This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Science leads to death.
Objective science is not able to penetrate into the domain called life because it denies the validity of the subjective domain which contains the essential elements of life. Life is defined by the presence of conscious feeling in a body. Denying subjective feelings leads to numbness. When numbness has become total one is a corps, dead!
Scientific knowledge is objective knowledge and is only applicable to machine technology. It has nothing to offer in the quest for more life other than to kill it while make it more machine like claiming it to be life.
Humans have become convinced that they are human resources, a commodity at the service of capital. People now speak of their bodies in terms of being fantastic machines. Disease is no longer dis-ease or dis-comfort it is a diagnostic description used to amplify a patience's fear and dependence so as to lock in more income for the practitioner. Robotics and medical prosthesis' are actually blending sentient beings with machines. These humans are not victims. The self hatred of subjective denial has created their situations of need and the objectivity of the machine is there to serve.
Cultures with the most science have become the most insensitive to feeling because of the objective paradigms they hold. Thus they have killed, injured, maimed and tortured more people than one can imagine through declared and undeclared warfare with in the last hundred years. Millions upon millions. They now use drone machines to do their killing and intimidation and some how think it is not them pulling the trigger.
This is the result of humans following a consciously designed path of scientific objectivity which by its very nature is intended to desensitize and annihilate the subjective aspect of human consciousness. .
The followers of scientific objectivity are doomed to die from it as they drive feeling from the body. Steven Hawkins is a prime example of scientific objectivity carried to an extreme. Machines keep him alive.
Gail . 50+
I am not an admirer of S. Hawkins's views, but he does not speak for all of the science. HOWEVER, his claim that life could have started without a God thinking about it, designing it in his mind, and then creating it and watching over it as it grows is a very valid view and agreed upon by virtually ALL quantum physicists.
I think that you will be pleasantly surprised if you check out what is happening in the relevant worlds of science. Not what you think, I assure you.
Dan Geurin 10+
John Allyn
Obey No1kinobe 50+
But there is a general issue.
We have not necessarily evolved to handle our success.
Nuclear weapons just a few hundred years after spears and clubs.
Primal instincts not completely governed by reason.
Even things like obesity. We evolved in a situation where it was a challenge to eat enough. Now we can ear ourselves to early deaths.
Internet porn addiction.
Video game addiction.
Gambling addiction.
We seek pleasure now.
I suggest some science will help us understand and address our weaknesses.
John Allyn
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Opinion?
Religious beliefs. See above.
Intuitive beliefs?
Feelings?
Valuing human and perhaps animal life?
douglas macrae smith
John Allyn
Not understanding this transitory nature of truth one may get stuck in "I know" and then be bdivided, stuck or hindered in the process of becoming more of who we are.
John Allyn
I know it is you and not a imposture by your signature directness to the point.
It is interesting that in this entire thread with all of the purported intelligence which has showed up you are the first person to want to get clear on the most basic aspect of this conversation. It may be that people are so schooled and imbued in objectivity that they really can not comprehend the concept of subjectivity to the point that the question you asked does not occur to them.
Some of the people I have communicated with here give me the strong impression that they fearsomely cling to the objective because they have so much terror of feeling, that the subjective is invalid from the get-go .
This conversation may be of interest to many because it is time to get clear on what the subjective is and how to relate subjectively in life.
Currently the objective domain is outside you, outside your skin. The subject domain is inside of you, from the out side of your skin in. I say currently because this is the way we have been relating to it and it is the first step at this level of our evolution. In time those hard boundaries will soften and the two will integrate and blend, but that is where we are going not where we are.
The problem at hand is that western culture especially, is stuck in and with primarily the objective domain. Some of the most primitive cultures have the opposite problem. They are stuck in and with primarily the subjective domain.
Primitive cultures could most benefit from a western formal education through the objectivity it teaches. Western cultures could most benefit from living in a primitive culture and learning the powers of the subjective it teaches. Besides living in primitive culture a western man could learn a tremendous amount by studying his woman’s ways. How she gets what she want using feeling as much as intellect.
Subjectivity is rooted in the Will which resides in the emotional human feeling body.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I guess all our perceptions, thoughts and feelings to some extent are subjective.
