Breaking Through Conventional Scientific Paradigm

The Epoch Times ^ | July 3, 2006 | Nataly Teplitsky, Ph.D.

[Allan]

ERRATUM:

does not give weight.

[Allan]

ERRATUM #2:

epistemology

[RobbyS]

Christian mysticism doesn't get much play in our West, unless you want to include the charismatic moverment. The typical approach of the mentral health people to St. Theresa, for instance, is to treat her as an epileptic.

[walford]

The article is intellectually bankrupt.

Thanks. It assumes God doesn't want his name used for evil, thus the Blasphemy of Dogma. However such an idea about God must also be a Dogma.

For one thing, 'God' is a term we finite beings coined for the Infinite. Such concepts as to whether the Almighty has a name that we can besmirch is a presumptive leap. And the point I was making in the article was that for us to have the temerity to act/speak in the Almighty's name or with blessing is as absurd and blasphemous as it seems.

Further the history in that article is wrong concerning the Reformation. Reformation initiated years of religious wars. No one, not protestant or Catholic thought at the time that they couldn't salve the disagreement by force.

The essence of this 'disagreement' was that some are Chosen by the Almighty to speak/act/rule on His behalf and whether it is possible to connect with the Infinite w/o going through a self-appointed human intermediary [clergy] who are supposedly Divinely Chosen.

You better believe there was bloodshed. Those who purported that they held political power under a Divine rubrick were not going to let such a huge advantage slip with out a fight. Indeed, this is what the likes of OBL hope to impose. Islam has not undergone such a Reformation, thus Muslims routinely present their own political goals [such as slaughtering those who would deny their authority] as Divine ones.

In any case the religious wars did leave everyone with a cynical attitude, which paved the way for the Enlightenment and the irreligiousness of the last few centuries.

Indeed, one of these cynical attitudes was that we are all equal in the eyes of the Almighty and no one rules by Divine Right. Instead, leadership should rule with consent of the governed. The Reformation the establishment of the first truly limited representative government. That in turn led to the Industrial Revolution, advances in medicine, etc.

Some would have us believe that the only choice is between man-made dogma or range-of-the-moment hedonism. The former choice is infantile while the latter is juvenile. No, the alternative is to recognize that we do not make the rules and are each one of us compelled to learn what they are. And to accept the consequences when we fail.

[OriginalIntent]

Archive

[ARridgerunner]

Bohm is authentic and well-meaning

He isn't the subject, nor QM. Mass hypnosis might be.

[BarbaricGrandeur]

For one thing, 'God' is a term we finite beings coined for the Infinite.

'God' is merely a word that evolved from use in one language, and spread to others.

Such concepts as to whether the Almighty has a name that we can besmirch is a presumptive leap.

I disagree, what if God doesn't care? After all, if God doesn't talk to individual humans reveling Himself and giving them instructions from time to time it's fair to assume He is indifferent to what we do; in His name or otherwise.

Indeed, one of these cynical attitudes was that we are all equal in the eyes of the Almighty and no one rules by Divine Right. Instead, leadership should rule with consent of the governed.

No, protestants by and large also believed in the idea of Divine Right. Thats why they had Kings and Princes too. Your understanding of history is crippled by an anachronistic ideology. BTW arguing a teleological development of modern democracy also has dogmatic undertones since it would have to be dictated by nature/God.

[walford]

"Such concepts as to whether the Almighty has a name that we can besmirch is a presumptive leap."

I disagree, what if God doesn't care? After all, if God doesn't talk to individual humans reveling Himself and giving them instructions from time to time it's fair to assume He is indifferent to what we do; in His name or otherwise.

It is indeed possible that the Almighty is is not offended if a human being takes a term/concept that another human being coined in vain. That certainly does not mean that the Almighty 'doesn't care.' It means that the constructs we create to apprehend the infinite may indeed have no Divine importance.

