Why I became an Atheist (or Patheist)

[George Aar]

...

and i can imagine why "growth" would be a "supposed," geo

most people have not experienced much of it all in life

rational thought could have formed in us as individuals around 9-14 years old

and if we cleaved to mythic fundamentalism all the way into early and late adulthood...it seems a miracle that we grew beyond it at all

also...there is not much growth evident in mainstream society, either

but, of course, even rational thought is limited to the data we look at

...

But no doubt YOU have, eh?

Doesn't this paragraph strike you as just a tad on the arrogant, condescending side?

I'm sorry SirG, it still seems pretty squishy whatever it is we're supposed to embrace after we've had our semester of rational thinking. If something cannot be explained in rational, concrete terms that are within the accepted parameters of how we understand the laws of physics, why should one "grow" to accept it?

Moreover, how does one "grow" beyond rational thinking without embracing nonsense? Why would one WANT to believe in that which cannot be proven?

[cman]

If something cannot be explained in rational, concrete terms that are within the accepted parameters of how we understand the laws of physics, why should one "grow" to accept it?

So are you a machine that can only work within one idea?

And lots of folks experience what sirg is talking about.

So arrogant and condescending would not be the word I would use.

I would say this is life to many and not to many.

Furthermore those that think arrogant and condescending is something some else is doing, then most likely that person is offended if anyone knows more then themselves.

Which is an arrogant and condescending place to be.

Edited June 1, 2008 by cman

[George Aar]

So are you a machine that can only work within one idea?

nonsequitor

And lots of folks experience what sirg is talking about.

So arrogant and condescending would not be the word I would use.

A lot of folks experience Alien Abduction, astral projection, time travel, and numerous other dubious concepts.

Should we just accept their experiences as true, because they believe they are? Should they accept them themselves?

I would say this is life to many and not to many.

What is? That's what I'm trying to get at. The explanation gets squishier and vaguer than the original post.

Furthermore those that think arrogant and condescending is something some else is doing, then most likely that person is offended if anyone knows more then themselves.

Which is an arrogant and condescending place to be.

You're entitled to your opinion.

[cman]

George, your own words have said you don't know what sirg is talking about.

The more you speak of what some one says that you don't understand the less you understand because of your self imposed limits. Which can be over ridden by the way, and will be.

If you don't want to see, you will not, till the time to see cannot be stopped.

[sirguessalot]

for what its worth, geo

i not only consider you fundamentally an equal human animal

albeit quite a bit older than me...which is what it is in its own right

and with your own range of experiences, talents and skills and such

i can assume you have many capacities that i will most likely never reach in my entire life

like ive told you before...if i could, i'd even sit in the boat with your grumpy self until you keeled over the edge

but ...

if you dont actually comprehend much of what ive written

why (and how) should i even respond to your questions?

im quite sure you would feel the same if i were challenging you by asking stuff about construction

i mean....you would know better than i if i was even following along or not?

for one...

how the heck, in your worldview, do you equate "social democracy, free information, caring communities, universal human rights, journalism and dialogue" with "embracing nonsense?"

i ask in all fairness...where did i write that one grows beyond rational "by embracing nonsense?"

and what exactly does "embracing nonsense" mean to you, anyway?

i promise to continue to try and respond directly to your questions

if you can respond more directly to what i wrote

Edited June 1, 2008 by sirguessalot

[jen-o]

george,

the way i understand it, sirguess is looking at the world thru his stage theory...

evidently, there are worldview stages within this worldview...

and one of the stages appears to be the "rational worldview" (perhaps, even rational materialism)

of course, stage theory presupposes evolutionary development (growth) thru the stages...

