By Ivan on Thursday, December 23, 1999 - 10:46 pm:
HAPPY NEW YEAR 2000!

It's a New Millennium. ÊMany things written into
the PeoplesBook2000, in preparation for the
Millennium, no doubt touched in us somewhere in
one of our seven chakras, (see entry July 12),
giving us a new paradigm for our future. Ê
Through this last year of the old millennium, we
who contributed to it spoke to many, and hopefully
for many, so that truly, it was written by the
People of Planet Earth. Ê

In some mysterious way, those words Êspoken from
our hearts may have changed the world, in their
own quiet way. ÊIn the dying embers of
this last year, we may have been witness to the
beginnings of a very quiet revolution of our
planet's mind. To all who wrote, thank you for
your wonderful contributions. ÊAnd to all those
who read these from throughout the
world, thank you for visiting. ÊI hope that
somewhere in these words, we touched your heart. Ê

Thanks to you all.

May Peace and Joy and Love, God Bless you All!
Merry Christmas and Happy New Millennium!
Ê
(signed) Ivan D. Alexander.
Ê Ê
* Ê Ê * Ê Ê * Ê Ê * Ê Ê * Ê Ê * Ê Ê *

Rev:5:1 And I saw in the right hand of him that
sat on the throne a book written within and on the
backside, sealed with seven seals. 5:2 And I
saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice,
Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the
seals thereof?

http://
nitpik.com/Bible/index.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Anonymous on Thursday, December 23, 1999 - 10:48 pm:
Write all you like into the PeoplesForum at the
HumanCafe! Stay as long as you like. It's on the
house, until the next millennium! Love.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Anonymous on Saturday, December 25, 1999 - 10:49 am:
LOVE LIFE

"Give all you can from love. Take all you can
from love. It is the most important thing while
you live in this life."

--Roberto Salvi, Roma.it (1917-1999)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Anonymous on Sunday, February 13, 2000 - 01:02 pm:
America's 'Gross National Happiness' on rise
But will wealth increase ethical behavior?

By Dr. Paul B. Farrell, CBS MarketWatch
Last Update: 9:53 AM ET Feb 9, 2000 Mutual
Understanding
More "FarrellonFunds"LOS ANGELES (CBS.MW) -- On a
recent road trip up the rugged California coast we
stopped by our favorite bookstore, the famed
Thunderbird in Carmel, where I bought the Dalai
Lama's new book, Ethics For The New Millennium.
With eerie synchronicity, shortly after I began
reading, two very similar stories highlighting
this subject quickly crossed my radar, from
opposites sides of the world.
"My call for a spiritual revolution is a call for
a radical reorientation away from our habitual
preoccupation with self. It is a call to turn
toward the wider community of beings with whom we
are connected."

"Dalai Lama
Ethics For The
New MillenniumOne was in a newspaper article from
Shanghai China, involving two 75-year-olds in a
unique "social security" experiment. The second
was in an e-mail from Middle America, where a
70-year-old retiree helped his 85-year-old friend
become a millionaire, working for no compensation.
Both stories tell of compassion, of helping
another human in need. Both were voluntary,
examples of an emerging ethics for the new
millennium. Or perhaps an ancient spirit that
makes us human.
Compassion and The Golden Rule
The Dalai Lama's ethics book focuses on compassion
and is grounded in "those qualities of the human
spirit ... which bring happiness to both self and
others." Sound familiar? It should. Christians
call it The Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you
would have others do unto you." And like most
universal principles, it is simple to grasp...."

To read more, go to: http:
//aolpf.marketwatch.com/source/blq/aolpf/archive/2
0000209/news/current/superstar.asp

It's a nice article regarding the New Millennium's
"attitude of mind".


/////////\\\////////

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Bruno on Thursday, February 17, 2000 - 01:46 am:
THIRD MILLENNIUM, OR 'UN.MILLENNIUM'

Some feel the third millennium starts in 2001,
others 2000. If one thinks that the first
millennium started in zero, and the second in
1000, then the third millennium is already here.
If instead, on thinks the first starts at one, and
the second started at 1001, then we're still
waiting. But then, what does that make from zero
to one? the "un-millennium"? You figure.

Bruno

Today, 17 Febbraio, 2000, in Rome at Campo de'
Fiori, is the 400th anniversary of the burning of
the body of Giordano Bruno by the then Holy
Fathers of their most Catholic Church. Though the
body burned and a great mind was taken away, his
soul lives.


http://
www.geocities.com/Athens/Atlantis/1457/index.html


...............................................

------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Anonymous on Friday, February 18, 2000 - 12:40 am:
BRUNO: Da "Il Messaggero" Roma

Venerdì 18 Febbraio 2000 Il Papa chiede scusa per
Giordano Bruno. Ma ne condanna la dottrina
«Peccato il rogo, ma non lo riabilito»

CITTÀ DEL VATICANO - Il «profondo rammarico» della
Chiesa per il rogo che, 400 anni fa, arse vivo
Giordano Bruno, è stato espresso ieri, a nome del
Papa, dal cardinale Angelo Sodano in una lettera
ad un convegno organizzato a Napoli. Il filosofo
non viene riabilitato perché il suo pensiero
ritenuto «incompatibile» con la fede cristiana.
Non sono condannati i giudici ma le procedure
dell’Inquisizione perché «la verità non può essere
imposta con la forza».

http://www.ilme
ssaggero.it

__________________________

It is the year 2000.Has anyone noticed the changes
of frequency?Time speeding up?Does LOVE energy feel more real to you now? What are your visions for the new Millenium?Don't forget to check out my site at http://spiritualanarchist.com/MLShift/fr.html
If you want a free page on my site email me.

HELP

Sometimes I feel that we just have to let people
be. This is Tolerance at its highest, though it
goes against so much that we as a present culture
believe in. It is like watching souls at a
distance go to war with one another, and having
the urge to help; (after all, is it not better to
help others even more that it is to help
oneself?); but to realize that "help" is a loaded
word, and that in helping we are keeping that
person from living their chosen destiny. So when
do we "help" another human being? Is it more
helping them if we let them be, to live out their
lives as they choose? Do we help them only when
they ask for help? I would think so. Do we help
them because they themselves do not know they are
in trouble and really need help? Do we help the
unawares because they are unaware? Or do we
tolerate them for being who they are, and let them
be. In time, if it is their destiny to choose to
become aware, they will. At least, this is what I
think. But sometimes...

the mind is that part of the universe that can
interact with itself. it is how the who, or it,
or that, looks back upon itself. it is ego and
detachment and being. it is the swaying of the
sea kelp, or the rhythm of the waves beneath a
darkening sky. mind is a dream that creates
itself.

shamu

By Jebel on Monday, May 1, 2000 - 10:04 pm:

NEW COVENANT:
(Inspired by the writings of Herbert Armstrong on
the new Kingdom of God.)

Rev.19 [15] From his mouth issues a sharp sword
with which to smite the nations, and he will rule
them with a rod of iron;

http:/
/www.hti.umich.edu/relig/kjv/

(I believe the "rod of iron" is a standard which
is unchangeable, and from which all other measure
follows. It is the Law of laws, a Law of God, the
Mystery of the Ages.)


Heb.8 [10] This is the covenant that I will make
with the house of Israel
after those days, says the Lord:
I will put my laws into their minds,
and write them on their hearts,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.


(I believe that this is what the Law of God is
about, a New Covenant for Earth's People.)


Jebe

When you lie to a person, you make them your
enemy. When you tell them the truth, you make
them a friend.

ROTATIONAL INDUCED MOTION AND LIFT: The flying
saucer principle.

