a lot worse than to skip the middleman and go all the way back to the ancients who ushered in the dawn of wisdom - the prehistoric pantheists and the pre-Buddhist Eastern thinkers. There is truth in the fable of the Fall. <hr> Better yet, we should go directly to the Source inside our own mind and become a great sage in our own right. That is the only way to cut out all the middlemen.

This business of looking for spiritial insight it at its origins is pure folly, a waste of time, a distraction - which explains why you are in favour of it.


Quote:Quote:<hr> Bird: If we want to be civilized (we have not achieved that) we must have a civilization that is focused on the refinement of how to live life well and in balance with nature, rather than on conquering and exploiting absolutely everything (including women of course).

Naturyl: Agreed. Philosophical Taoism envisions such a civilization. <hr> Given your behaviour on this forum, I can only conclude that you haven't yet put your "Philosophical Taoism" into practice.
Naturyl
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 6:12 am

Re: ---

Post by Naturyl »

You don't have a clue.
Lbartoli
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 6:49 am

Reply Re: Pantheism

Post by Lbartoli »



krussell2004 wrote:

Quote:DQ:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
but it's still a long way short of true wisdom.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A long way short? I'm not sure why, but I like the unification of opposites in that statement.

LB: Why a long way?...

jj van der Leeuw:
We must not make the mistake of looking upon the Absolute as one step higher than the Deity of a universe; it is not as if there were first humanity, then superhuman beings and those who govern our human evolution, then the Deity of our universe and then-if we ascend still very much higher the Absolute. When the Hindu speaks of the God of this universe as Brahma and of the Absolute as Parabrahman we should misunderstand his meaning if we thought of Parabrahman as a magnification and glorification of Brahma. In some ways the Absolute is infinitely nearer to us than the Deity of a universe, in another way It is infinitely greater. Yet to say that It is greater would denote a greater measure of the same Being or reality and It is not such. It is of such a nature that It cannot even be compared to the greatest Being in the world of the relative, there is nothing to which It can ever be compared.



Sometimes we hear people say, ‘I do not attempt to understand the Absolute; even the Deity of a universe is far beyond my understanding, and how can I hope to know anything of the Absolute which is still greater.' Such an attitude, in a seeming humility, yet shows misunderstanding and misconception. If the Deity of our universe is seen along an ever ascending line of ever increasing greatness and perfection, the attitude spoken of implies that, if we ascend that line still further and mount still higher, we may some day reach the Absolute, which is absurd. In the world of the relative truly there is always greatness beyond greatness, and when we have reached the greatest, noblest we know or dimly apprehend, yet wider vistas open up before us and we see a greatness undreamt of at our previous level of understanding. But not of such is the Absolute. It is not great; to call It great would be misunderstanding the reality of the Absolute. How can we call anything great when there is nothing else to compare to it in size or in fullness of manifestation; there is no comparison where there is only the One; there is no greatness and there is no smallness. We do not reach the Absolute by ascending or hoping to ascend some day beyond even the greatest Being whom we can now dimly see on our spiritual horizon; the way to the Absolute is not along that ever ascending line of greater and greater, of more and more, of nobler and nobler; we can reach the Absolute at the very point where we are now, just as much or just as little as we can reach It when we are the greatest Being in the world of relativity. It is rather as if, instead of continuing the endless process of ever ascending greatness, of ever increasing perfection we went by a different dimension altogether and disappeared out of the realm of change and growth and evolution into that of changeless and ever abiding Being, Nirvana.



birdofhermes
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:34 pm

Re: Reply Re: Pantheism

Post by birdofhermes »

At any rate, Leo, I like your Van der Leeuw.
Lbartoli
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 6:49 am

VDL

Post by Lbartoli »



Yes, the man had a way with words. He was very skilled at expressing truth without irritating or offending the listener/student. Even women like him, you're not the first im aware of, which is amazing since they are rarely very strong in the manner he believed was necessary for a truly spiritual life.

He appreciated women for what they were fashioned for by God, and i dont think he had any other expectation of them.

He once wrote: "It is not the man without passion or desire who can ever become greatly creative, nor the man who allows his desires and passions to control him, but he who having a strong passion nature is able to draw the quintessence from the baser metals, that is to say, liberate the creative energy from its lower entanglements and lead it upward so that it becomes the creative power of the spirit. A forceful nature can be greatly bad, but at least it offers the possibility of becoming greatly good, but a nature without force is too weak and insignificant to be either bad or good."

This brings to mind.... once I recall Kevin Solway using the word "Amoral" to describle the feminine types. And that's why we like them so much, those of us with controlling inclinations. And why women make superb assistants, something recognized as far back as Revelation.