We see the world imperfectly through our sense and interpret this via our paradigms and experience and emotions.
That is not to say some concepts are more objective or backed with more evidence than others. Or that we can not aim for shared understanding based on our interpretations.
It is often beneficial when we can agree on the interpretation of certain shared experiences or perceptions even if what is going on in my head is different from others e.g. This is the Earth. That is the Sun. The Earth is a rough sphere and orbits the sun.
I agree if you are proposing more of a balanced comprehensive approach rather than favouring subjectivity over objectivity or vice versa. Even with more subjective areas such as human happiness, mixing in objectivity helps. Funny how we can study happiness, what drives it and then ignore it in many interactions.
Perhaps this all highlights finding the appropriate balance may be most effective.
Perhaps there is a continuum where more or less objective approaches give the optimum result for different tasks and at different times.
E.g. Intuition has a valuable role, especially if followed up by some objective analysis.
Communication is helped by sharing definitions and context, but being able to pick up the human emotional responses helps deepen understanding.
It's all part of understanding ourselves, the universe and how we want to live.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
All humans are capable of dehumanising. The Hutus slaughtered the Tutsi's with machetes. Not much technology in that. We happily had slaves for thousands of years. Women are no longer property etc. We have progressed socially. Its a mixed bag. Our technology has risks but it is up to us whether we use it to improve or detract from the human condition.
We actually train combat troops to be able to kill other. I agree that dropping a bomb from a plane or remote controlled predators makes the enemy or innocent bystanders killed less real.
How do you know Steven Hawkins is not happy to be alive. Is he dead because of his bodies weakness. One of the greatest minds of our time, still contributing. It's almost insulting. It's his choice whether to live or not.
Most technology has ethical questions to consider. But it is not all inherently dehumanising or evil. It is us, our greed, our laziness, our selfishness, our lack of foresight or self discipline and compassion that is the problem.
One day we may be able to download our consciousness, or extend life centuries, or create AI that is conscious. There are serious questions to address. Again it comes down to our choices.
John Allyn
And how did we justify doing that and many other such cases?
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Technology is a magnifier. Military power potentially allows more harm
But at the human level, we are tribal and have been for as long as we have been around. Take a look at the bible and god tells his chosen people to annihilate many cities. Christians dehumanising the Jews for millennia peaking with the holocaust. Dehumanising people in Vietnam and now middle east
I'm not sure the US is worse than the British empire days or the Roman empire days.
I'm not convinced we value life less than in the past. Murder rates down. Globally War deaths down in the last 30 years. Still a long way to go.
I'm not convinced more advanced countries are more dehumanised.
John Allyn
Obey No1kinobe 50+
One of the most important tools.
But we still have art, music, love, philosophy etc, even if it seems the human consciousness is from our brain, even if we evolved etc. We are atoms born in the stars.
That we are animals and biological machines does not prevent you from having a rich and meaningful life. It does not necessarily lead to dehumanising us. That is a choice, and not one I will take.
While life has no objective meaning it does not stop us from finding meaning in life, in friends and family and community etc.
Its a false dichotomy to think scientific understanding, technology and dumping superstition automatically leads to emptiness. It is our choice.
John Allyn
we are attempting to avoid.
The avoidance is where we find the unconscious gap in consciousness which needs attention. The gap is where we act our denied emotions.
douglas macrae smith
I would conclude from your thesis that you are not familiar with quantum physics (the forefront of science?) If u would like to inquire into the field, I recommend 'the tao pf physics' or 'the dancing wu li masters' : both fascinating bestselling books on the subject.
Your initial accusations could be considered pertinent if levelled at pre 20th century classical or newtonian physics - however science has come a long way since then, fundemental concepts of modern physics being the uncertainty principal, and the blurring of the objective/subjective division.
Meanwhile please consider the following prognosis:
knowledge/belief => stagnation/crystallisation (aka death or simple existence)
inquiry/ignorance => evolution/change (aka complexe life)
I would consider the main objective of the scientist to be enquiry; any new theories immediately unveiling a whole new set of questions why.
