The origin of mankind

[Michael Sternbach]

I don't accept that because of the rest of the things you have written. Yours is a new age spiritual mysticism mixing older pagan, with later philosophies as espoused by Kant/Hegel/Marx/Descartes.

 

It would be interesting to see how you fit it all together, but not here.

 

You have nicely identified some of my main influences.

[Karl]

You have nicely identified some of my main influences.

 

I missed platonic realism :-)

[Silent Answers]

Everything on Earth originally came from "outer space".

 

The origin of humanity and everything else is Infinity (also = zero).

 

You are all Infinity.

 

And begin condensing.

 

Into energy waves and "forces".

 

Into pre-atomic particles.

 

Into atomic "elements".

 

Into "chemicals".

 

Into microbial life.

 

Into plants.

 

Into animals.

 

Primate.

 

Human being.

 

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

 

All of this is condensation of energy.

 

The point of human conception is a fulcrum.

 

Where expansion begins.

 

And differentiation.

 

Back to Infinity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

Walter Russel fan?

[vonkrankenhaus]

Re:

-----

"Walter Russel fan?"

-----

 

Had not heard of him.

 

Perhaps we are merely looking at the same universe?

 

From Wikipedia:

 

"From the debate with scientists came a tag-line for the Russell Cosmogony, the "Two-Way Universe" of gravitation and radiation. "Gravity and radiativity are opposite pressure conditions. They perpetually void themselves by giving to the other."

 

Is basically Taoist-esque. He is seeing YinYang physically as contraction and expansion.

 

My realizations about the solar system and evolution came to me around 1969 in a small library surrounded with books and notes.

 

But I realize that there was a period in time where some western people were close to these ideas in the 1920s.

 

You may also find some similarity, as I recently did, with the "expanding earth" theory - which I see as just an incomplete sort of version of these ideas that seem easy to "debunk" for scientists and public.

 

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

[Stosh]

Not having taken Philosophy in college , I thought I'd look this up ... WTF ?????

 

 

 

From wikipedia ..

Platonic realism

Regardless of their description, Platonic realism holds that universals do exist in a broad, abstract sense, although not at any spatial or temporal distance from people's bodies. Thus, people cannot see or otherwise come into sensory contact with universals, but in order to conceive of universals, one must be able to conceive of these abstract forms.

 

 

From google 

re·al·ism

ˈrē(ə)ˌlizəm/

noun

1. the attitude or practice of accepting a situation as it is and being prepared to deal with it accordingly.

   "the summit was marked by a new mood of realism"

   synonyms: pragmatism, practicality, common sense, levelheadedness

   "optimism tinged with realism"

   • the quality or fact of representing a person, thing, or situation accurately or in a way that is true to life.
2. "the earthy realism of Raimu's characters"

   synonyms: authenticity, fidelity, verisimilitude, truthfulness, faithfulness

   "a degree of realism"

    

So Im thinking this 'platonic realism',  is different from realism ,,

it  is actually what we ordinarily call bullshit.

Edited March 16, 2016 by Stosh

[Karl]

Not having taken Philosophy in college , I thought I'd look this up ... WTF ?????

 

 

 

From wikipedia ..

Platonic realism

Regardless of their description, Platonic realism holds that universals do exist in a broad, abstract sense, although not at any spatial or temporal distance from people's bodies. Thus, people cannot see or otherwise come into sensory contact with universals, but in order to conceive of universals, one must be able to conceive of these abstract forms.

 

 

From google

re·al·ism

 

ˈrē(ə)ˌlizəm/

 

noun

 

• the attitude or practice of accepting a situation as it is and being prepared to deal with it accordingly.

  "the summit was marked by a new mood of realism"

  synonyms: https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHNY_enUS601US601&espv=2&biw=1567&bih=987&q=define+pragmatism&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwigms2rncbLAhVEl4MKHQEcB0UQ_SoIHjAA]pragmatism[/url], https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHNY_enUS601US601&espv=2&biw=1567&bih=987&q=define+practicality&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwigms2rncbLAhVEl4MKHQEcB0UQ_SoIHzAA]practicality[/url], https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHNY_enUS601US601&espv=2&biw=1567&bih=987&q=define+common+sense&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwigms2rncbLAhVEl4MKHQEcB0UQ_SoIIDAA]common sense[/url], levelheadedness

   

   

  "optimism tinged with realism"

  • the quality or fact of representing a person, thing, or situation accurately or in a way that is true to life.