Rupert Sheldrake believes that it has become "increasingly necessary to explain things like consciousness, hermeneutics, and spirituality in evolutionary terms."

here is one set of stages:

Magenta (egocentric, magic)

Red (ego- to ethnocentric, egoic)

Amber (ethnocentric, mythic)

Orange (worldcentric, rational)

Green (worldcentric, pluralistic)

Teal (worldcentric to “kosmocentric,” integral)

Turquoise (“kosmocentric,” integral)

so i have a feeling that there is a failure of the "meeting of the minds" here regarding the term "rational thought"..

personally, i reject stage theory and its evolutionary development and growth...

peace,

jen-o

edited to add the first 2 stages (which i had accidently forgot)

Edited June 1, 2008 by jen-o

[rhino]

thanks jen-o

I prefer philosophies spelled out in cartoon format ... like when South Park enlightened everyone on what Scientology really believes about all the alien stuff ...

I guess one might really admire these movements ... what does it take for them to get momentum?

Anyway, sir guess ... is there a site to explain all this, or is there a class to take and a cult to join?

Maybe I missed it, but what is the theory called exactly? Is it "stage theory" Is there a main leader that you read?

[George Aar]

for one...

how the heck, in your worldview, do you equate "social democracy, free information, caring communities, universal human rights, journalism and dialogue" with "embracing nonsense?"

I don't know that I do. I just don't know how you arrive at any of those places by "growing beyond" reason. If reason doesn't guide your actions, what does?

i ask in all fairness...where did i write that one grows beyond rational "by embracing nonsense?"

You didn't, nor did I say you did. Jeezus, I think we speak the same language. Amazing how difficult it is to communicate.

and what exactly does "embracing nonsense" mean to you, anyway?

That would be actions you undertake guided by feelings, intuitions, and the like, rather than reason. Occasionally you'd stumble upon something of merit, I suppose, but hardly a sensible way to live.

i promise to continue to try and respond directly to your questions

if you can respond more directly to what i wrote

I honestly don't know if that's possible SirG. Your brain and mine seem to work quite differently.

George, your own words have said you don't know what sirg is talking about.

The more you speak of what some one says that you don't understand the less you understand because of your self imposed limits. Which can be over ridden by the way, and will be.

If you don't want to see, you will not, till the time to see cannot be stopped.

Uh, O.K., I guess that clears it up (?) :huh:

[sirguessalot]

Anyway, sir guess ... is there a site to explain all this, or is there a class to take and a cult to join?

Maybe I missed it, but what is the theory called exactly? Is it "stage theory" Is there a main leader that you read?

no, nothing like that rhino...but thanks for asking

i am never surprised when someone at our ex-cult site suspects or implies such...big laughs or not

i think if i were to list the names, books, organizations, philosophies, and other google-worthy phrases...it would probably take me days to compile

but i hesitate to invest the energy because of the patterns of overreaction and misunderstanding to such things that i see at the gsc

especially if i only post a few from some category...there seems a tendency on the part of some here to assume that the slice i present is somehow the entirety of my new cult

well..that aint ever gonna happen to this kid again

my overall expressed position comes from my own personal synthesis of a wide variety of fields and disciplines

some of which are very very old, and some of which are very very new..and all points in between

but when it comes to developmental and stage theories, there are about a dozen different pioneers and researchers from the past century or so that i appreciate

although many of them specialize in different aspects of development/evolution/growth...whatever

some specialize in ego development

some specialize in cognitive development

some specialize in moral development

some specialize in cultural development

some specialize in psychological development

some specialize in emotional development

some specialize in faith development

some specialize in sexual development

yada yada etc...

and i have come to appreciate where all their maps and models overlap

as much as where they do not

but even sequential stage development (as ive been limiting much of my posting to) is really but one factor in psychological, cultural, social or other system growth

there are also many horizontal (and non-sequential) personality typologies i feel are as important, valid and revealing as stage development

(if often wondered if such topics might be easier on the ears)

as well as many wilder altered states of consciousness that do not follow any sort of sequential growth

of course, then there are actual practices...as theories and theologies are just that...concepts

which are quite empty without some real world application

now im guessing that is not quite what you were looking for

but that is all i got at the moment

...