A few more ad hoc reactions to your text:
part of current robotic research is trying to understand the functioning of the biological mind.(understanding ourselves)
AI in modern warfare means being able to remotly destroy a single person (rather than a city) - France has been at war with Afghanistan, and everytime a soldier is killed we have national mourning (annually the military death toll is far less than mortality from traffic accidents)
Stephen Hawkings is practically a poet/mystic, we can thank tech progress for being able to share in a small part of his vision.
John Allyn
I will get back with you once I have read The Dancing Wu Li Masters.
Andrew Wiggin
For example: Consider that two scientist, one a strict evolutionist the other a strict creationist. They both observe a fossil. The evolutionist claims, "Oh wait great evidence for evolution", the creationist claims, "Oh what great evidence for creation". Now in reality they both observed a chicken bone covered in cement. This is a very very extreme case. I just used an exaggerated example to demonstrate the problems of using subjectivity. People tend to see what they want to see, not what is really there. That is why science must be objective.
Andrew Wiggin
John Allyn
Yes it does for some persons and I think that this is an example, to some degree, of integrating the objective with the subjective to arrive at a better understanding and appreciation of and for the beauty of nature.
I am learning much in this conversation as it challenges me to think in new channels. Such questions as yours cause me to paws and think/feel so that I can language something in know and have never languaged,
Rhona Pavis 50+
John Allyn
For me the positive to negative feeling is a chance to choose a safe space and move the emotion involved as sound with out words. It frees up the connective tissue of the body while altering the chemistry of the interstitial fluids which nourishes the cells. It also returns memory/information of the events allowing mental resolution. It will convert a negative into a positive.
Science is good if feelings are applied to the application of its knowledge. This brings objective/subjective balance.
Thanks for being here...................John
Rhona Pavis 50+
John Allyn
It still remains that we all seem to have a historical backlog of unconscious, unprocessed and suppressed emotional events in our past which may be triggered by a word, event or image that causes a knee jerk reaction with out a moments notice. These events for me are doors into my forgotten past making it possible for me to clear up some background static which is distorting my present....................John
Rhona Pavis 50+
John Allyn
Random Chance 30+
This is achieved through brainwashing, not science per se.
Understanding is achieved through, well, understanding.
John Allyn
The more benign forms of brain washing are easily seen in our industrial marketing. The classical brainwashing as reference above is primarily governmental and supra governmental. Marketing is primarly associated with the private sector but it also us extensively used by the government. IRS intimidation is an example. Marketing uses all of the basic physical sciences as well as social sciences to accomplish its goals. This is a large topic but I imagine that you get my drift.
Understanding will be defined and limited in its scope by the paradigms and belief one holds around ones paradigms.Our paradigms and beliefs are what shape our selection of information. The information which is select out of the vast amount available is information which will support our paradigms. Few people are able to notice that their paradigms are shaping their perception of reality.
Understanding is achieved through first understanding ones own beliefs and paradigms.
Andrew Wiggin
John Allyn
David Hamilton 50+
On a per capita basis, we were far more violent, rapy, and theft oriented societies before modern scientific advances. Religious, and subjectively governed societies, have historically been the most brutal. No war between superpowers, which led to a land battle, has ever had less death, than dropping the bomb produced in Japan. It was the least death prone solution possible given the circumstances, and it was invented by science.
Science oriented communities have lower rates of teen pregnancy, their marriages last longer, and they produce more wealth than religious communities.
Keep believing nonsense if it helps you sleep at night though : )
John Allyn
You are repeating to me what you have been told by social authorities to justify their behavior and keep people in a fog. Current examples of this can be seen in government economic reports which claim no significant inflation in consumer price. Of course no one knows how the statistics are developed, the parameters and definitions used and few understand statistics. Yet we stand around the market and talk about how much more things are costing and I am not speaking in terms of two percent.
Yet the authorities continue insisting there is no significant inflation. I understand that they must pacify the population with lies (misinformation) as they destroy the value of the dollar while allowing domestic inflation. It is the only way to make us competitive with Asia because our labor is over priced in a competitive well educated global labor market. Understanding that does not mean that I must believe what they are telling me about inflation.