Hypothesis: If in nature there is evidence of
rotational spin induced by the center directed
force of gravity, such as exhibited by the
gravitational inward force of planets, or the
gravitational force of solar systems and galaxies
pulling heavenly bodies towards a given center of
revolution, much like when a skater spins faster
when bringing in his arms; then why not duplicate
this rotational spin by inducing the same force in
an artificial way? What if we built a craft,
round in shape, or like a disk, with hollow ribs
extending from the craft's outer perimeter to its
center, then up that center, and back again in a
loop to the edge of the circumference, so that a
magnetized fluid could be free to travel within
these ribs. To duplicate the forces of nature,
this fluid would be forced, magnetically, to
travel from the perimeter to the craft's center at
the lower channel, which would induce it to spin.
However, this would be canceled out as the fluid
travels back over the upper channel to the edge
again. So, to counter this, the path of travel
should be uneven, shorter at the lower, hence of
greater velocity and force, from the outside in,
and slower at the top, hence lower force velocity,
from the center out. This can be accomplished by
having a straight line of travel of the inward
going fluid, then up the axis, and then an arched
and downward travel for the fluid going back out
again to the edge. If within each hollow rib the
fluid rushes into the center, then up that center,
and then arching back over a curve back down to
the edge, to start this process again in a
continuous loop, we may be duplicating what is
happening in the hot molten interior of planets,
or the very hot gases inside a star. Except those
bodies are spheres, so the up and down motion is
canceled out. But if our craft has a bulge at the
top and flat at the bottom, (like a flying
saucer), it would then meet the requirements of
our design. This would have the effect that in
some ways duplicates what happens by the passage
of air over the curved wing of an airplane.
Because the motion is uneven, the spinning craft
would then exert also an uplifting force as the
fluid travels down from the top to the bottom
again. An actual model to demonstrate
this would have to be tested. If it works as
said, then modifications can easily be made to
maintain a stationary center for the craft's power
source and passengers. The direction of this
craft would be achieved by manipulating the rate
of flow at the various ribs, each independent of
the other, so that some are at greater velocity,
with more lift, and the other side slower, with
less lift. In this way, the craft can be tilted,
and any desired direction achieved. Also, because
of the spinning exterior, less resistance from the
air in which it travels would be achieved, hence
less friction and heat, since at every moment a
new edge of the surface is expose to the oncoming
air as it travels forth. The big question in this
hypothesis is this: Will the inward forced fluid
achieve the craft's spin? I believe that this is
easy. Yes. Then, will the parabolic flow from
the top of the craft down the side of its upper
portion of the disk produce lift? Or is the flow
up the center canceled out in its force by the
flow down the parabolic sides? This I cannot
ascertain, since it would have to be tested in an
actual experiment. I suspect the parabolic
downward motion of the fluid mass over a larger
surface would equal an opposite reaction from the
structure within which it is housed, overcoming
the force of the motion up the axis, so that lift
would be achieved. Now, if it does work, then we
will have duplicated an important force of nature,
not only to replicate rotational motion, but to
achieve lift as well. Very little energy would be
needed aboard to carry out the motion of the fluid
within the craft. In space, this principle would
work even better, as gravity would be of lesser
consequence. Tickets to Mars will be on sale
shortly.

--Galileo2

LIES WILL DIE

Someday, those who lie will fall off the world
like dead skin off a lizard's back.

THANK YOU

It takes courage to trust;
It takes trust to find agreement;
It takes agreement to have cooperation;
It takes cooperation to form goodwill;
It takes goodwill to have an open heart;
It takes an open heart to love.

If anyone asks: Who are you?
Answer: I am who I am.
I do not live in competition, in fear,
But like water flowing into a calm pool,
I live in compassion and thankfulness.
With my open hands, I live in peace.

Thank you.


Ankheom

OBEDIENCE or AGREEMENT?

To Obey? Or to Agree? It seems so insignificant
at first. One has been our history, the other can
make history. Which will it be for the new
Millennium? In that small distinction, between
obeying or agreeing, rests a great future for all
of us and our progeny. I hope we will all
Agree.

http://www.humancafe.com/Chapter-eight.htm
A Person in Agreement

This is far more of a VISION than a dream!!
What I love about this "shared vision" is that it
magnefies or bolsters the rising mass
consciousness knowledge that "a group mind holding
the same uplifting thought with a pure, single
focus--CAN CHANGE THE WHOLE WORLD REALITY!!" After
all... "The Universe always arranges itself to
accomodate our picture of reality!!***What are
each one of us individually and thus collectively
"out-picturing?"...(HELL--or Heaven On
earth)??....

Last night I received a phone call from a
wonderful lady that had a very special "vision" in
her meditation and asked me to please write to my
network and ask them to join in the "process"
or "direction of Intent" to assist in neutralizing
the conflict in Isreal and specifically Jerusalem.

She found herself in the garden of Gethsemane
where Jesus had gone to pray and was on the rock
looking out over the city below. A tower become
illuminated and she astrally went to see it
closer. As she viewed the tower of the Holy Place
she wondered if anyone else saw it and when she
turned around the sky was filled with thousands of
angels. She heard a message that asked if she
remembered Jeraco and knew how the walls
had been distroyed. They said it was the vibration
of the priests marching around and around for
seven days and their intent being focused.

The angels are poised and ready to assist in
this situation and asked her to assemble or inform
as many like minded humans as she could to set
aside time each day for 7 days to meditate
and surround the city with their PURE, DIVINE,
UNCONDITIONAL LOVE, as the priests had set up
their intent vibration at Jerico only this time to
build peace and respect for all beliefs. The
angels are there and only need to be asked to
assist. Those in the midst of the battle are not
in a state of conciousness that will do this so
this also is being asked of us.

Please join me today and for the following 6
days to invite the angels to "engage" in this
opportunity, shifting the reality of the
Middle East with PURE, DIVINE, UNCONDITIONAL LOVE,
as each of us surround the area with the same as
our intent.

May the light and love that you are with the
oneness that we share raise the vibration for us
all.

Love and Light, JOY

THANK YOU !

If there is one word we should know for our whole
planet, it is this:

Ahsante, Danke, Diolch, Dodje, Domo, Dyakoyu,
Dzieki, Gracias, Grazie, Efhareesto, Kamsa, Kawp
Koon, Koszonom, Kushukuru, Mahalo, Mercie,
Obrigado, Shukr'an, Spassiba, Takk, Tashakoti,
Thanebadt, Xiexie... Thank you!

This is the word of unity and peace.

Ankheom

Eclipse and Quantum Meditation Prayer


INVOCATION:

Let the Rider from the Secret Place come forth,
and Coming, Save.
Come forth, Oh Mighty One.
Let men and women everywhere awaken to the Light,
and may we stand with massed intent.
May men and women of Good Will everywhere
Meet in a spirit of cooperation.

The WILL to save is here.
The LOVE to carry forth the work is widely spread
abroad.
The ACTIVE AID of all who know the Truth is also
here.
Come forth, O Mighty One, and blend these three.
Construct a great defending wall. The rule of evil
now must end.

Let Light and Love and Power restore the Plan on
Earth.
So let it be, and help us do our part.

http://www.lightshift.com/Prayers/quantum.html

HAPPY NEW YEAR 2001! SOUL MATES

Every year we circle the sun, we seek to find
balance between the virtues and trials of our life
on Earth. And like the atoms aligned in a magnetic
rod of iron, whose poles are balanced within, we
nevertheless influence direction on all those
around us. We are all as soul mates on this
beautiful blue sphere, traveling within the great
cycles of life, to learn or teach, as may be our
calling. And like the tides of the moon, we move
our world in ways that oftentimes are invisible to
us. As one year ends and a new one dawns, I hope
for us all that we be both teachers and students
in this great universe-ity of life. Wishing you
all the very Happiest New Year, in Joy and Health
and Love.

--Ivan Alexander

GIVE-POWER

Give all you can, so you have the power to give
more, so you are more powerful.

LIGHTS !!!

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0011/earthlights_dmsp_big.jpg

Therealotapeopleoutthere!

APPEAL TO THE CONSCIOUS EVOLUTION NETWORK:
BUTTERFLY

http://www.bashar.com/GSP/earth-proc.htm

Working together we can we can do what no one
of us can do alone. We can make the butterfly not
only the symbol for the Millennium, but that of
the conscious evolution of humanity itself.

Moore has coined a new meaning for the word
butterfly, which as a verb means to give or teach
someone the gift of looking at the world, as with
butterfly eyes, and seeing only beauty, love, and
harmony in the world around them. If we can reach
out and butterfly people all over the world, we
may be heralding the dawn of a major paradigm
shift and find ourselves living in the Butterfly
Era of global civilization that Norie envisioned.

Our butterflies are capturing the hearts and
minds of people all over the world, including many
authors, futurists, environmentalists, and native
Americans. These include Jean Houston, James
Redfield, Neile Donald Walsch, Elisabet Sahtouris,
Michael Cohen, Trina Paulus, Barbara Marx Hubbard,
and Corbin Harney .

The Earth Proclamation

WE ARE ONE PEOPLE...
WE SHARE ONE PLANET...
WE HAVE ONE COMMON DREAM...
WE WANT TO LIVE IN PEACE...
WE CHOOSE TO PROTECT AND HEAL THE EARTH...
WE CHERISH THE EARTH'S BIO AND CULTURAL
DIVERSITY...
WE WILL CHOOSE TO CREATE A BETTER WORLD FOR ALL...
WE WILL BECOME STEWARDS FOR THE PLANET'S
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES...
WE WILL DEFEND AND PROTECT THE RAIN FORESTS,
REDWOODS, AND OTHER SACRED PLACES...
WE WILL DO OUR BEST TO MAKE THIS DREAM COME
TRUE...
WE WILL DO THIS FOR OUR CHILDREN, AND OUR
CHILDREN'S CHILDREN...
WE WILL TRANSFORM WHAT NEEDS TO BE TRANSFORMED...
WE WILL BREAK FREE OF OUR CHRYSALIS LIMITATIONS...
WE WILL JOYFULLY LOVE, SHARE, AND FORGIVE...
SO THAT PEACE MAY PREVAIL ON EARTH!
MAY PEACE PREVAIL ON EARTH! (At ceremonies, repeat
this line to each of the four directions)

http://www.bashar.com/GSP/earth-proc.htm

EARTH PROCLAMATION & Magna Carta
of the Rainbow Warriors of the 21st Century

WE ,THE PEOPLE, in order to live a more perfect
existence in this world of form in harmony with
the natural laws of the Universe, are determined
to heal and transform all institutions and social
constructions that restrain mankind from living in
perfect peace and love; or in harmony with all the
divine qualities inherent in our god-natures.