ya know geo...im quite ok with with how different our brains minds work

and i actually do enjoy these times that we seem to try to understand each other for a spell

but you may be right...it just may not be possible

even when i look at your last post...it just seems like a lot of work to unravel all the misunderstandings

its all good

as they say

Edited June 1, 2008 by sirguessalot

[cman]

of course i applaud you for embracing a rational worldview, Seth...

it certainly allows for objective re-interpretations of experiences that were once interpreted mythically and magically

and i feel it is worth mentioning...(i hope you find it worth following)

while rational thought is an improvement (and not a minor one)

it does have its own pitfalls and dualistic idealogies to work out

a kind of over-correction into gross reductionism and rejection of subjective (and inter-subjective) values, for example

which disintegrates into a very non-rational position of trying to dismiss/erase valid data

or a wholesale dismissal of the value and role of healthy mythic thought in history, and life

...often marked by a sour and sarcastic sense of "humor" when it comes to debunking myths

the "pre/trans fallacy" is another... where one is not able to distinquish between pre-rational with post-rational values

...and so lumping them all together simply because both are non-rational

others, too...

but without an awareness of these kinds of pitfalls

rational thought can cause as much, if not more suffering,

than mythic fundamentalism or magical thinking

as if rational is somehow some sort of pinnacle of human capacity

when it is merely a rung on a seeming infinite ladder

and too, rational language (or any level of language) can be adopted by magic (self-centered) worldviews

...as some can be firmly rational towards a narrow bandwidth of things...and quite un-rational towards a wide variety of others

but every worldview we transcend has structural elements that we need to carry forward

...or our going forward will include embedded shadows of what we left behind

so...we would do well to make sure we have a full experience of whatever stage we are moving through

before moving on

and...not that you are...but "don't get stuck at early rational thought for too long"...like so many

...just remember that there is plenty of space to keep moving

as radical as the leap from myth to rational

is the leap from rational to more pluralistic and social values and worldviews

"preparing to leap again" is an attitude we would do well to develop at any level

+ODD

edited to add this link to an older thread on worldviews

Personally, I thought this to be easy to understand.

And handled this all before it happened here on this thread.

Cause it happens alot, twi is a great example of it imo.

[rhino]

no, nothing like that rhino...but thanks for asking

i am never surprised when someone at our ex-cult site suspects or implies such...big laughs or not

i think if i were to list the names, books, organizations, philosophies, and other google-worthy phrases...it would probably take me days to compile

but i hesitate to invest the energy because of the patterns of overreaction and misunderstanding to such things that i see at the gsc

especially if i only post a few from some category...there seems a tendency on the part of some here to assume that the slice i present is somehow the entirety of my new cult

well..that aint ever gonna happen to this kid again

my overall expressed position comes from my own personal synthesis of a wide variety of fields and disciplines

some of which are very very old, and some of which are very very new..and all points in between

Thanks sir guess ... well you may be ready to start a cult .. or whatever you might want to call it. Perhaps becoming a sage is the next stage? (just kidding, I have been joking about starting my own cult, but I really don't have the energy)

It is good to study, it just seems your "findings" are incredibly involved. I wonder if all these stages are really so exact, and if the "higher" stages are necessarily better than the "lower" ones. It seems to be a sort of caste system, except you can move from one to the next in the same lifetime.

Off the bat, it seems there would be different ways to evolve at higher reasoning without going through specific stages.

you said

beyond rational (but best if rational is included) is characterized by social democracy, free information, caring communities, universal human rights, journalism and dialogue

and you said it is best to keep rational thought there too. This sounds like "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" ... or maybe more like one world socialist government utopia.

Maybe I'm injecting my own opinion, but the trick seems to be finding a system that works with people that believe differently, without imposing on them too much. This intellectual caste system reminds me a lot of the university socialist elite deciding how life should be for their fundamentalist Christian lessers out there doing the grunt work.

Anyway ... some beliefs do seem tribal only, but that occurs in academia and politics as well. And the nature of man has been that power corrupts ... so these worldviews evolve wonderfully, and you end up with a master race vision or some such. In economics we had the roaring 20's (and now Greenspan hangover) and Germany was happening till Adolf.