And it most certainly is NOT fair to assume that the Almighty is indifferent to what we do if none are Chosen to impose their political will upon others by violence and purport it as Divine. We may have to be humble enough to accept that these 'instructions' we are given may not be what we think they are. I may be so bold as to say that Muhammed may have been just a man who came from the desert in a delerium that others decided was a Calling -- and that untold thousands have since been slaughtered for nothing.

But then I'm the Infidel. What do I know?

protestants by and large also believed in the idea of Divine Right. Thats why they had Kings and Princes too.

Whether intended by the original founders or not [remember Martin Luther did NOT advocate an alternate Church, but to reform the Catholic Church back toward Jesus of Nazareth's original teachings], the Reformation precipitated a fundamental questioning of ALL authority structures -- secular and religious. The genie was thus then out of the bottle and could never be put back again.

Your understanding of history is crippled by an anachronistic ideology.

Or perhaps I hold a point of view that you find disagreeable and you're crippled by your arrogance.

BTW arguing a teleological development of modern democracy also has dogmatic undertones since it would have to be dictated by nature/God.

I am arguing no such thing. I am certainly not saying that limited representative government was the end-result of of a Grand Plan of which dismantling the feudal system was a predesignated stage. That was Marx's argument toward mankind's inevitable progression toward communism directed by Hegel's World Spirit. And we all know how well THAT turned out.

There is no progression to history; it ebbs and flows. Civilizations rise and fall. If anything, the implementation of modern democracy can arguably be shown as having been put into place at least a millenium later than it could have been -- having been abandoned in favor of centuries-long dogmatism and darkness.

What I am saying is that once the falsity of Divine Right was unmasked, it was only a matter of time for people to demand that their leadership be subject to a popular mandate. The crowns were no longer seen as frozen halos, but man-made trinkets which symbolized nothing more than exploitation and largesse.

The founding of the United States demonstrated to the world that it was indeed possible to have limited representative government -- previously only a theoretical concept -- and for it not to degenerate into mob rule. Thus, others wanted it as well and it spread.

[Allan]

He isn't the subject, nor QM. Mass hypnosis might be.

Is that right? I have read the article many times and I still haven't figured out what it's about.

[BarbaricGrandeur]

And it most certainly is NOT fair to assume that the Almighty is indifferent to what we do if none are Chosen to impose their political will upon others by violence and purport it as Divine.

All legitimate authority by definition has to come from God according to the Judeo-Christian understanding of God ergo Divine Right as postulated by St. Thomas Aquinas. If one does not receive his authority to rule from God he has none, period.

And it most certainly is NOT fair to assume that the Almighty is indifferent to what we do if none are Chosen to impose their political will upon others by violence and purport it as Divine.

Why? Why is it not fair? Were you given some insight into the way the mind of God works?

If anything, the implementation of modern democracy can arguably be shown as having been put into place at least a millennium later than it could have been -- having been abandoned in favor of centuries-long dogmatism and darkness.

This is something I've been saying for years. Modern civilization since the Renaissance has been nothing but a milksopish copy of ancient pagan civilization. Full of weak-kneed mass conformity and pockmarked with diabolical inhumanity. Say what you will about Dogmatism and Orthodoxy, they at least can ONLY go so far. There is no limit to the evil of man acting in the name of his own divinity.

The crowns were no longer seen as frozen halos, but man-made trinkets which symbolized nothing more than exploitation and largesse.

Do you even know what the word "largesse" means? In any case if you want to believe that modern political parties and ideologies don't "exploit" then we might as well end this conversation now.

[ARridgerunner]

:-) You have mail.

[walford]

All legitimate authority by definition has to come from God according to the Judeo-Christian understanding of God ergo Divine Right as postulated by St. Thomas Aquinas. If one does not receive his authority to rule from God he has none, period.

And if one does NOT accept the Abrahamist [let's include Islam, shall we] perspective wherein a select few human beings are invested with authority/insight bestowed by the Almighty to tyrannize others? Well, then all we are left with is ruling with consent of the governed -- and we each have our own relationship with the Divine rather than having one shoved down our throats by clergy.