WE THEREFORE advocate and promote the overthrow of
all machinery of war and the undeclared war
against nature by polluters of the environment;
all engines of greed and inhumanity to man.

WE UNDERSTAND AND DECLARE that the five poisons of
ignorance, hatred, greed, excessive desire and
anger have been running our civilization for far
too long. It is time (or the end of time
according to the Mayan Calendar) for civilization
to return to WISDOM (wise dominion), to conform to
higher cosmic standards and return to the Garden
of Edenic Consciousness, the original divine plan.

OUR PROCLAMATION, or MAGNA CARTA for the 21st
Century is the following Earth Proclamation:

The Earth Proclamation

"Historian Arnold Toynbee observed that the 21
civilizations he studied all collapsed for the
same reason: their inability to adapt to changes
taking place either within them or surrounding
them. Like Joseph Campbell, Toynbee noted the
importance of myth in shaping the future of a
civilization. For from the myth springs the
vision of new possibilities. Each nation, each
culture tells such an overarching story about
itself. But when great changes take place, a new
myth is required." These words you will find on
the back cover of a beautiful book by Norie Huddle
called Butterfly, It was written to help usher in
what she calls the "Butterfly Era" of global
civilization.

The Earth Proclamation was written with this new
myth in mind and was featured on James Redfield's
front page for the month of February 2000. His
site is http://www.celestinevision.com. Our page
is now a link. You can go directly to it at
http://www.bashar.com/GSP/earth-proc.htm

BUBBLES IN THE WIND

Sometimes life seems an illusion,
And reality drifts away from us,
Like bubbles in the wind.

We may reach for them,
Even into them,
To reenter that world lost,
Upon waking,
Only to drift away,
Again in our dreams,
Like bubbles in the wind.

ID alexander

Run on the Sun/Badwater 135.

"God made deserts, so man could find his soul."

--Chris Moon, double amputee, participant in July
1999 foot race: Death Valley to Mt. Whitney,
California, who completed the 135 mile race in
48 hrs. 43 mins.

Mantra for Wealth:

"Oh God (Great Spirit, Gaia),
Grant me the wealth
you have reserved for me,
for I am ready to
receive it."

GENERATION "Y" VOCABULARY PRIMER:

Yo, comment on this list I've compiled, please?

Generation Y talk:

Sweet mildly or cutely or warmly good
Ludicrous happy good
Chronic very good (originally a drug word)
Dope strongly good (originally a drug word)
Ag shockingly good (from "aggressive")
Gnarly distasteful (previously "good")
Cool NOT usually "good" but just "all right"
(previously "good")
Killer (fairly archaic, previously "medium to
large thrill that's good" then
generically good)]
Bitchin' (now archaic, previously "small to
large thrill that's good")]
Rad/Radical (now very archaic, previously
"good")]
I don't care "Yes, please, sure, go ahead"
I don't care "You choose, I have no preference"
I don't care "No"
I don't care "So what?"
Hell, yeah "I agree"
-----------------------------------------
Yo, and how about this list? Mail me, dudes!

Last time we checked out words for "good."

Here, especially, are words for "bad":

. . .Sucks bad (yeah, still perennial)
Bogus bad, untrue (warning: now already
quietly archaic, though not
embarassingly so)
[be] Dick [being] bad, annoying (short for
old school "dickhead," originally
a sexual slander)
[that's] Bone! bad (originally a sexual term for
a male's erection)
[that's] (so) gay
sissy bad (a mild to serious
sexual derogation used regularly
by detractors of homosexuals)
Crack bad (originally a drug term)
Crack high-quality good (originally a drug
term)
Gnarly contortedly a bit or very disgusting
(formerly a surfer term for good)
Dude! You're doing something wrong and
unseemly to my modern ethics,
aesthetics, or other sensi-
bilities of mine or others
(must be said loud, sudden,
slightly outraged, and with
a biting edge; sometimes followed
by the details of a complaint,
though the complaint may be in
rhetorical or non-explicit
implicative diction, such as,
"You've been with her. . .
fifteen years? And you
haven't asked her to marry you? Dude!
Fifteen YEARS?" - actually heard from the MC at
an outdoor wedding in Laguna Hills, Sunday June
10, 2001)

Wood/ woody a male's erection
Dude person, presumably male if
undefined
Bitch female (originally African American),
may not be sexist
Chick female

Mellow Permissively relaxed
Cool OK, sometimes good (warning: old
folks, especially hippies,
seem to know only this phrase
for "good," and mean "good"
instead of "OK" SO often!)
Way cool Very good (totally current)
Cool, way cool Very good (totally current)
. . . , man, . . .
my friend (in conversation to 2nd
person case, but VERY old
school, so use . . . , dude,
. . .) instead

'Later, [short for "(See you) later,dude"]

-----------------------------------
Dudes,

Some relational words:

First speaker: "Word?"
Second speaker: "Word."
Expression, possibly pledge, of
agreement (originally a
mainstream moral word)

Trippin' Ridiculous, word implying
hallucination
(originally a drug word)

Chill/ Chillin' Relax or share time or shut up or
calm down or even have fun or
be decidedly cool
Hang out Share time (now getting dated)
Kick back Relax
It's all good Expression of pan-optimism, a kind
of judgment, attitude, and
affirmation

Later,

Savage Bro (Mike) (With all my love)

KOESTENBAUM'S WEEKLY LEADERSHIP THOUGHT

Is There an Upside to Freedom?

There is no upside to freedom, not in the ordinary
sense of pleasure, fun, and benefits. Freedom
introduces you to the non-natural order, the realm
of reality beyond what science can describe. The
capacity to decide introduces you to the zone of
inwardness and subjectivity. The power to choose
explains to you the meaning of being a subject
rather than an object, a self rather than a thing.
Freedom explains to you the nature of ethics,
ethical choices, and moral courage. Freedom
explains pride and dignity, honor and glory. The
self-esteem of being responsible, keeping your
promises, doing your duty, and choosing
accountability -- in short, building civilized
behavior among people -- would be bereft of any
meaning without its foundation in free will. Being
in charge of who we are is the essence of being
human, and denying that freedom is the essence of
regression to animal nature and animal behavior.
To feel this, to live this, to experience its
weight, and to communicate it readily -- those are
the inner sensations of the authentic leader.

The great danger in being free is the temptation
to use the organization not as a practice field
for freedom but as the excuse for the escape from
freedom -- the denial of free will, choosing not
be a chooser!

Will you cultivate the free part of you? Is your
inner power inspiring? Is your energy contagious?
Does claiming your freedom bring results in your
organization?

June 15, 2001

Copyright © 2001, Peter Koestenbaum. All rights
reserved. Protected intellectual property.
http://www.pib.net/

EVOLUTIONARY NEXT STEP: Peaceful conflict resolution?

(Taken from posts on The Examined Life Journal Forum: http://examinedlifejournal.com/discus/index.html, under title: 'Aristotle, creation, and evolution'.)

By WJ on Monday, June 18, 2001 - 11:08 am:
Anon, G-man & Graham,

… "I believe the most important question, with respect to ethics, is: what is it within us that causes us to aspire and imagine ideal, more universally humane worlds? G-man."

First, from a netural observation or a purely secular or logical view, I agree with Anon that there are gaps in both, (ie, gaps in fossil records from lower to higher intelligence [forms], viz theistic faith) thus both require a type of faith, nonetheless, to carry each side's belief forward in the human mind.

But I further agree that the aforementioned question is in fact the most important question. It seems to speak to most philosophy in that the reason for philosophy in the first place was due, in large part this human condition. This so-called laborious torment that yearns for resolution. That's why I approached it using ethics. We can all relate to questions comprising purpose, or how to' be', Being. I've also, in the past, tried to theorize, rather unsucessfully, that the modern day 'watchmaker' (viz God) is simply a microcosm of a [human] creator. In other words, an ethical and existential purpose predisposing one towards creating things. And for which one cannot deny that being creative, in both the good and bad forms, brings joy and happiness to humans.

So yes, I see a universal tension without this perfect relief. The great oxymoron of flawed humanity in all forms of intellect. A dispair in needing of some sort of answer. Well, some say that both creation and evolution is now compatible. They can now co-exist. Is that logically possible? Could both inductive and deductive reasoning principles use a common faith?

http://www.onthenet.com.au/~stear/is_science_and_religion_compatible.htm

Thoughts?

Sincerely,
WJ

By WJ on Monday, June 18, 2001 - 03:27 pm:
G-man,

Kind of picking-up where you left off, regarding a type of universal element, I thought the following comment about Kierkegaard's apparent view that "dread" is ..."God's way of calling each individual to commit to a personally valid way of life" perhaps speaks to this struggle with ethics.


"Most philosophers since ancient Greek thinker Plato have held that the highest ethical good is universal. Nineteenth-century Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard reacted against this tradition, insisting that the individual's highest good is to find his or her own unique vocation. In terms of moral choice, existentialists have argued that there is no objective, rational basis for decisions; they stress the importance of individualism in deciding questions of morality and truth. Most existentialists have held that rational clarity is desirable wherever possible but that life's most important questions are not accessible to reason or science."