Certainly there are stages of development, but man only lives so long, and he seldom has the drive to achieve, while keeping that drive in check to only do good for all, though he will surely label it as a great society, or big brother ... or whatever sounds innocuous or friendly even. But somewhere in the works are the henchmen to make sure the little people march in step.

What stage does this thinking put me at? :) But really, when you say "that ain't never gonna happen to this kid again", it reminds me how easy it is to fall into the old trap again, just in some other form. Or maybe that is just for us trapped in these lower circular stages.

Who said "much learning hath made me mad"? For me, I would like to be more well read, but I'm not so keen on putting together some perfect philosophy. There is probably much to learn here ... but the idea of these certain stages has a religious tone to me.

I really don't see how you go beyond rational thought without subscribing to a religious view ... which actually seems more of a return to fundamentalism. Don't Christians or others believe in the unity of their spriit ... care for all in the family, free information ... Even saying you keep rational thought, what is this guiding force that is beyond that?

Edited June 1, 2008 by rhino

[cman]

Funny how some are ready to hang anyone that speaks of their own thinking. And is deciding for the speaker that he is saying that all should think like he does.

Sorry that is not the case here.

my overall expressed position comes from my own personal synthesis of a wide variety of fields and disciplines

I don't see any recruitment tactics or 'think like me' going on here. But to understand another's thinking is somehow beyond the grasp of what would be the rational approach.

[rhino]

I don't see where I am accusing him of any such thing as recruiting. He seems well on is way of thinking through many other people's works. The questions I'm asking are to interact and better grasp his thinking. Isn't that what discussion entails?

In doing that I will point out my thoughts and sir guess can respond with his thoughts. It may seem more polite to not address what I disagree with or question, and only nod in approval, but I don't see that really accomplishes anything.

Mainly ... what supersedes rational thought?

Edited June 1, 2008 by rhino

[cman]

If you are asking me, I say nothing is greater or lesser.

But stagnant or moving.

A rational approach yes, but why should we be bound to that?

We can use it to move on to other ideas and thinking.

Comparing World View with World Domination is not rational.

If you know about WorldViews.

[Bumpy]

Mainly ... what supersedes rational thought?

Idiots!

[rhino]

If you are asking me, I say nothing is greater or lesser.

But stagnant or moving.

A rational approach yes, but why should we be bound to that?

We can use it to move on to other ideas and thinking.

Comparing World View with World Domination is not rational.

If you know about WorldViews.

No, I don't know of these concepts, which is why I'm asking about what strikes me as peculiar.

These seem new terms, but perhaps they are just reorganizing old concepts. Socialism is not really about domination ... is it a worldview?

My examples were about what I perceived to be "worldviews" that didn't work out so well. Everyone getting rich off the stock market turned into the depression. Germany was living it up, but they needed to conquer to spread their worldview. It seems a little Orwellian on some levels.

I'm still not seeing the "move on to other ideas" thing. What other ideas or thinking are you talking about? I hear pluralism, universal health care, free information ....

How does that get implemented in a society?

Thank

God

worldview .. bumpy is here with rational thought and oysters ...

it's Sunday morning here Bump .. would you open with a word of

prayer

rational thought :)

of course now my irreverence for other religions or worldviews will get me in trouble ... oh well .... my word of the day is

"nonchalance"

... it should be required for these chats ...

Edited June 1, 2008 by rhino

[cman]

Have you even looked up anything about world views?

Or the many links sirguess has posted?

If you don't want to look you can't see.

Which is fine with me.

Shoot just google the thing and there will be results.

Or wikipedia helps.

But the understanding comes when seeing it living.

Which involves more then world views.

And o yes slap religion on there.

O ouch.

I've seen enough to know that religion has contributed.

Though it is not the all in all. Or even close.

If you rule out the unseen then the seen remains the same.

[rhino]

Have you even looked up anything about world views?

Or the many links sirguess has posted?

If you don't want to look you can't see.

Which is fine with me.