     

• "the earthy realism of Raimu's characters"

  synonyms: https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHNY_enUS601US601&espv=2&biw=1567&bih=987&q=define+authenticity&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwigms2rncbLAhVEl4MKHQEcB0UQ_SoIJDAA]authenticity[/url], https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHNY_enUS601US601&espv=2&biw=1567&bih=987&q=define+fidelity&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwigms2rncbLAhVEl4MKHQEcB0UQ_SoIJTAA]fidelity[/url], https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHNY_enUS601US601&espv=2&biw=1567&bih=987&q=define+verisimilitude&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwigms2rncbLAhVEl4MKHQEcB0UQ_SoIJjAA]verisimilitude[/url], https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHNY_enUS601US601&espv=2&biw=1567&bih=987&q=define+truthfulness&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwigms2rncbLAhVEl4MKHQEcB0UQ_SoIJzAA]truthfulness[/url], https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHNY_enUS601US601&espv=2&biw=1567&bih=987&q=define+faithfulness&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwigms2rncbLAhVEl4MKHQEcB0UQ_SoIKDAA]faithfulness[/url]

   

   

  "a degree of realism"

   

   

   

   

   

   

So Im thinking this 'platonic realism', is different from realism ,,

it is actually what we ordinarily call bullshit.

It's extreme realism. In that entities are a kind of poor facimile of a perfect form. That they contain an intrinsic concept of that form that is transmitted to the person viewing it.

 

Realism is very similar.

 

That's Plato for you (and to a slightly lesser extent Aristotle ).

 

That's why I said Michael wasn't an objectivist.

 

Have to add that 'BS' isn't a good argument against it :-)

Edited March 16, 2016 by Karl

[Michael Sternbach]

I missed platonic realism :-)

Yes, I value a number of Platonic and neo-Platonic ideas.

 

You are also right regarding other Pagan and modern philosophies being influences on me, especially German Idealism (Hegel). Kant, Descartes and Marx not so much (as far as I'm aware, anyway).

 

"New Age mysticism", well, if you mean the more advanced expressions (for instance, Seth), then yes.

 

There is much more in my syncretistic system, but this is good for starters.

[Karl]

Yes, I value a number of Platonic and neo-Platonic ideas.

You are also right regarding other Pagan and modern philosophies being influences on me, especially German Idealism (Hegel). Kant, Descartes and Marx not so much (as far as I'm aware, anyway).

"New Age mysticism", well, if you mean the more advanced expressions (for instance, Seth), then yes.

There is much more in my syncretistic system, but this is good for starters.

 

Marx just moved the philosophy from that of the individual to the collective, but the rest of his philosophy is essentially Hegelian. Kant and Descartes fed into these philosophies. Some people pick Kant over Hegel, or Descartes over Kant. Dewey could easily be included in the pack.

 

Yes, on what you refer to as new age mysticism.

 

Obviously these are in complete opposition to the objectivist philosophy. I'd be bowled over if you were looking to explore in that direction :-)

 

 

[Wu Ming Jen]

The origin of mankind came from my mom and dad (heaven and earth) It took a while for me to get here I had to wait for the building blocks and less complicated life forms to establish themselves before I could arrive. I am the most complex living organism on earth and not the last. I can be steady as a rock or fierce as a tiger I am everything I see and see without seeing. We never left the origin that's why we're here.

Edited March 16, 2016 by Wu Ming Jen

[Michael Sternbach]

Marx just moved the philosophy from that of the individual to the collective, but the rest of his philosophy is essentially Hegelian. Kant and Descartes fed into these philosophies. Some people pick Kant over Hegel, or Descartes over Kant. Dewey could easily be included in the pack.

 

Yes, on what you refer to as new age mysticism.

 

Obviously these are in complete opposition to the objectivist philosophy. I'd be bowled over if you were looking to explore in that direction :-)

 

So who would you call an objectivist philosopher? Aristotle perhaps?

[Karl]

So who would you call an objectivist philosopher? Aristotle perhaps?

 

Only Ayn Rand, it is her philosophy.

[Silent Answers]

Re:

-----

"Walter Russel fan?"

-----

 

Had not heard of him.

 

Perhaps we are merely looking at the same universe?

 

From Wikipedia:

 

"From the debate with scientists came a tag-line for the Russell Cosmogony, the "Two-Way Universe" of gravitation and radiation. "Gravity and radiativity are opposite pressure conditions. They perpetually void themselves by giving to the other."