"Freedom of choice, through which each human being creates his or her own nature, is a primary theme. Because individuals are free to choose their own path, existentialists have argued, they must accept the risk and responsibility of their actions. Kierkegaard held that a feeling of general apprehension, which he called dread, is God's way of calling each individual to commit to a personally valid way of life. Relatedly, 20th-century German philosopher Martin Heidegger felt that anxiety leads to the individual's confrontation with the impossibility of finding ultimate justification for his or her choices."

Anyway, just by virtue of the human intellect somehow giving humans a 6th sense of what 'could' be, is indeed a mysterious psychological phenomena of sorts. It certainly suggests a potential for higher life forms. I suppose that explains all the fascination with extraterrestrial's..:).

Sincerely,
WJ

By Anonymous on Monday, June 18, 2001 - 03:28 pm:
WJ,

The problem is that of a whole, without all parts of it, the whole cannot exist, yet the world we live in exists; therefore, it is a whole. That means you, me, and everyone is a part of that whole, but to my knowledge nobody has defined it, described it, or can understand it. Perhaps we are all searching in the wrong places for the answers; how can we find the answers inside ourselves when at least part of the answers cannot possibly exist inside of us if the remaining parts of the world we live in are not within us?...

I think most philosophers have a real problem with reality, and understanding their part in that reality; otherwise, there would not be so many disagreements among them. There are hundreds and hundreds of pages on this board alone where arguments abound, but there is no resolution to the various problems because no two people think alike. Again, that is the way it should be, and none of us would have meaningful lives if we shared our consciousness and experiences with everyone else. That is what life is all about, a unique experience unlike the experience of everyone else.

Is that not what makes us human?

Still have the brain ache,

Anon - 1st

By Ivan A. on Monday, June 18, 2001 - 03:51 pm:
Hi WJ (et all),

If I may address your question, posted 6/13: "If man has evolved by a continuous chain of reproduction and natural selection, over millions of years from far simpler creatures, why then has our consciousness not evolved enough, thus resolving issues plaguing humans such as our need and purpose [aforementioned] to pursue perfect happiness? In that context [of ethics], how are we still evolving?"

There are theories out there (of which I cannot recall the source, but claim to be well suported by scientific evidence), that the human brain evolved in size first, and only later did it 'engage' and jumped from being a primitive ape-like brain to what we would call more human, e.i. using and making tools, use of fire, speech, etc. If this is true, then we have these jumps in natural evolution, so there is no fluid motion between species or even intra-species evolution over time. This may explain the 'gaps' found in evolution theory. The issues that plague us humans, what by appearances would prove that we have little evolved in terms of our consciousness over the last million years, could then be fit into this pattern, that there was a jump some time in the past, then a long plateau of virtually no change. We still beat each other on the head, for example (now with nuclear weapons), rather than using our other skills of reason which our mind is now capable. At some point, one hopes, and perhaps with the help of philosophers' thinking (Ethics), there will be another jump, which would be quite a thing to witness, since now we have the awareness with which to see it happen. Can you imagine a world where all conflict is resolved peacefully? That would be quite an evolutionary step, I would think.

Just a thought. How does that fit in with how you see it? Of course, we may soon be talking about oranges genetically modified with apple genes instead!

Talk soon, all the best,

Ivan

As posted to AskthePhilosopher:

http://www3.sympatico.ca/askthephilosopher/index.h
tml

Dear Ask,

You write: "Sartre argued 'existence precedes
essence' as an answer to the question--'who am
I?'. Is my identity determined by my "class", my
history, my role in society? No way said Sartre. I
am I."

If I may ask, why not "I am I as defined by my
greater being?" This unlocks the "I am I" into a
bigger field, rather than fixing it within one's
own identity as we are only in our own isolated
consciousness of self, and thus open the door for
an inquiry into all the influences that affect
this "I". There are collateral influences that
affect who we become over time, and how that "I am
I" responds to these influences. What do we do
with these influences from reality? Do we simply
disregard them as being random and irrelevant
events? Or are they too connected to a bigger
structure, one that I can then identify as being
part of my 'greater being'? If I am my innate
nature, the who I feel in my breast or my brain, I
am also my responses to what life delivers and how
those affected me over the span of my conscious
and unconscious life. Then there are the elements
of what I inherited from my ancestors, my DNA, my
survival instincts, my intellect, and even my
loves and fears. I think that to isolate one's
beings into only "I am I", as Sartre did, is to
limit our being to our distinct self and ignoring
the bigger world outside. Yes, we are who we are
in ourselves, as distinct from the being or
consciousness of any other being; but we are also
affected by our 'class', but our community, by our
history, by our world's social structure, belief
systems and structured knowledge. They too are us,
whether we like it or not. But it is not
unreasonable to think that it goes beyond that: We
are also all of the infinite influences that
affect us at every moment of time. The question
that was asked on this page originally; "Is there
Proof of Universal Consciousness (other than
human)" http://examinedlifejournal.com/discus/index.html,
is a question that addresses that bigger
picture, that greater 'being'. I think the "I am
I" is defined by a much bigger set of factors than
Sartre wanted to admit in his disillusionary, post
Great War, Existential philosophy. (My father, as
a young poet living in Paris after the War,
hanging around the cafes of St. Germain with his
buddies, was a sworn Existentialist, really!)
Today, living in more 'optimistic' times, there is
room for 'growth' here in terms of who we are,
which is why the question of Universal
Consciousness persists, at least in my opinion.

Also, your statement: "Moreover, to think that
there is an independent soul that can merge with
Universal Consciousness and to think that the soul
can achieve immortality is due to the mythology
various religions foster on us so that they can
burn people at the stake in order to save their
souls and help them get to heaven."

This statement is off the mark. It is not our
belief system in whether or not there is an
afterlife, or some continuation of the 'soul',
that burned people at the stake. (Please note that
the idea of a 'soul' is a rather persistent
universal belief for humankind.) Rather, it was a
belief that it is okay to persecute and coerce
people who did not agree with the established
belief system. This danger still lurks today, in
my opinion, and thus we have not yet evolved
beyond this level. So there is room for growth in
our human consciousness at many levels, including
growing beyond a self imposed isolation of "I am
I", while simultaneously growing beyond a belief
that, in the manner of the early Greek and
Judeo-Christian thinkers, that there is a "good"
or "right" way of seeing some "perfect" heaven
like existence, and that we who are less than
perfect should then adapt ourselves to it, even by
force if necessary. Though I too bow to the great
achievements of Aristotle and Plato, for what they
achieved in their times, this kind of thinking,
that there is a separate "rational true belief
perfection" out there to which man must adapt, is
an ancient error that persists in its 'coercions'
of our thinking to this day. If we submit instead
to a reality that is already powered by its own
'rational truth', that each one of us reserves the
right to be who we are, 'I am I' even if
imperfect; we need not fall back upon an ancient
error. Therefore, because a new thinking (Habeas
Mentem) can support an existential conclusion that
goes beyond Sartre's, I think there is room for a
secular vision of Universal Consciousness without
having to fall back into the coercions of the
ancients.

Looking forward to your next. All the best,

Ivan

A PostScript to 'ancient Greek and Judeo-Christian thinking':

Modern 'chaos theory' holds that if an error is introduced early in the model, then the results become increasingly chaotic over time. Does this mean that early philosophic thinkers, if they were indeed in error over the dichotomy of good vs. man, then this thinking became more chaotic over time? Are we, in the modern present, then the inheritors of this resulting chaos? This is not a statement, only a question of whether or not it is a possibility. If this is so, however, then it would point that we have been lead astray away from a unified universal theory of being and existence, which went bad about 2500 years ago.

Call me a cynic, but really I ask this tongue in cheek!

Ivan

Hi Ivan,

1. Regarding: "I am I". How come people are
"influenced" by anything outside of themselves?
If they are influenced, are those influences part
of their identity? For instance, rocks are
influenced by gravity, by dripping water, by other
rocks according to the causal laws of physics.
However, those influences are not part of the
identity of any given or individual rock. The
identity of the rock is it's chemical composition.
People are different from rocks. I have a choice
to be influenced or not by the usual "influences"
such as schools, peers, society, parents, and so
on and so on. Even though I might have
uncritically accepted most of the ideas of my
cultural group, I have chosen not to examine those
ideas. However, like a rock I am influenced by
gravity, by the general laws of physics and
chemistry. I have no choice, or rather, some
limited choices about those influences. I can try
to "escape" gravity by hopping on an airplane
(which of course is no real escape but uses other
laws of physics...).

The issue is whether, I decide to live my life as
a rock or a person. Do I want to use my brain and
my individual consciousness to think over issues,
to critically examine what I have been taught or
do I want to use my brain to conform to all
outside factors? To choose the former--to think,
to criticise--is to choose a form of isolation or
in more philosophically grandiose jargon,
"alienation". This is a decision we must make
and remake throughout our lives, starting as
adolescents and when joining any major
institution, such as school, corporations, and
community institutions.