No, I didn't do my homework on the links ... I just read the last few posts ...

It seems it should be easy enough to explain how you move beyond rational thought. What is the guiding force? Do I have to take the class follow all those links?

But the understanding comes when seeing it living.

Which involves more then world views.

So worldviews are not the great mystery? There is more understanding when it is living. Where is it living?

If you rule out the unseen then the seen remains the same.

This again seems cryptic. I mean really ... I'm not linked to the Bible or TWI ... but this greater enlightenment seems mysterious. World views beyond rational thought ... and there is more than that ... sound like "to infinity ... and beyond"

I can try some links I guess .. at least they are free. I may need to wait for oysters and beer though ...

[sirguessalot]

thanks for taking the time to write all this, Bill

Thanks sir guess ... well you may be ready to start a cult .. or whatever you might want to call it. Perhaps becoming a sage is the next stage? (just kidding, I have been joking about starting my own cult, but I really don't have the energy)

actually, becoming "sage-like" is a great way to describe later stages of life. Many of the stage-like development fields have a lot to do with natural normal stages of life...not some metaphysical cultish new age mumbo jumbo. But the natural way all humans move from stage to stage on our journey from womb to tomb. Our current post-modern rejection of stages of life is relatively new, and has a lot to do with why we have so many adults still functioning like children. We have discarded most all rites of passage...and tend to want to stay young forever...where aging is seen as a curse to be avoided.

It is good to study, it just seems your "findings" are incredibly involved. I wonder if all these stages are really so exact, and if the "higher" stages are necessarily better than the "lower" ones. It seems to be a sort of caste system, except you can move from one to the next in the same lifetime.

i do think that our capacity to synthesize so much in recent history involves more information than ever. Not that one must be into such things to be good, true or beautiful. But some people can and do appreciate so many complex and moving parts. Sometimes i post here just to find them. same thing about people who post about cooking, sports, politics...etc...

and while most all stage theories identify general patterns and distinct shifts...all the ways we grow through stages present a wildly unique and vividly textured cartography for each of us. Many know full well that their models only represent a distant view, sans the textures.

also...upper stages are only "better" than lower stages in relative terms...not absolute. for example...if one's care and concern extends to all of life, it is simply more than one whose care and concern is for one's self only. but in the absolute...both are equally human.

and again...in any given one of us...there are so many different parts that are unfolding in stages...i would say that no one category of growth fully defines anyone. We are a conglomeration of many lines at many stages of growth.

so no, not a caste system...but the natural normal human capacity to mature and improve in stage-like increments along all our various lines

Off the bat, it seems there would be different ways to evolve at higher reasoning without going through specific stages.

well, from what i have come to understand so far, stage development is typically described and experienced as being entirely incremental. New stages "structurally" need earlier stages to grow. Such as how we need to develop an ego before we trancend it. We need a subjective capacity before we add an intersubjective capacity. And need an intersubjective capacity before we add an objective capacity. And so on.

but there are also states of awareness that can be experienced at any stage...which are described as "peaks"...although the altered "peak state" is going to be interpreted according to a stage (the cognitive line, if i recall). so there are ways to experience temporary glimpses of any higher stage.

and again...our various lines of development allow us to experience wild variables...such as one whose interpersonal line may be at a PRE-rational stage...yet their cognitive is POST-rational. In an interpersonal context, they may seem like quite an undeveloped person...but if you were to get inside of them...there is a lot of higher reasoning going on. Another good reason NOT to start labeling people according to stages, and handle it all lightly and loosely as possible.

you said

and you said it is best to keep rational thought there too. This sounds like "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" ... or maybe more like one world socialist government utopia.

yeah...there is a lot that can be said about the "advent of America" and the wider cultural evolutionary shifts it represents. But maybe some other time. Ive already introduced enough hot potatos in one thread.

Maybe I'm injecting my own opinion, but the trick seems to be finding a system that works with people that believe differently, without imposing on them too much. This intellectual caste system reminds me a lot of the university socialist elite deciding how life should be for their fundamentalist Christian lessers out there doing the grunt work.

yeah...a system that works with people that believe differently is exaclty what we seem to need.