We are told that there is less violence in the cities. It does not seem so to me. I am more inclined to believe that the statistics are fudged by changing definitions and so on.
We are told that we live in a democracy and hardly any one know who counts the vote, who programs the computer and so on. We just want to believe.
The war in Vietnam is another good example of authority’s lies and distortions. I never knew that we were also at war also with Laos. This was never mentioned. Now it turns out that more tons of bombs were dropped on them than on all of Europe and Japan combined during the Second World War.
I do not take the authorities truths at face value. They twist the truth in order to have the public march to their music.
Think for yourself, read behind the lines, look for alternative motives and you will uncover a lot
David Hamilton 50+
Science is why every human being on earth has a dramatically higher life expectancy now, than 100 years ago. Just because authorities, often lie, doesn't mean that all of human history is a lie. You ignored every point I made, because they're all true, but they don't fit into your worldview.
No matter how much they fudge the inflation numbers, they can't fake their way to a decade increase in life expectancy and a 2 billion person increase to the LIVING population. If science was killing us, there would be less of us now, than before science. There are more. Lots more, so many more it's becoming a problem. Science has created too much life.
John Allyn
"On a per capita basis, we were far more violent, rape, and theft oriented societies before modern scientific advances." This has been fed to you on an academic silver spoon.
Can you imagine the millions of people who died or lived maimed in Laos when we dropped more bombs on them during the Vietnam war than was dropped by us during world war two, or the two million Vietnamese (gooks) we kill in battle while loosing 50.000 men. If two million were killed, imaging how were seriously injured and lived on maimed. You art told these stories of how nice things are now so as to keep you from thinking.
A prolonged life span I do not necessarily call "more life." More life is a quality, sensitivity and energy to enjoy. We are swamped with drugs to block feeling, alter moods, and stimulate our adrenalin to give us the sense that we have more energy when we are burning out.
You could grasp the concept, that more people does not define as more life, if you understood fragmentation. Because you wish to ignore the metaphysical domain I can not give you new material to work with. But notice that we do no wish to look into the issue of why we keep having more children when we are already overpopulated. Earth worm stop reproducing when the food supply diminishes to where it will not support more.
Only true subjective introspection with honest intent can discover the human motives which will continue to reproduce into poverty and starvation.
Science will not encourage this because it will empower the individual to become more subjectively self aware.
David Hamilton 50+
R H 20+
John Allyn
Fritzie Reisner 100+
John Allyn
Science considers objectivity to be the path to truth. Objectivity is based upon the observation of the external world. A world external to the subject observing that which is beyond the self that observes. To objectify is to measure and assess the out there with agreed upon methods and units of weight and measures.
ob•jec•tive
[ ob jéktiv ]
1. free of bias: free of any bias or prejudice caused by personal feelings
2. based on facts: based on facts rather than thoughts or opinions
3. observable: describes disease symptoms that can be observed by somebody other than the person who is ill
The scientist must deny subjective feelings, thinking that that will keep them from tainting their observations. The ability to deny subjectivity is one quality which defines a good scientist.
Fritzie Reisner 100+
John Allyn
Fritzie Reisner 100+
While the research method is itself objective, there is no unwillingness to accept and embrace the range of human behaviors.
John Allyn
The subjective applies value to such work or disparages it according to the personal values of the subject.
Fritzie Reisner 100+
This is not a realistic picture of the values of the scientific community or of those who use analytical tools in inquiry.
Those who use analytical tools also make subjective judgments in their lives, like some kinds of music and not others, and love as deeply and fully as those in different lines of work.
If you believe that there is a place for objective and subjective judgment as part of the human experience, you should be pleased to know that essentially 100% of scientists would hold this view as well.
John Allyn
Thanks.................John
Fritzie Reisner 100+
John Allyn
On the other hand, did not state or imply evil in the text or that science is evil. Your unconscious subjective subconscious applied that judgment to the text base upon your values which you applied to content with in the text.
This is a very good first hand example of why the scientific method came about. People noticed the effects of their own subjective unconsciousness and did not know how to resolve it directly through introspection and emotional movement. Therefor they create a method that would attempt to screen out all subjectivity.