Leo
birdofhermes
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:34 pm

Re: VDL

Post by birdofhermes »

Quote:Quote:<hr>Even women like him, you're not the first im aware of, which is amazing since they are rarely very strong in the manner he believed was necessary for a truly spiritual life.<hr>Perhaps women like him because he has good ideas, Leo.

Quote:Quote:<hr>He appreciated women for what they were fashioned for by God,<hr>You mean like... in Genesis?

Why don't you post some stuff he writes about women?

Quote:Quote:<hr>once I recall Kevin Solway using the word "Amoral" to describle the feminine types. And that's why we like them so much, those of us with controlling inclinations. And why women make superb assistants, something recognized as far back as Revelation.<hr> Does he mean feminine types of women or feminine men? Apparently you mean women. At any rate, a person who wants to control others will find the one they can control. You will see such pairs, but it does not mean all women would fall under the spell. As to women making great assistants - that does not really ring a bell. Men are so much more obedient and less questioning. It's really elementary, my dear Watson.
Revelation? The Book of Revelation, or the "Revelation" of the Bible, i.e., Genesis?

Leo, why don't you buy a computer?
Lbartoli
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 6:49 am

VDL

Post by Lbartoli »



birdofhermes wrote:

Quote:LB:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even women like him, you're not the first im aware of, which is amazing since they are rarely very strong in the manner he believed was necessary for a truly spiritual life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps women like him because he has good ideas, Leo.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He appreciated women for what they were fashioned for by God,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You mean like... in Genesis?

Why don't you post some stuff he writes about women?

LB: I think i did, just a while ago. Here on the forum, but i have no idea how to locate it to bring it up again. Maybe Dan can get it, or tell me how. I dont recall what thread i posted it on.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
once I recall Kevin Solway using the word "Amoral" to describle the feminine types. And that's why we like them so much, those of us with controlling inclinations. And why women make superb assistants, something recognized as far back as Revelation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does he mean feminine types of women or feminine men?

LB: I think he was talking about women, but sometimes people mean male 'women' too. Depends on the feminine component, not on the plumbing.


At any rate, a person who wants to control others will find the one they can control. You will see such pairs, but it does not mean all women would fall under the spell.

LB: Of course not...

Bird:
Leo, why don't you buy a computer?

LB: What? and miss out on all these screaming kids here at the cafe!?

(someone pass me an aspirin)

Leo

ps. why dont you get a boy-friend?
Lyrutan
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 10:49 am

Re: VDL

Post by Lyrutan »

David Quinn and Kevin Solway have developed a new version of pantheism, which they term "mantheism." Asked to comment on the essence of their religion, Quinn stated "it's raining men, hallelujah!" Worship rituals reportedly include a ceremony in which adherents, dressed as members of the Village People, give burnt offerings to Otto Weininger.
Ogg Oggleby
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 2:01 pm

Re: VDL

Post by Ogg Oggleby »


Koan: What is the sound of one sheep in New Zealand?


birdofhermes
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:34 pm

Re: VDL

Post by birdofhermes »

Quote:Quote:<hr>ps. why dont you get a boy-friend?<hr>
Well, I have one - are you suggesting I should keep two?
Lyrutan
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 10:49 am

Re: VDL

Post by Lyrutan »

Quote:Quote:<hr>Koan: What is the sound of one sheep in New Zealand?<hr>Answer:

"Oh shit, here comes Quinn and Solway again, and they brought the camcorder. Jesus."
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: VDL

Post by Dan Rowden »

Well, I have to say I'm really not in the mood for this kind of facile garbage. Either post meaningfully in the spirit of the board's subject matter or leave.

If you wish to engage in your stated hobby of raving inanely, do it somewhere else.


Dan Rowden
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: VDL

Post by David Quinn »

I agree with Dan. This kind of behvaiour is neither civilizing nor edifying, and conflicts with your stated aims of "Philosophical Taoism".

I've seen your tasteless thread on the KIR site, Nat, as well as the petty emotionalism of your forum politicking. I really think you should get your own house in order before worrying about what other people are doing.

"And why beholdest though the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam in your thine own eye?" - Jesus Edited by: DavidQuinn000 at: 2/2/04 2:46 pm
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

clarification

Post by Dan Rowden »

I just want to clarify that my comment was specifically aimed at Lyrutan.


Dan Rowden
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: clarification

Post by David Quinn »

Which just happens to be Naturyl spelt backwards.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Ooops

Post by Dan Rowden »

Hmm, so it is. Now I don't know whether to be concerned for Nat's mental health or not.....

*edit* Mind you, this person has been a registered user since 2002 so it may not be Nat's alternate persona at all. Who can tell what the hell people get up to on these boards*



Dan Rowden Edited by: drowden at: 2/2/04 3:20 pm
Locked