 

Is basically Taoist-esque. He is seeing YinYang physically as contraction and expansion.

 

My realizations about the solar system and evolution came to me around 1969 in a small library surrounded with books and notes.

 

But I realize that there was a period in time where some western people were close to these ideas in the 1920s.

 

You may also find some similarity, as I recently did, with the "expanding earth" theory - which I see as just an incomplete sort of version of these ideas that seem easy to "debunk" for scientists and public.

 

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

Actually, the expanding Earth idea makes a lot of sense if you're open to the idea of an electrical universe. It's one of those theories I don't go around openly talking about, but looks like it has a good chance of being right.

[Aetherous]

Perhaps our reality is not as material as we think, and it becomes manifested from the Dao, rather than evolves physically over millions of years. The closer we inspect this reality, the more evidence is manifested for it having a material origin...just another illusion. New species appear all the time out of nowhere. What is the origin of mankind? Perhaps, the immaterial.

[Karl]

Actually, the expanding Earth idea makes a lot of sense if you're open to the idea of an electrical universe. It's one of those theories I don't go around openly talking about, but looks like it has a good chance of being right.

 

Which is one of the reasons we should define 'fields'. We have been messing around with gravity, magnetism, electricity and light without ever unifying them. I'm not a physicist, so it's outside my understanding, but surely it would make sense that there is consistency in the universe. That we don't have particles that turn into waves and waves that are particles. Its incongruent with reality. A is A.

 

We talk of things travelling through space, but there is no such entity as space and so we have something travelling through a medium-newtons cradle.

[Michael Sternbach]

Only Ayn Rand, it is her philosophy.

 

Oh, that narrows objectivism down.

[Michael Sternbach]

Actually, the expanding Earth idea makes a lot of sense if you're open to the idea of an electrical universe. It's one of those theories I don't go around openly talking about, but looks like it has a good chance of being right.

 

Alchemy always maintained that there is matter continuously being created in our planet's body.

[Apech]

Oh, that narrows objectivism down.

 

She was a second rate novelist really.  Christopher Hitchens had her sussed.

[Apech]

Alchemy always maintained that there is matter continuously being created in our planet's body.

 

Metals and jewels are grown within the earth.

[Karl]

She was a second rate novelist really. Christopher Hitchens had her sussed.

I don't think she was a very good novelist, but then I also think Chistoper Hitchens was philosophically lost and never understood Rand (I've read much of what he said about objectivism and it's incorrect). Actually it's pretty easy to see this in the arguments between the two siblings. Peter realised the hole in Christopher's philosophy and added Christianity to his own. What we then find is that we have clear opposites of essentially the same philosophy. Mystics of muscle and spirit. Peter got God and Chistopher got Dawkins.

 

I've sat on all sides and many fences. I've been a spiritual, a muscle mystic and a new ager. Rand's philosophy is the only one which asks you to question it and not to accept it otherwise. It does not preach as do others. Rand says it must be tested against the rock on which it is founded. I've never come across any other philosophy, practice or religion that gets close to suggesting that. To me that seperated it from all others. Rand says if it comes up wanting against its own measure, then you should dismiss it immediately and pay it no more attention. Rand openly invites its destruction and welcomes it.

 

I respect both Hitchens as thinkers, but I think it's a great pity that Christopher didn't get to understand Rand. I suspect that this was because both brothers philosophies grew essentially out of Marx before giving up on it. Both went towards Conservatism in slightly different forms. To approach objectivism is then almost impossible. I do know that Christopher tried to obtain some of Rand's essays to support his own views on Atheism, but the estate would alloy it-good on them and entirely in keeping with the purity of the philosophy not to let it out to populism.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Karl

[Michael Sternbach]

Metals and jewels are grown within the earth.

 

Yes, this is known to modern science. But unlike the latter, Alchemy states that this matter is constantly being created from subtle energies that emanate from cosmic bodies. It also says that metals can transmute to other metals over long periods of time in the body of the Earth.

[Silent Answers]

Which is one of the reasons we should define 'fields'. We have been messing around with gravity, magnetism, electricity and light without ever unifying them. I'm not a physicist, so it's outside my understanding, but surely it would make sense that there is consistency in the universe. That we don't have particles that turn into waves and waves that are particles. Its incongruent with reality. A is A. We talk of things travelling through space, but there is no such entity as space and so we have something travelling through a medium-newtons cradle.

You might also appreciate the science of Walter Russell, but perhaps ignore the religious stuff as that might not settle too well with you.