And yeah...like ive mentioned before...one of the big problems with the university socialist elite (as well as the university rational elite) is the inability to see the difference between pre-modern and post-modern forms of religion...which effectively suppresses students who are spiritual, but not religious. But that is another huge topic.

Anyway ... some beliefs do seem tribal only, but that occurs in academia and politics as well. And the nature of man has been that power corrupts ... so these worldviews evolve wonderfully, and you end up with a master race vision or some such. In economics we had the roaring 20's (and now Greenspan hangover) and Germany was happening till Adolf.

Certainly there are stages of development, but man only lives so long, and he seldom has the drive to achieve, while keeping that drive in check to only do good for all, though he will surely label it as a great society, or big brother ... or whatever sounds innocuous or friendly even. But somewhere in the works are the henchmen to make sure the little people march in step.

What stage does this thinking put me at? :) But really, when you say "that ain't never gonna happen to this kid again", it reminds me how easy it is to fall into the old trap again, just in some other form. Or maybe that is just for us trapped in these lower circular stages.

i wouldnt dare pretend to know the answer to that first question, rhino. and yeah...i suppose the "aint never gonna happen" statement can be seen as a set-up.

Who said "much learning hath made me mad"? For me, I would like to be more well read, but I'm not so keen on putting together some perfect philosophy. There is probably much to learn here ... but the idea of these certain stages has a religious tone to me.

maybe we can pull together some sort of functional comprehensive philosophy, eh? something we would do well to take out back and and wack with a hammer from time to time to check its integrity.

but no, not a perfect one.

I really don't see how you go beyond rational thought without subscribing to a religious view ... which actually seems more of a return to fundamentalism. Don't Christians or others believe in the unity of their spriit ... care for all in the family, free information ... Even saying you keep rational thought, what is this guiding force that is beyond that?

a truly universally inclusive compassion

which is something that cannot be faked very well

by nature, religion is exclusive and ethnocentric. The scope of one's care and concern is limited to the family and ingroup

and information is typically not free flowing at all. Censorship is a hallmark of religion. Do not read this..or the devil will get you.

there is a huge difference right there

also, a post-rational worldview is not dependent on a shared literalization of myth

but more of a compassionate (and rational) comparison of stories, in general

...stories seen as the stories they are...at post-rational we begin the deconstruction of the ego

and so there is a mutual discovery of meanings behind the scripts and languages

one that respects the differences as well as the similarities

which is why a "post-rational religion," if you will, allows interfaith, interreligious, and interdisciplinary dialogue to happen

and typically involved a putting down of both pens and swords of war

a real univeral free flow of information means we can put the words of jesus, the words of buddha, and the words of einstein on the same table

without flinching in fear or disgust

again...this cannot be faked inside

it is either universal and inclusive

or not

Edited June 1, 2008 by sirguessalot

[cman]

Taking my statements as accusative is being an idiot.

And cutting any discussion about anything at all.

Anything perceived as different is inflammatory to some.

But not to others.

[sirguessalot]

Even saying you keep rational thought, what is this guiding force that is beyond that?

again...a universal compassion

which builds on a capacity for objectivity (a 3rd person perspective)

by adding a capacity for inter-objectivity (a 4th person perspective)

and we eventually come to realize that there is simply too much going on in the universe for us to have a rational explanation for everything

and we are kind of stuck with increasing expressions of ambiguity ... which bothers us less and less

we dont even know how much we dont know

and we begin to see the frail and limited nature of language itself

there are too many experiences that make no sense to us

...we find ourselves lacking words and definitions

and too many people who we do not understand why they do what they do

we may come up with what we think is a rational answer...but oftetimes...we simply do not know