In general, Is there a consciounsess that is
non-human? If there is such a consciousness, and
if it is self-aware, then it most likely has human
problems and dilemmas. For instance, the ancient
Greeks believed in non-human consciousness in the
form of gods such as Zeus, Athena, and the entire
Pantheon. Those non-human consciousnesses had
very "human" problems of jealousy, conflict, and
the struggle for power. Similarly, the God of the
Bible shows very human traits throughout the
Bible--commands, argues, uses power when he can to
intimidate, and so on.

Realistically, I cannot see any need for a
hypothesis of other than human consciousness that
is self-aware. Even, though impossible, if we
could build computer systems that were self-aware
conscious beings, they would be just non-organic
humans with all the human problems of
responsibility, choice, and isolation. I must
ask, if it is an inescapable fact of existence or
reality that there is only human consciousness
that is locked in isolated minds, why do people
seek for non-human consciousness in the notions of
Universal Consciousness, World Soul, Spirit, God,
etc. etc.? Why? My hypothesis is that growing up
is difficult, leaving home is difficult, taking
responsibility--utter and sole responsibility--is
difficult. To seek relief from these difficulties
we would like to go "home"--to return to the age
of childhood where we are protected by parents.
As we grow up and find that we can no longer
return "home"--our parents die, our old house has
been sold, destroyed, our old culture has
radically shifted, the technology has
changed..etc. etc..--we seek substitutes in
religion or various secular "isms". We search for
a club where we are accepted, loved, and at least
respected. However, this childhood psychological
need is only that--a childhood psychological need.
The bottom line for life is that each individual
has a inescapable choice which we can only delay
making but which we cannot avoid making: I am I
and I must choose between uncritically accepting
what I am told, or I can think for myself. If I
choose to think for myself, I risk isolation. If
I choose to follow the crowd, I choose
to sell my mind, my "soul", if you like.

Dear Philosopher,

I agree with all you say. And I also find, from
my point of view, that human choice is paramount
as far as our conscious existence, our 'whoness',
is concerned. Without a freedom of choice, little
else is worth being a conscious being. We can
even choose to believe in God, or not, to join a
religious ideal and 'obey' its principles, or
choose an existential life that leans more towards
consent then obedience. All this is acceptable
within the framework of what I have been
proclaiming. There is one difference, and why the
question of a Universal Consciousness other than
human comes up: What justification do we have for
this freedom of choice? If we answer that it is
because it is what we desire, then why should that
be justified? Only in a framework or model that
justifies human consciousness as other than itself
can these justifications exist. If there is a
greater consciousness that powers the fabric of
existence, of the universal reality, of our being
in it, only then can we step from an obedience to
the structures as defined by society, our own 'man
made' consciousness; we need an 'authority' that
is higher than 'man made' which demands as a basis
of our existence that we have a freedom to be who
we are. Too often, and I dare say through all of
known history, human beings have found ways to
deny themselves this. They then turned to a God
in their own self image to justify the
restrictions they had placed on their free will, a
perfection of what we should be within the body of
this God, and one we never quite achieve. Why?
Because it is man made, and thus itself flawed.
Fail to achieve it, however, in most religions,
there is a punishment awaiting you, one that will
strip you of your free will. My way to cope with
this, i.e. my 'leaving home' of what had been
accepted through all known history, is to say that
there is a system that is greater than we can
conceive, but which works on its own terms. I
gave it a schematic name: Interrelationship. The
conditions then demanded of this system is that we
interact through a process of agreements, and
avoid forcing others against their agreement, to
not coerce them, unless they themselves are
unaware of that need for agreement and are instead
coercive. Coercion is to be resisted by a mind
aware of this. So, is this a new religion, a new
dogma? I do not think so, because in the end the
choice is always ours. But a conscious mind will
be aware enough to know that a coercion is being
forced on it, and thus resist; by contrast, an
unconscious mind does not have that power and,
unless protected by another who is conscious, will
succumb. So this is the reason for my question,
it is to step beyond the present impasse of
institutionalized coercion into a world where the
law of agreement has a chance to operate.
Further, when this law operates, based on the
concepts presented in "Habeas Mentem"
(ht
tp://www.humancafe.com/titlepage.htm), we then
introduce a higher order of consciousness into our
human experience. This could be very exciting
when given a chance, though, and I say this with
regret, I do not believe it will happen.

So this is the reason for the 'reach', one that
transcends our current belief system that
consciousness resides only in the human mind, and
to a lesser extent in the minds of other living
things.

Always a pleasure to hear from you.

Ivan

This Good Vibes House


Let this be a Good Vibes House.


Come to receive
and give yourself

for real.
We’ll feel
you raw, beautiful, at your best
thrills, man, your chills
hell yeah, every excite under this sun
which thrills us, shitting none
the darkest glistening beauty under searing stars
you dance with us


Leave here with a piece of us

and leave, in us,
your gift of more goodwill
than graced our house
before you came.


Send all dishonor somewhere else
so we protect precious sincerity

of trembling hearts
who dare to love.



--Brother Michael

[Filename: This Good Vibes House.01.doc

Revised: 01.08.30]

As posted on the Examined Life Interdisciplinary Discussions Forums: http://examinedlifejournal.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/topic.cgi?forum=4&topic=5&start=0

LOVE, LOGIC AND GOD

WJ
Member    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi all!

As some of us know, in another thread (God’s Will) we have attempted to show that the concept of Love had some sort of absolute, universal impact on human nature and existence.  We attempted to show through experience and a very general inference that Love was integral (if not essential?) to human emotional needs. But yet, we recognized or at least hinted at some problems or barriers associated with achieving such a world-wide view of God’s Will for ‘existence’. So perhaps we were not successful in establishing any truth to our ideas. It is therefore safe to assume there are subjective elements as well as relativistic and coercive forces and perceptions that represent certain barriers in embracing this so-called absolute truth? Or is it a clouded view of human logic and perception?

I personally claimed that through meditation, one might uncover a sort of intrinsic need for this emotion; there may be other tests even on a pragmatic/phenomenological basis that may help to solve the problem of proving the validity for this (proposed) truth. Even still, there may be another method to employ or test the validity of our claim; logic.  Though I personally can’t be sure, could one make an attempt at using a variation of deduction to help convince those who are more objective in their thinking?

Since I’m far from an expert in this area (particularly objectivism and logic), let us proceed to test the limitations of our human faculty called reason.  Let us begin by leaving a God out of the equation. This would probably fair better since metaphysics and emotion may not mean the same thing. Or does it?

At any rate, let’s begin by some propositions and assumptions about what we know of Love.  Someone claims that God’s will is to love each other.  If that were true, how do we even know what is Love? Perhaps we don’t know God or Love? We know the word is used in almost all human endeavor; I love my car, I love my spouse, I love my house, I love my job, I love to eat, etc..  What do human’s mean when they say that?

All Men are emotional
All emotions are Love
All Men (are) need Love

What is wrong with this deduction? Logically, are there errors in its construction?  If so, what would make it logically coherent; correct, false, or true?  After we reconstruct it, what does it all mean?  

And later: can we construct a logical statement that makes, proves or introduces the concept of God to be truly responsible for this thing called Love-God’s Will? Why invoke God at all? Who said God is Love anyway? Why?

(I invite those who are experts in logic do unravel the mystery.  Perhaps Zues or Seeker could shed light or even answer the questions to this issue.)

God Bless,
WJ


------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Posts: 148 | Joined Aug. 2001 | Posted on: 9:58 am on Nov. 29, 2001 | IP

Ivan Alexander

Junior Member    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear WJ, and All,

Wonderful questions!  Is there a logical reason for Love, is it an Absolute?  Or, as you ask:

"It is therefore safe to assume there are subjective elements as well as relativistic and coercive forces and perceptions that represent certain barriers in embracing this so-called absolute truth? Or is it a clouded view of human logic and perception?"

Absolutes, what are they?  I think we may start by listing what we can know as 'absolute'.  To me, there are three:

1.  "I am":  This is an absolute of personal cognition, consciousness, that we know from inside ourselves that we exist.  We do not know what that means for anyone else, but we are fairly certain as it applies to ourselves.  This is something we know 'a priori'.

2.  "I exist in terms of space and time":   I can perceive experientially and empirically that there is a reality external to me.  I am quite certain of this, and would call it an absolute, again a basic premise with which I am comfortable.   I might even call it a 'belief', except that there is sufficient evidence to make this statement as a starting point of logic.

3.  "I am not alone":  Again, I am quite certain that there are other "I's" out there, other individuals who have a consciousness, a will, an ability to interact with me, in the same way I am quite certain there is an external reality.  They 'are', and their being can influence mine.

Therefore, these are my starting points of 'absolutes', for the rest is conjecture.  Love, logic, God, these to me are things I can identify with, can even know them in myself, but when it comes to externals, to the rest of existence, then they are speculations.  I think they exist, but I cannot know this with certainty.  Though, it does not mean that they cannot be identified as external certainties.  But to do this, I would have to find reasonable connections between myself and the existence outside, both as material existence and sentient existence.  Where do we begin?  