[vonkrankenhaus]

Re:

-----

"Actually, the expanding Earth idea makes a lot of sense if you're open to the idea of an electrical universe. It's one of those theories I don't go around openly talking about, but looks like it has a good chance of being right."

-----

 

There are some things missing in the theory as I have recently encounter it.

 

It is assumed that Earth, to expand, would have to add material.

 

But let's say we have a rubber ball at room temperture, and we heat it with a hair dryer.

 

It will expand without adding matter.

 

This is like what happens when Mars core heat up.

 

Mars heats up as/when it moves to a closer position to the Sun - about 1.5 billion years from now.

 

And also heating up if Sun output increases.

 

Further from Sun we see other phenomena.

 

Gas giant planet Jupiter will move through asteroid belt and have gas smashed off and core pounded into iron ball.

 

And moons busted up - this is what is in that belt.

 

It will come out looking like Mars.

 

Transmutation of elements also happens.

 

Because periodic table is actually a spiral showing change.

 

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

[vonkrankenhaus]

Re:

-----

"You might also appreciate the science of Walter Russell, but perhaps ignore the religious stuff as that might not settle too well with you."

-----

 

Thank you for bringing him up.

 

I am researching all day his writing today and yesterday.

 

I see that from early on he was adapting Taoist thought with western science.

 

He is just using different words.

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

[Michael Sternbach]

I've sat on all sides and many fences. I've been a spiritual, a muscle mystic and a new ager. Rand's philosophy is the only one which asks you to question it and not to accept it otherwise. It does not preach as do others. Rand says it must be tested against the rock on which it is founded. I've never come across any other philosophy, practice or religion that gets close to suggesting that. To me that seperated it from all others. Rand says if it comes up wanting against its own measure, then you should dismiss it immediately and pay it no more attention. Rand openly invites its destruction and welcomes it.

 

This is incorrect. Quoting the article Buddhism and Modern Science:

 

Just as in science Buddhism does not require its followers to have dogmatic belief in anything that the Buddha taught. The Buddha advised people not to blindly accept what he taught, but research on them for themselves before accepting. For this reason his teachings have remained unaltered and valid for all times and under all circumstances.

 

Alice A. Bailey's A Treatise on Cosmic Fire (a book highly influential in Theosophist circles) echoes this in the introduction:

 

No book gains anything from dogmatic claims or declarations as to the authoritative value of its source of inspiration. It should stand or fall solely on the basis of its own intrinsic worth, on the value of the suggestions made, and its power to foster the spiritual life and the intellectual apprehension of the reader. If this treatise has within it anything of truth and of reality, it will inevitably and unfailingly do its work, carry its message, and thus reach the hearts and minds of searchers everywhere. If it is of no value, and has no basis in fact, it will disappear and die, and most rightly so. All that is asked from the student of this treatise is a sympathetic approach, a willingness to consider the views put forth and that honesty and sincerity of thought which will tend to the development of the intuition, of spiritual diagnosis, and a discrimination which will lead to a rejection of the false and an appreciation of the true.

The words of the Buddha most appropriately have their place here, and make a fitting conclusion to these preliminary remarks:

THE LORD BUDDHA HAS SAID

that we must not believe in a thing said merely because it is said; nor traditions because they have been handed down from antiquity; nor rumors, as such; nor writings by sages, because sages wrote them; nor fancies that we may suspect to have been inspired in us by a Deva (that is, in presumed spiritual inspiration); nor from inferences drawn from some haphazard assumption we may have made; nor [XVI] because of what seems an analogical necessity; nor on the mere authority of our teachers or masters. But we are to believe when the writing, doctrine, or saying is corroborated by our own reason and consciousness. "For this," says he in concluding, "I taught you not to believe merely because you have heard, but when you believed of your consciousness, then to act accordingly and abundantly."

- Secret Doctrine III. 401

May this be the attitude of every reader of this "Treatise on Cosmic Fire."

- ALICE A. BAILEY

[Brian]

Which is one of the reasons we should define 'fields'. We have been messing around with gravity, magnetism, electricity and light without ever unifying them. I'm not a physicist, so it's outside my understanding, but surely it would make sense that there is consistency in the universe. That we don't have particles that turn into waves and waves that are particles. Its incongruent with reality. A is A. We talk of things travelling through space, but there is no such entity as space and so we have something travelling through a medium-newtons cradle.

Please define the word "net" for me, Karl -- in your own words.