"And it most certainly is NOT fair to assume that the Almighty is indifferent to what we do if none are Chosen to impose their political will upon others by violence and purport it as Divine."

Why? Why is it not fair? Were you given some insight into the way the mind of God works?

Nice Orwellian twist. If I don't accept your dogmatic position that includes finite beings presuming to speak/rule/kill for the Infinite, then I am the one being dogmatic. I do not purport to know what is desired by the Almighty and have the utmost confidence that we are not needed to speak/act on His behalf. As limited beings, we can only HOPE we are doing God's will, but to cross the threshold and actually SAY we are is the most grievous of blasphemies.

Modern civilization since the Renaissance has been nothing but a milksopish copy of ancient pagan civilization. Full of weak-kneed mass conformity and pockmarked with diabolical inhumanity. Say what you will about Dogmatism and Orthodoxy, they at least can ONLY go so far. There is no limit to the evil of man acting in the name of his own divinity.

Whereas before, during the Dark Ages, we had Kings and Bishops piously purporting to rule in the name of the Almighty and pronouncing judgement upon others' immortal souls -- which can be purchased back at the price of an indulgence.

As I had said earlier, some are presenting the false choice between dogmatism and hedonism. I offer that there is another choice.

Do you even know what the word "largesse" means?

OK, I meant to say profligacy; the crown represents a false halo and self-indulgence on the backs of the serfs.

In any case if you want to believe that modern political parties and ideologies don't "exploit" then we might as well end this conversation now.

1. Quote me even hinting at such a thing. In my original post, I had already alluded to the existence of secular dogmatism, such as Marxism, that purport to a superior vision of an Ideal Society which must be imposed by force upon an ignorant populace that doesn't know what's good for them. That's only one example. Dogmatism is the problem, not religion or lack thereof.

2. You are being intellectually dishonest. You've constructed Straw Men, resorted to ad hominems, and otherwise mischaracterized my actual position from the start. I would shed nary a tear if you spared me any more of your haughty sputum.

[BarbaricGrandeur]

And if one does NOT accept the Abrahamist [let's include Islam, shall we] perspective wherein a select few human beings are invested with authority/insight bestowed by the Almighty to tyrannize others? Well, then all we are left with is ruling with consent of the governed

And if one does not wish to accept the tyranny of the "Greatest Number" then what are we left with?

Nice Orwellian twist. If I don't accept your dogmatic position that includes finite beings presuming to speak/rule/kill for the Infinite, then I am the one being dogmatic.

Yes you are if you claim my position is blasphomy; as was the point of your original post.

which can be purchased back at the price of an indulgence.

You also need to learn the theology behind an "Indulgance."

Quote me even hinting at such a thing. In my original post, I had already alluded to the existence of secular dogmatism, such as Marxism, that purport to a superior vision of an Ideal Society which must be imposed by force upon an ignorant populace that doesn't know what's good for them.

No you just implied it. If you claim modern systems of government are better than the older, and the older were bad because of “exploitation,” it is logical to assume you favor the modern because they are some how not subject to “exploitation.” I know the dialectics of modern politics establishes the mantra that ALL kings are 'greedy,' 'exploitive,' and 'cruel,' but it's not true. This may come as a surprise for you but claiming “Divine Right” does not make someone ipso facto 'evil.'

I can say with a straight face that the actions of terrorists are evil, because I know, I KNOW, they are contrary to the will of God. But I can't claim they are evil (or that there is even such a thing AS Evil) if I didn't know that.

[walford]

You're arguing with a caricature of my position. My participation is not necessary. Enjoy yourself.

[SuzyQue]

Bookmark

[Virginia-American]

The typical approach of the mentral health people to St. Theresa, for instance, is to treat her as an epileptic.

A friend of mine hears the BVM, but anti-psychotic drugs stop it. At one time he was seriously considering joining an Orthodox monastery and going off his meds.

[SunkenCiv]

---

---

· List topics · post a topic · subscribe · Google ·

---