I said on another post, on God's Will, that God is the Absolute within which we can punch holes with our own existence.  If so, then this Absolute Will is a fluid existence within which our little individual wills can find expression.  We live, and we are conscious of the fact that we live.  We love, and we know that we love within the context of our emotions.  But how do we connect this with an external reality?  How can we know that what we know inside ourselves is also what exists external of us?  Does it?  If so, how?  How can we connect individually, logically, experientially, or even empirically, with our greater reality out there?  And if we do, how do we connect with the reality of other sentient, conscious human beings?  In effect, how do these little holes of will, ourselves, connect with a greater Will of God, of Love?  This is why I think these are great questions, because they do not lend themselves to immediate solutions.  I suspect it may be possible to solve this riddle, but my presently befuddled brain cannot see it.

There are those, external of me, with more logical minds who may see more clearly than I, from within my philosophical haze.  Thoughts?

Take care, talk soon, always a joy!

Ivan

-----
It's a very big, infinite universe, and the search goes on... it starts here.  
http://www.humancafe.com  
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Posts: 57 | Joined Aug. 2001 | Posted on: 5:54 pm on Nov. 29, 2001 | IP

davet84
Newbie    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Ivan, WJ,

I would hesitate to propose that what you are whipping yourself about WJ, creates a rod for your own back where you will simply find yourself up the creek without a paddle.

Just as the above sentence cannot be submitted to formal logic, neither can love, nor fun, nor laughter, nor indeed God be submitted to formal logic.

What we did learn in the big thread on the (formal) logical impossibility of God is that formal logic is about a special kind of 'being'. In formal logic terms, being is about 'existence' or what is. Formal logic is silent on processes, events, and life issues.

Now as far as informal logic goes I would submit that processes events and life issues are just fine. It is perfectly logical (in an informal logical sense) to say that I believ in God because I need God in my life...God gives my life meaning. Nobody should, in an informal logical sense, which must include moral reflection (a process), and a measure of expoerience in life, deny a person their faith.

Just because formal logic and metaphysical reality would deny the logical possibility and even existence of God and Love and Laughter and Fun, doesn't mean those things should be submitted to formal logic in the first place.

Formal logic is about entity relationships, so-called real data...that's fine by me. That real data cannot distinguish between a rock and a human being in terms of existence. Both a rock and a human being ARE.  

Once you introduce 'life' to the equation, then I believe formal logic and metaphysical reality must remain silent.  Most of life is about so-called unreal data like emotions, love, hate, games, bitterness, joy. These are aspects of life which are beyond formal logic.

I wouldn't want to spoil the fun you get from submitting all these things to formal logic once again, but I feel that there will simply be another 250 posts made and the end-result will be same as the other thread.

FHL...live on!!

Dave.


------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Posts: 17 | Joined Sep. 2001 | Posted on: 6:38 pm on Nov. 29, 2001 | IP

WJ
Member    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Dave (Ivan)!!

Shame on you Dave!  I thought philosophy was about exercising the mind;).  Guys, let me just offer this clarification before we move forward.

Of course I agree with you and I sincerely appreciate your candor. And like you say, regarding formal logic’s limitations (about which I had argued during conception and now learning about quantum physics, according to Paul Davies, that physical objects can exist with having contradictory attributes 'at the same time and in the same respect'), it doesn’t really help us solve the mystery does it(?).  But the point is, and like you said, I’m not submitting this to formal logic.  I’m submitting it to deduction.

The most important point here is that we humans seem to be mainly concerned about objectivity, in perhaps every sense of the word!  I have no quarrel with that!!  We have also learned that there is great use in the world for employing and applying our sense of objective reason.  (Ayn Rand, amoung others, has demonstrated her case.) And of course, we even have a general understanding about much of the discoveries in science making full use out of inductive reasoning. And so I am not playing devil’s advocate here.

So, I believe we should test our limits of deduction because although induction seems like more of a ‘successful match’, I think relationships between words (of course) are the most practical or universal way in discussing this topic of philosophically. (Besides, you indicated you wanted to critique our discussion.) And further, philosophically, I submit that consciousness, emotions and metaphysics is consistent and all wrapped up with the unexplained. We thus learned that we have to use words (particularly advocates of logic) to arrive at a logical conclusion where in this case, it will be ‘understood’ through the use of words, that they are perhaps of little value in answering the question. But, I’d like to visit it again only with a different approach.
 
Well, have I said enough to get myself in hot water again?  I shall proceed to the next step in our discussion and reply more specifically to deduction.  To that end, and while contemplating Ivan’s post (which is a great start to the reasoning process, I think) how about another ‘explication’ :


All humans have a conscious
All consciousness comprises Love
All humans know something about Love

Indeed, I think we should reconstruct our proposition(s) from the earlier thread to see if we and/or Love and/or God and the concepts thereof, are logical.  If the ultimate answer is no or N/A that they are logical, I want to make sure we’ve exhausted all our possibilities from human reason.  As we know, this is a very important issue!  (As we just learned, George Harrison passed-God rest his soul-and advocated for us to simply love one another.)

As always, you and Ivan have provided much to think about.

God Bless,
WJ

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Posts: 148 | Joined Aug. 2001 | Posted on: 9:47 am on Nov. 30, 2001 | IP

WJ
Member    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guys,

Before we get to far, here's another one we can play around with. I think we kind of implied this from our inferences about God:

All emotions are metaphysical
All Gods are metaphysical
All emotions are God

What is wrong with this one?  Shall we check the truth tables?

God Bless,
WJ
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Posts: 148 | Joined Aug. 2001 | Posted on: 12:18 pm on Nov. 30, 2001 | IP

Zeus
Member    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WJ, Ivan and Dave,

What everyone is overlooking in this thread is that not a single one of the sylogisms are logically valid.  They are all fatally flawed.  

The problem with the first one is simple:

You cannot go from humans being emotional, which is adjectival, to humans being love, which is existential.  The first is serving as a function, the second is serving as a state.  This simply will not work.  Further, you cannot go from humans being emotional to human needing love as the argument suggests.  The steps to get there, logically speaking, are completely absent.  Therefore the form of the sylogism (afterall it is called FORMal logic, not because it has anything to do with tuxedoes, but because it is all about the form!) is invalid.

The second argument too suffers fatally.  The problem here is a fallacy of equivocation, possibly.  It is not correct to say that humans have a conscious.  Humans are conscious.  If you are meaning that that have a conscience, then that is a different word, but it would be possible for humans to have a conscience, but not to have a conscious.  The latter proposition simply makes no sense.  But, if you mean that all humans are conscious, then you could still make the argument valid, but there would be a lot of work to be done.  You would have to show how it is exactly that consciousness comprises of love, and you would have to spell out the connection between consciousness and knowledge, or knowing.  This is not done in the argument, so it assumes too much, and therefore, could be seen as invalid as it stands.  In other words, you simply cannot get from the premises to the conclusion the way that it is stated. Even if it was reworked, the premises of the argument would be very dubious.

The final one is simply misguided.  It is a confusion of kind, and it violates the quantifiers in the argument.  You cannot claim that all As are Bs, and all Cs are Bs, therefore all As are Cs.  This is simply an invalid argument.  The argument would be like the following:

All trees are plants
All flowers are plants
Therefore all trees are flowers.

It is simply invalid.  Let us say, for the sake of argument, that emotions and God are metaphysical (and it is highly dubious that emotions are metaphysical!).  Using this assumption, we would have two subsets of the larger set of things that are metaphysical (anyone having Jepordy flashbacks?!).  Just because the two are in the same set, that does not mean that the subsets of that set, which they represent are the same, or even overlap.  It is a violation of set logic to assume that they are.  The last argument, therefore, is simply a textbook case of an invalid argument.  It cannot work, even under the rules of informal logic.

So, here the problem is not merely about what is logic and what is not, but rather what is a logically valid argument, and what is not.  None of the arguments, as they are presented, are logically valid.  They are all flawed in one manner or another.

This also has nothing to do with whether logic can deal with topics such as love or God.  This is merely about whether the arguments in which those topics are used are logically (FORMally) valid.  They are not.  That is not to say that logically (FORMally) valid arguments cannot be made about them; it is just to say that the ones presented here for our consideration are not examples of formally valid arguments.  It is for certain that the latter is not even workable informally, and it is dubious as whether the former are as well.


-----
May the road rise to greet you,
Zeus
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Posts: 118 | Joined June 2001 | Posted on: 3:35 pm on Nov. 30, 2001 | IP

Ivan Alexander
Junior Member    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear All,

I would have to think that Dave's post: "Just because formal logic and metaphysical reality would deny the logical possibility and even existence of God and Love and Laughter and Fun, doesn't mean those things should be submitted to formal logic in the first place," is right on.  It would seem to be 'profane' to assign logical proof to what, as Zeus points out, does not lend itself to the syllogism of formal logic. However, being human beings who chafe at formal restrictions, I think it is permissible to at least try, even if the sublime is illusive to the profane.  

I would agree with  WJ's original statement that we leave out God out of the equation, and thus pursue deductive connections that link human emotions, subjective feelings, adjective laden properties which define our self realized consciousness, with the objective reality within which we exist.  Is this a fair assessment of a basic ground rule, that we separate logic as it applies to conscious beings and as it applies to reality, since the two are fundamentally different?  Leaving religious concepts of God out, which is how we usually bridge the two, we are then forced to find connectivity between the self conscious "I am" and the objective "out there" through secular means of deduction and rules of logic.  If so, then this poses a most interesting problem.