For those times that was the best that could be done. Now it may time to find what was lost in separating subjectivity from knowledge.
Andrew Hu
John Allyn
Simba P.K.S
I disagree with you, but you have made me think!
I don't think science can ever drive the feeling out of us. The emotions are what makes life worth living...
No one will become dead, because the human mind is made to respond to emotions. Happiness, love, curiosity, awareness, appreciation as well as negative emotions like prejudice, greed, hatred etc are present in varying magnitude in everyone, including scientists! Denying that would be foolish!
What science does is different. Science can't drive life out of humans. Science may lead to creation of robots. Humans are not robots. Insensitivity towards feelings is not a trait that is associated with science!
Bottom line is don't confuse yourself with science and life....
John Allyn
Salim Solaiman 50+
Does this idea means One Will Be Immortal if s/he Leaves Science?
Interesting thing with SCIENCE is that it doesn't bother, when someone denounces it after taking all the advantages from IT.....
John Allyn
Each individual is the subject of their own existence sounder by an objective reality. If the subject is being absolutely introspectively absorbed it dies of starvation. If the subject denies subjectivity and is absolutely absorbed in objectivity it dies of numbness. One of my primary paradigms is that life at its fullest will be found at the interface between these two domains where each blends with the other in what I speculate might be called sensual intellectualism. The senses guide the intellect inspires.
Thanks for your ideas and statements.....................John
Salim Solaiman 50+
Well what does it mean ....
to a fish
to a bird
to a deer
to a tree
to a plankton
to a bacteria
and so on
All are dead ?
John Allyn
In order to go on one must accept that the physical proceeds from the metaphysical. The Big Bang is the scientist's term for the emergence of the physical out of the metaphysical. I call it Original Cause, What took place in that moment we are still attempting to resolve through understanding. I am suggesting that with out integrating the objective point of view with the subjective point of view we are stuck with reoccurring death and birth.
The metaphysical has an overview which can supply information to the physical concerning pain and death, if we are willing to listen. The metaphysical can only be accessed through the individual who practices subjective introspection (an aspect being meditation). Because science dismisses the metaphysical out of hand, we must accept that it can lead is to the door into the metaphysical, but we in our subjectivity are the only ones who can open it.
The self importance held with in our egos wishes to avoid such a possibility because one sense that this self importance must die in order for one to open the door into the metaphysical. This dilemma of all of nature being stuck in the pain/death cycle can only be solved by the human aspect of nature. The self importance we are attempting to maintain out of the illusion it is us, is what I call The God Problem. The self importance is playing God.
Salim Solaiman 50+
What is your answer then to my question in the post above ?
John Allyn
Salim Solaiman 50+
Moreover it is clearly evident that because of scientific development the life expectancy of human being has increased in most of the countries. Child mortality has gone down. So your main premise is not a valid one.
John Allyn
From my understanding human population is expanding not because of more spirits being present but because denial has caused the original spirits to fragment into what looks like a human but which only has the form but not all of the pieces.
Two people fucking, and by that I mean two people moving sexual rage between them selves may fragment there combined denied rage into a conception which the woman gives birth to. This I would call a rage fragment. These come back to haunt us in the form of domestic violence, mass killings (Norway, Colorado) and sociopath behavior which ends up doing jail time.
Recently a man killed some Jewish kids at a Jewish school and it got a lot of press. When the police corned him he yelled something to the effect of, "kill me, I wish to die as much as you wish to live". This is self hatred incarnate. It walks talks and breaths. How much conscious feeling is there in that life form. How much consciousness. At least enough to seek death.
Our fragmentation into more population has eliminated great numbers and many kinds of life forms as we kill them and over run their habitat. Do this increase in human population of depressed internalize rage fragments living lonely lives in city apartments or mad men on the prowl qualify as more life. Does it have more life than the animal, fish, tree, and microorganism population which they displace or use as resources to keep their bodies alive. That is a subjective value judgment for each persons tp make.
I am not here to judge your values or level of understanding. I am attempting to understand the thinking and values of the humans around me while offering a different point of view.
That may have value for you or not, I am getting what I need for my process.