"its all simply a bunch of bullsh!t" is not a rational response to ignorance

the limits of rational thought are found whenever we can admit..."i know of no logical reason"

not that we default to a "it must be supernatural"

but that we simply dont know...and need information we may not even ever have

and so a way we accept all this craziness is when our hearts break wide open

and finally...our ego really begins to lose control

and we begin to discover how thought, feeling, dream are all also bodily events

which are interior realities...actual interior structures that are made of real "stuff"

with actual locations

which is how this stage seems to prepare us for things like aging and death

we are more interested in the radical transformation of our perspectives

than possessing some permenant interpretations of reality

we begin to see the value of simply hearing the stories of our lives

without needing to judge them for merit

this is certainly NOT the same as fundamentalist religion

Edited June 1, 2008 by sirguessalot

[Bumpy]

I can try some links I guess .. at least they are free. I may need to wait for oysters and beer though ...

I just came back from the cove, not the cave, for the daily fix of Rolly Garros et Les Huitres!! (that's pretty much my daily work schedule in case you need to find me!) Now understand one thing here, these is CULTured Huitres, Francophone like, not like your unCULTured Pastuerized American Kansas existential variety, hooked into VP's stolen Camus research material in class 13. So don't fall for the phoney boloney, Ok?

Now that that's clear, I will recommend the 2005 Sancerre, but first a Word from our Sponsors...

Those Advertising Babes Paw has brought to our attention, just click on one and she will answer ALL your prayers, YES!

[sirguessalot]

to add...

it seems to me that the writers of the infamous revelation had some inkling of such perennial stages of life

imagine the 4 horsemen as the "engines" that drive our first four stages of life

...each introduced when "a seal is broken" ...indicating some sort of irreversible change

the white horse ..the conquerer...represents a single selfish seeker and the birth of the ego...a first person perspective

the red horse...the warmaker...represents the clash of in-group versus in-group...a second person perspective

the black horse...the enslaver...represents the controls of science and industry...a third person perspective

the grey horse...death...represents the dissolution of everything we thought we were...a fourth person perspective

not as though the writers believed in the imminent arrival of four actual horsemen

but as with many pre-rational expressions...the archetypes served to vividly remind us of real living wisdom

extra-ordinary wisdom...and not magically supernatural

...

ok, sorry...im done

Edited June 1, 2008 by sirguessalot

[rhino]

Well Sir Guess, to me it seems your "beyond rational" is mostly a recognition of the limits of our rational thought and our inability to comprehend too much.

To the pure that may result in some woodstock like unity of human acceptance and good will ... but in real world structures I'm not sure of the significance. It seems like basic humility.

Not forcing our beliefs or worldviews is one thing, but not stopping others from doing so is another. So we have lawyers and our American system to protect us, but we need that eternal vigilance ... and we may have already lost it. The power hungry are not restrained by feelings of limited rational capabilities, they are more predatory.

My brief venture into wikipedia mentioned worldviews as being more than an individual thing, more a community thing. So religions or socialism or capitalism are worldviews.

I see the humility that may bring us into believing in one of those systems, not being sustained in the actual implementation. The nature of man to protect or provide for his own greatly overwhelms all but the most valiant of efforts to maintain purity. For the most part, the bad guys win.

But still the different stages of development in different arenas is interesting. In real world implementation though, it may be naive and devastating to not recognize that most of the world and its structures is predatory.

hey bump ... no unCULTured oyster fer me .. I probably won't actually be eating any Illinois oysters (nor the Rocky Mountain variety) ... I can get them canned, but they don't appeal much to me. I could maybe get someone to ship em up from New Orleans, not sure how much CULTure they get down there, they really can't hear the French Quarter music from the bottom of Lake Pontchartrain. ... but I was never that big on the snotty little thangs anyway.

it seems to me that the writers of the infamous revelation had some inkling of such perennial stages of life

extra-ordinary wisdom...and not magically supernatural

ok, sorry...im done

Despite the problems of religion at its more fundamental level, it does seem there may be great learning and insight somewhere there, that has been passed down through the ages. Where else were all those sages of old writing their thoughts?

[sirguessalot]

all well said, rhino

very much to consider

thanks again