I also think Dave's: "Once you introduce 'life' into the equation, then I believe formal logic and metaphysical reality must remain silent.  Most of life is about so-called unreal data like emotions, love, hate, games, bitterness, joy.  These are aspects of life which are beyond formal logic," is a most sensible statement.  However, these emotions are also a part of our human reality, same as logic is.  If so, then there must be some bridge which can span the vast gulf between them.  Life, and our full spectrum of emotions that render us human, may be beyond reason, as far as we can see, but it is not beyond reason if the universe is a reasonable entity.  Of course, it would be easier if we could postulate that the universe is alive in the way we are alive, in the way God is thought to be alive, but that is a luxury not afforded to us 'seculars' at this point of the inquiry.  Rather, we have to begin our search with the assumption that the universe is inert, an objective reality devoid of will and emotions, in essence, very much unlike us.  So, again, where to begin?

I think a natural place to start is to postulate that though our emotions, our consciousness, will, the 'who' we are, are all beyond logic, they are not beyond reason.  It is just that we have not yet identified how 'reason' is within the definition of 'who we are'.  For example, if I may state formally:  

*Each one of us has an identity that we feel innately in ourselves to be us; if we are beyond reason in who we are, then we are rudderless within an objective reality that demands reason of us, or else we are cast adrift and become lost; therefore, reason is a quality of our existence, our being, that objective reality has imposed on us, and thus our identity of who we are must be reasonable, at some point.  If reason is a demand of our reality, then it is also an innate quality of who we are.*  

So this is the conditions we must obey: Reason.  We may entertain the unreasonable, the illogical, the fantastic, but in the end, reality demands of us to return to reason, or be fooled and tricked into believing things that are simply not true.  Take this too far, and reality will punish you, even terminate your life.  So this is the limitation within which we must operate, that we are reasonable in our logical inquiry, or we end up on the trash heaps of failed philosophies, which when taken to their end conclusions end in termination, insanity or death.  But this is a restriction within which I can exist and respect, as have all my predecessors, since they survived long enough to continue the species, until me.  I hope I can do as well!

More later, take care, in Joy.

Ivan

(Edited by Ivan Alexander at 3:16 pm on Nov. 30, 2001)

-----
It's a very big, infinite universe, and the search goes on... it starts here.  
http://www.humancafe.com  
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Posts: 57 | Joined Aug. 2001 | Posted on: 5:05 pm on Nov. 30, 2001 | IP

davet84
Newbie    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitch...here's a thought. Would it be safe to propose that each state of evolution was logically impossible in terms of the previous state of evolution? The steps to get from one state of evolution to the next, logically speaking, are completely absent.

Or lets take the creation of a helium atom in the sun from the fusion of hydrogen atoms, impossible right? As the periodic table indicates, hydrogen and helium atoms are separate things in different subsets with no overlap. The steps to get from hydrogen to helium, logically speaking, are also completely absent.

So logically speaking, the steps which humans closely associate with their own existence were always a logical impossibility. Conclusion...our existence was always and must still be a logical impossibility.

WJ, your problems with love are as nothing compared to this state of affairs...


------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Posts: 17 | Joined Sep. 2001 | Posted on: 3:05 am on Dec. 1, 2001 | IP

Zeus
Member    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave,

You seem to be confusing two things.  You seem to be working on the assumption of a Zeno type paradox, yet, you are also overlooking both evolution and chemistry are based on wholly logical systems (at least in their solution!).  Just because there are not any "intermediate steps" as you put it (but in actuality there are!), does not mean that the solution to the problem is that the phenomenon is logically impossible.  On the contrary, it was the advancement in logic that made these natural sciences possible.

Considering that the equations which represent the change from hydrogen to helium follow the rules of mathematics, and mathematical equations are logical (that is not to say that mathematics and logic are the same!), it would be incorrect to say that the process which takes place their is not logical.

What you are trying to force is a difference in kind.  This is part of the old universalist debate.  Yet, when you look at what happens, what you see is that each one of these things, an animal and an element, are made up of smaller parts, and when you take away, or add more parts, you "get" an entirely different animal or element.  This is based on the doctrine of spatial parts, and is a logically sound theory of metaphysics.  Moreover, it can be represented fully in logic.

Now, it is often the case that metaphysicians are even more hardcore realists than myself (and I am fairly hardcore!) will argue that such a change is not possible.  But, this is a bizarre claim, and is directly related to idealism, not realism.  For, it has always been a tenet of realism that the particular of a thing can change such that it then partakes in a different form.  This has never been a problem for realism, and it is one of the reasons why it still works in metaphysics even in the face of more modern and postmodern notions have sought to eliminate it.

So, the claim that both evolution and the chemical reaction from hydrogen to helium is logically impossible is flatly false unless you are working from a idealistic standpoint.  So the problems you present are not logical ones, but philosophic.  It is only under certain philosophical systems (like idealism) that one might be forced to say that such are not possible.

-----
May the road rise to greet you,
Zeus
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Posts: 118 | Joined June 2001 | Posted on: 6:11 am on Dec. 1, 2001 | IP

WJ
Member    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All!

Fabulous!!!!!  I knew we could get our creative minds working!   Thank you so much for this forum, Mitch! Whether who's right or wrong I'm not sure matters, it is great to exersise the mind!

Anyway, two big questions are thus: First, I noticed Mitch and Dave were not able to or willing to make my deduction correct, coherent, true or false.  There seems to be a preference to debate the 'process itself' and not get to the truth of the matter. Further, if consciousness and emotion (Love) relates to the unresolved mind-body problem in physics, then why is it not metaphysical?  Mitch? Dave?
Isn't that just another inference anyway? I knew there were problems with it, but I don't see any resolutions!!!!

The bottom line is that a logically coherent statement is only as good as the premises on which it was founded.  But if the premise can't be known to be true, what good is it? So, I agree with Dave from the outset, deduction won't answer it, but I still think we should try to play around with it.  Mitch?

(After all is not the concept of Love and God universal? As we inferred from our original thread.)

If you all don't want to ge there, That is ok. I'll just read along and see if I can add anything meaningful to the discussion. There are so many good concepts here I don't know where to begin. I hope to see new membership...

Respectfully submitted,
WJ
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Posts: 148 | Joined Aug. 2001 | Posted on: 8:06 am on Dec. 1, 2001 | IP

Zeus
Member    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WJ,

It would seem that the point that you do not understand is that it does no good to debate the premises of the argument if the form of the argument is invalid to begin with.  Even if you debated whether the premises are true or not, they would still be part of an invalid argument.  In other words, even if the premises were true, the argument would still be invalid, and therefore, you could not prove anything with the argument.  It would be pointless!

So, until the argument is valid, the premises are irrelevant.  If you present a valid argument, then I would be happy to explore the premises, and see if the argument is sound.  Otherwise, any debate about the premises is pointless.

-----
May the road rise to greet you,
Zeus
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Posts: 118 | Joined June 2001 | Posted on: 8:38 am on Dec. 1, 2001 | IP

WJ
Member    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Zeus!!

Thanks.  I knew I was wrong.  Show me how to construct an argument using Love, consciousness (and perhaps God) that is meaningful and makes a point.

This is the thrust of the thread.

God Bless,
WJ

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Posts: 148 | Joined Aug. 2001 | Posted on: 9:59 am on Dec. 1, 2001 | IP

Ivan Alexander
Junior Member    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Mitch, WJ, Dave, and All,

Okay, moving right along, I think we are beginning to move forward, but not yet enough momentum to get off the ground for our ideas to take flight.  So let us see where we are on the premises question.

Firstly, I am always suspicious of statements that say something is impossible from the start, since to me this is more in the realm of idealism rather than metaphysics, or even logic; in philosophy no argument is invalid, only raises more questions.  

Second, we are faced with reconciling the apparently irreconcilable, that love and consciousness are metaphysical phenomenon outside of us, of what we feel in ourselves.  We cannot see the linkage outright, but this does not mean it does not exist, only that we do not know it, yet.

Third, we need to work with verifiable facts, points of reality known to us, or within our consciousness, for the logic of an argument to work.  So premises need to be rooted in the observable universe as it is known to us at this time.  Doubtless, in time, what we think we know now may be proven wrong, as has happened before, but we have to start from what we know.  

Fourth, the construction of our metaphysical whole based on our premises will then redefine those premises within the context of a greater whole; this is, in my opinion, how we lend meaning to individual parts within context.  So if something proves logically impossible, but it exists, then the whole is not yet properly understood, since what exists is within that whole.  We have no control over this, it is merely how the universe is.