James Zhang 30+
John Allyn
The science of objective knowledge is a tool and understanding what it is good for is essential. Its functions appropriately in the domain of machine technology only.
James Zhang 30+
Humans can think, have emotions, understand, realize oneself and others.
Computer can do. They can only do what they're told to do, but they're very good at that.
It is computers who should work for us, not humans who work for computers. And I think people are smart enough to stop the whole human enslavement to computers
John Allyn
Human enslavement to the computer and our own minds can be broken through the practice of meditation because it leads one to being conscious while not thinking. Experiencing this and gaining the understanding it has to offer puts the computer and mind in its right place. A place of service, not enslavement.
James Zhang 30+
But maybe the message I'm getting from you is, people sometimes just need to take a break from computers and technology and just take a deep breath. Like they need to realize their own environment and situation. And be conscious of their own involuntary actions. So meditation, as you have said, is one method to do this. Well that's my interpretation of what you're trying to say anyways.
John Allyn
Stewart Gault 30+
Sooo discovery that bacteria and virus cause disease, and then finding cures for said diseases are going to cause us all to die? And subjective science is the worst science. If emotion was part of science it would just be lies. O nooo look the Andromeda galaxy seems to be moving towards us and will eventually kill us all, well we don't like that so let's tell people there's no galaxy going to kill us. This is what happens if you let emotion into science. And just so you know "The followers of scientific objectivity are doomed to die from it as they drive feeling from the body" everyone dies eventually.
And like seriously what is your point?
John Allyn
I did not use the term subjective science nor imply that emotions should be included in science for that would be the application of a contradiction of terms. I suspect that your fear is distorting your mental perception of what I wrote. If you can feel into yourself as you think over this topic over, you may find fear or fear that is denied and been converted to rage. Consider it.
My point is that death is not an inevitable eventuality if we can discover the paradigms which are leading us into death. Remember that if you wish to arrive at a different conclusion you must first change your paradigm.
Thank you for honoring me with the expression of your thoughts.................John
Gerald O'brian 50+
John Allyn
Stewart Gault 30+
You do realise that it's science keeping almost everyone alive, and up above you said it creates zombies instead of prolonging life. How are vaccines or immunizations creating zombies? Or dialysis machines? Or organ replacements? or antibiotics, the only thing which truly does keep someone like a zombie is a life support machine and that's it.
Now your basic premise is the idea that there is more than the physical and there is also a spiritual dimension of some kind yada yada yada. You just dressed it up with some vague science terms. This requires further evidence which it currently lacks and I don't see at all how adding emotion to the mix could bring this forward to us.
John Allyn
The immune system is the totality of all of who we are, not just certain aspects defined as specific systems or certain cell structures. That is why your noting that having a good moral and being generally happy strengthens the immune system. Those traits strengthen all of who we are. Saying that one has increased energy is to say the totality of the person is at a higher level of function. One aspect of this is less illness.Our ability to remain in good health is rooted in accepting all of who we are with as little denial as possible. Each person at their specific level of self understanding will define ‘all of who we are’ differently. The healthier will be more inclusive of aspects of themselves.
Germs as virus and bacteria are more plentiful in our body than our number of structural cell. Certain of these germs will be triggered into expanding their populations to create symptoms only when specific internal environmental condition with in the body manifest. Otherwise the germ is only contributing its individual systemic function in the cellular environment and not raising any red flags (symptoms). Dis-ease is not caused by the germ. It is caused by the specific imbalance in body chemistry which triggers the germ to multiply and create specific agents of irritation. This irritation is the manifestation of symptoms of disease and not the cause. The germ is not the cause of the problem but the agent that signals that there is an imbalance within the entire structure's function. (continue below)
John Allyn
This keeps the patient tied to the empirical germ theory model which make big money for the doctors and pharmaceutical industry. And yes it is each person’s responsibility to break free of this model and take personal responsibility for their own level of health.
You state above "You do realize that it's science keeping almost everyone alive," I understand that this is your belief so it is your reality. I have created a different belief and thus a different reality for my own way of going. Our choice of beliefs determine our choice of a reality. I am just offering a choice outside of our societies consensus reality.