So with these four points we at least can start moving forward, but to gain momentum, we have to get past the 'subjective versus objective' obstacle, which otherwise leaves us focussed on the inherent impossibility, that subjective cannot be explained by the objective.  This is why I tried, in my post above, to find a common ground, which I think is Reason.  Now, reason may be more than merely logic, since it may involve speculation, but it does have to bow to logical reasoning in the end.  So, to return to the knowns:  We are, we exist in reality, and there are others sharing this reality.  This is something I think we can all be comfortable with, no?  So then, what connecting link can exist that metaphysically allows for both realms to exist together, where personal reality connects with physical reality?   Can the term 'being' be used here as that connection, that our being in reality is a phenomenon that spans both realms, the personal and the universal?  "I am in reality."  Is this a true statement?  To me, this appears to be both real and reasonable, that I can understand this logically.  But if 'being' is the key, then what does it mean?  How is my being in reality able to define what, or who, I am in relation to what (or who?) is outside of me.  Is my mind connected only to other minds, those who exist outside me, but with whom I can communicate?  Or is my mind somehow connected to the Being within which I and they exist?  And if it is, how so?

Mitch, please check my premises!  Dave, take a leap of transcendent logic and speculate that objective reality is, through being, somehow connected to our biological, emotional, and living inner reality!  WJ, good questions!  Is Love logical?  

Seeking reality amidst the illusion of impossibility?  At least, let us exhaust all the possibilities before we declare the questions dead... or else, like the bumblebee, we'll never fly.

In Peace and Joy,  Ivan


(Edited by Ivan Alexander at 9:29 am on Dec. 1, 2001)

-----
It's a very big, infinite universe, and the search goes on... it starts here.  
http://www.humancafe.com  
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Posts: 57 | Joined Aug. 2001 | Posted on: 11:26 am on Dec. 1, 2001 | IP

SECOND COMING?

Dear Anon-1, Kevin, Mitch, and all,

My thoughts of Dec. 24th (ExaminedLifeJournal.com): "rebuilt the Temple on the Mount" in Jerusalem, were motivated by a broad view of the events of Afghanistan's Al-Qaida network executing terror against us, seeing these events are interrelated with the Palestinian question in Israel. If they are all connected, then the center of contention appears to be the West's support for the state of Israel, which is vehemently opposed by the Arab world, and thus by extension by the world of Islam in general. This is building up as a potentially great drama involving all peoples around the world, such as the already manifesting hostilities between India and Pakistan. The word 'drama' is the operative here, since it seems that human beings seem to need such historical dramatic catalysts during periods of major change. I think we are in one of those periods now.

These human 'dramas' are often much anticipated, such as was the coming of the Messiah in biblical times; or even later in the mid nineteenth century, which gave rise to movements such as the Mormons, Bahais, Shakers, and conservative religious movements like the Amish, etc. On another thread, Physics -- Interdisciplinary Forum, we are exploring how human consciousness and the laws of physics may interact; (the direction this is taking is that we may in fact affect reality with our consciousness, though that is still a theory in the making); and thus the idea that human drama is a necessary development as an expression of an aggregate human psyche is a real possibility. If so, then the great dramas of times past, the teachings of Zarathustra, commandments of Moses, Messiaship of Jesus, revelations of Mohammed, and Baha-u'llah, are historical events that transform the world not only because they introduced a new philosophy or religion, but also because they were the manifestation of a collective human psyche necessary for the times. Hence, the dramas that ushered new ages were a necessary event of collective human consciousness.

We may be facing such a momentous time of history again, except that this time we are faced with a major conflict between progressive 'secular' forces, as represented by the recent social developments of the West, and those of conservative religious 'fundamentalism' of the non-Westernized societies. The 'drama' is thus between conflict and peace, which can either position us towards a long term healing world wide, or a worldwide conflict and destruction between the extremists of fundamentalism, whether Muslim or Christian or Jewish, and the secular achievements of more modern societies. The center of this conflict seems to converge on Israel, perhaps even more narrowly on Jerusalem, and the ultimate temple of the three major religions as represented by the Temple Mount. It is for this reason I said:

"My thoughts: I say "rebuild the Temple on the
Mount" open to Jews, Christians, and Muslims, with
a 1000 year lease held by the Jews, who created
these religions in the first place -- to be
renegotiated by their distant descendants, who no
doubt will do a better job then did their distant
ancestors.

This creates a 'check', not a 'checkmate', for
though all eyes of the world will be on Jerusalem,
'checkmate' will not come until the Second
Coming... someday."

The 'Second Coming' is euphemistic, however, since the real test of whether or not we have a 1000 years of peace or war will be in how the three great world religions modify themselves through reforms to reflect the socio-economic realities of the world as it is today. So the terrorist events, the Afghan war, the Palestinian revolts, the India-Pakistan confrontation, are all seen only a symptoms of a much bigger conflict, one which is zeroed in on what happens in Israel, and in Jerusalem in particular. This is the next big 'Drama' that we will face as a collective human consciousness, in my humble view. I remain idealistic, because I think there will be a positive development, which I call 'the Second Coming'.

All the best, in hope and faith, and Peace, for the New Year,

Ivan

like think of "The Matrix", where the dream is
reality, and reality a dream... totally connected
interrelationship as truth... who can fight it,
who can win against the reality of truth...
defined by all there is, real, cool, like sweet
water to a man dying of thirst...like to see
infinity... man, truth is alive..

Now as we step into the new birth it will be felt; chaos. It will be up to each individual to either learn from their chaos or continue in infinite ignorance which breeds only the negative.

The philosophy of Habeas Mentem is both a
foundation and a key-stone, both at the same time.
The foundation is each human being's right to
being who we are in our identity, our
real definition from an infinite
interrelationship. The key-stone is the fact that
this idea, of being who we are, is only a
culmination of centuries of thought and
philosophical ideas starting with Giordano Bruno,
and carried right through the Enlightenment,
through Locke and Hume and Rousseau, and
the Founding Fathers of our nation, Adam and
Jefferson. It is the idea that holds all of our
social values together to remind us that our
democratic values are truly unique as we step
forth into a new Millennium.

HELP

Sometimes I feel that we just have to let people
be. This is Tolerance at its highest, though it
goes against so much that we as a present culture
believe in. It is like watching souls at a
distance go to war with one another, and having
the urge to help; (after all, is it not better to
help others even more that it is to help
oneself?); but to realize that "help" is a loaded
word, and that in helping we are keeping that
person from living their chosen destiny. So when
do we "help" another human being? Is it more
helping them if we let them be, to live out their
lives as they choose? Do we help them only when
they ask for help? I would think so. Do we help
them because they themselves do not know they are
in trouble and really need help? Do we help the
unawares because they are unaware? Or do we
tolerate them for being who they are, and let them
be. In time, if it is their destiny to choose to
become aware, they will. At least, this is what I
think. But sometimes, we just must let them
be... at a distance. This is tolerance as defined
under Habeas Mentem. --Ivan

DIVINE MAN-WOMAN

...a divine man-woman is one who achieves through
kindness and agreement what another achieves
through fear and coercion....


(Taken from Forum "Christ's Awakening the World".
This is an encapsulation of Habeas Mentem at its
simplest. It's as good as it gets! -Ivan, ed.)

NOT JUDGED

By our actions and thoughts, we may be measured as
human beings, as persons, but we may not be
judged, by anyone.

Habeas Mentem

Hi,

Just after I sent that mail to you I opened my New Dimensions Newsletter and
found this poem deep in the heart of it...Seems it may might have been
written by an Aussie anarcho-humanist, perhaps a little too pessimistic for
my taste, but very clever.

A Poem Shared From One of Our Listeners

DESIDERATA TOO
Don’t go placidly amid the apathy and lethargy.

Remember that your silence is consent and there can be no peace where there
is injustice.

You can’t please all the people all the time so shout your truth from the
mountain top and don’t accept nonsense from the bigoted, the ignorant and
the self-serving.

Don’t avoid people who are upset. They may have good reason and your care
and interest may make them less aggressive.

Be tolerant of the diversity that makes everyone special and be aware that
there are no persons greater or lesser than yourself.

Don’t live in the past or the future. Enjoy the present.

Don’t become obsessed by your career. It cannot give you security or
possession of any thing or anyone.

Exercise trust in your dealings but be circumspect as the world is full of
materialists.

Become yourself.

Express affection for all people and all species but be sceptical about
romance for it is as transient as a summer flower.

Don’t become tired in your ways and never surrender your sense of wonder.

Don’t be defensive. Be imaginative.

Fatigue and loneliness are born of fear.

Be rigorous in accepting responsibility for your actions and their
consequences.

You are a child of your less-than-perfect parents and, like the trees and
the stars, your time will pass.

And whether or not it is clear to you, things are not working out as well as
they could.

Whatever you conceive God to be, also be aware that everything you do
changes the world.

Dreams cannot be broken and they will give you no peace if you do not act
with integrity.

Unfortunately, the world is becoming uglier each day.

Be brave.

Strive for the right of all people to make their own paths.

Found in a South Australian kitchen (C) 1992 Andrew Bunney
ab@picknowl.com.au

Dave.

IF THE ANTS CAN DO IT, WHY CAN'T WE?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1932000/1932509.stm

Ant Supercolony dominates Europe:
"While ants from rival nests normally fight each other to the death, ants from the supercolony have the ability to recognise each other and co-operate -- even if they come from nests at opposite ends of the colony's range (6,ooo km)."

Why can't we?