Gerald O'brian 50+
Yes. A challenge ; where does your knowledge come from?
I'm not talking about a few facts here and there. I mean it in a philosophical sense.
In your worldview, where does knowledge come from?
John Allyn
Knowledge arises with in the observer bases upon what the energy of attentions is directed upon. The knowledge that emerges is conditioned by the observer's paradigms ("a pattern or model, an exemplar".)and beliefs.
The knowledge obtained is objective knowledge if the observer has pure objectivity.
The knowledge obtained is subjective knowledge if the observer is in a state of pure subjectivity.
Neither can be pure in the human domain because the human is composed of and created out of these two domains and will always incorporate some of the other while attempting to be pure in the one.
Understanding begins to emerge as we learn to balance these two aspects of consciousness with in our mind/body complex. The better the balance between the objective and the subjective domains the higher is the understanding which emerges between them.
Consciousness it the metaphysical aspect which manifests in from as the mind (central nervous system) which is most often associated with the brain but which is actually meant to be an all pervading aspect penetrating all of all of who one is.
The metaphysical aspect which balances the Consciousness is Feeling and it manifests as the body (peripheral nervous system). Consciousness with out feel has no way to anchor itself in form.
The more one denies feeling our of consciousness, the more consciousness is then driven out of the body until it results in death.
Stewart Gault 30+
So firstly injecting a mouse with HIV will cause the mouse to die no matter how happy the mouse is, in your idea if you can just be happy enough you'll be able to be HIV free. Once again no evidence. And your idea completely fall apart when met with the self squires immuniies within the body. If in your idea we have an energy drop and we get the cold then our body fights it and makes the antibodies. Now by your logic an exact same fall in energy should trigger the exact same germ or disease. Yet it doesn't we become immune to things.
You really need evidence, you're being contrarian for the sake of it and in doing so have abandoned all your faculties such as common sense and value of reason and evidence.
Gerald O'brian 50+
How then do you know I'm wrong? What happens when you confront two ideas?
I ask because it seems it's just one opinion against another in your philosophy.
John Allyn
I did not intend to communicate that I an neither objective nor subjective. I am attempting to integrate the two into a new personal reality for myself. My opinions are my truths at the moment and they are constantly evolving. A truth for me is just a stepping stone on the way to the next truth. My truths are framed by beliefs which give me general guidance on my path.
Your opinions are your truths on your path of self realization. I do not presume to make you or anyone else wrong. Your life is your path of learning. Conflicts in opinions do not have to be assumed to make anyone wrong.if one is not afraid to change and and are willing to change. Conflicts in opinions are for me a chance to possible evolve my opinions/truths or not. If not I let it be and move on.
Gerald O'brian 50+
Alright, this is the part i'm interested in. How do you know when you should "let it be and move" ?
How does one learn anything interesting with that method?
If I tell you that lead is poisonous, why should you believe me? Why not believe my neighbour who says lead is healthful? Someone must be wrong, and it's quite useful to have a philosophy able to objectively say who's more likely to be wrong. I call it science.
How would you sort things out? Why not believe that lead is healthful?
John Allyn
I listen to you both and tilt the bias strongly in your favor. I do not have to absolutely believe you and give you the position of being right, just right for you. I like you and so not eating lead might not be right for me, and you do cause me to look into the matter on my own. I.do not have to make the neighbor wrong because lead may be giving him what he wants.
Recently a man killed some children at a Jewish school and he got a lot of press. It was reported that when he was surrounded by the police he yelled something to the effect of,
"Kill me! I want to die as much as you want to live". I do not remember the out come. His statement is what impressed me. I can not make him wrong for wanting to die.
Possibly your neighbor has the same inclination with out being as clear about it and I am not interested in finding out. I just move on because he does not feel or appear healthy. Why would I make him wrong for enjoying lead. It may be what he needs for where he wants to go. He may also know others that enjoy lead for they all hold the same intent. So for that domain of persons seeking death lead is a good thing. I hopes the all eat a lot and move on out of my environment.
Gerald O'brian 50+
Gut feeling? Opinion? Read it in a comic book?
John Allyn
Gerald O'brian 50+
John Allyn