But, I think genetic makeup must factor into the equation somehow.
Do we know why one identical twin is a "natural born jock" while the other is intent on creating prose?
Maybe there is a genetic component and maybe not.
When two dogs are of the same breeding stock, the similarities are usually pronounced.
Yet, two humans can be of the same breeding stock (ie: identical twins) and be as different as night and day in the way they express their true self. Perhaps the genetic nuances that cause the dogs to be so similar are akin to the genetic nuances that cause the identical twins to be uniquely different. At any rate, I think the human "authentic self" must be far more complex than the instinctive similarities we see in animals.
do you know about epigenetics? explains differences in twins.
not that I think genetic/non-genetic inheritance is everything. but a huge part I think.
if twi could lead us to think certain thoughts, no doubt everyone else is at our minds too. that there is a "self" that is "authentic" is quite a statement to throw out there.
like everything, we make up, or reinvent, or recycle, ourselves as we go.
do you know about epigenetics? explains differences in twins.
not that I think genetic/non-genetic inheritance is everything. but a huge part I think.
if twi could lead us to think certain thoughts, no doubt everyone else is at our minds too. that there is a "self" that is "authentic" is quite a statement to throw out there.
like everything, we make up, or reinvent, or recycle, ourselves as we go.
I tend to view the "authentic self" as who I want to be, what I want to emphasize in developing myself, and acting in congruence with my innermost beliefs. Perhaps some portion of that is genetic, yet as a thinking rational human being I believe I have a great deal to say in what my "authentic self" is.
I tend to view the "authentic self" as who I want to be, what I want to emphasize in developing myself, and acting in congruence with my innermost beliefs. Perhaps some portion of that is genetic, yet as a thinking rational human being I believe I have a great deal to say in what my "authentic self" is.
There's a lot to what you're saying - at least it sounds good to me - perhaps similar to how I view the self...being partly genetic, partly an ideal of what I want to become, partly being true [congruent] to my core of beliefs, values...I think TWI fostered incongruity - telling people to "renew their mind" to some standard they put forth, to ignore feelings, don't trust their own reasoning skills, etc.. I'd even go so far as to say they'd try squeezing you into a mold - so you became what they needed to get their agenda done...regardless if you're wired a certain way or not. I'm not a salesman or managerial type - so didn't enjoy witnessing or being a twig, branch or area leader.
An amazing aspect of the "self" is the ability to transcend itself - in that I can reflect on who I am, see something I want to change and work toward that...TWI held up an image of the ideal TWI follower and said "this is what you want to become."
My Christian viewpoint loves to explore things like this - I even wonder about some kind of continuity of self from the here and now to the next life. Probably getting off topic here - maybe stuff more for the doctrinal forum - but I lean toward our "self" being important enough that there's some kind of continuation of it into eternity - though in a re-constituted form - what's that? - dunno - but Romans 8 talks about the redemption of our bodies and I Corinthians 15 & II Corinthians 5 speak about the immortal first starting out as mortal - which makes me think of the physical aspect of the self [as you mentioned earlier - genetic].
If what we were taught in PFAL is correct that the soul is merely "breath life" that perishes when the natural man dies, why have the resurrection of the unjust if only thereafter they are to die again after the Judgment? Does God have the need to rake them over the coals a little before extinguishing them again in the Lake of Fire? Could it be that He wants to have sinners recognize Him as God before He consigns them all to eternal death? Could it be that He intends to grant eternal life to some, most, if not all of them?
If what we were taught in PFAL is correct that the soul is merely "breath life" that perishes when the natural man dies, why have the resurrection of the unjust if only thereafter they are to die again after the Judgment? Does God have the need to rake them over the coals a little before extinguishing them again in the Lake of Fire? Could it be that He wants to have sinners recognize Him as God before He consigns them all to eternal death? Could it be that He intends to grant eternal life to some, most, if not all of them?
i think it's just that She might just want to feed them some apple pie, what do you think? sorry, sorry, couldn't help myself.
If what we were taught in PFAL is correct that the soul is merely "breath life" that perishes when the natural man dies, why have the resurrection of the unjust if only thereafter they are to die again after the Judgment? Does God have the need to rake them over the coals a little before extinguishing them again in the Lake of Fire? Could it be that He wants to have sinners recognize Him as God before He consigns them all to eternal death? Could it be that He intends to grant eternal life to some, most, if not all of them?
I'm of the opinion that PFAL had it wrong on a lot of things – and excuse the short treatise to follow – but your post touches some deep & intriguing issues. Not saying I've got it all right – just throwing in my 2 cents…
I believe there's something of the soul that bears the image of God [as mentioned in Genesis 1:26, 27] – and as such is eternal. The reason I believe this is that there are other passages after the fall of man that imply this image of God still resides in man – although now a tarnished likeness of the Creator [Genesis 9:6; James 3:9].
I'm ashamed to recall how we were taught by TWI to view unbelievers – "they're just empties floating by"…There's a lot to the great commandment of loving my neighbor as myself – I figure there's an assumption there that my neighbor and I both bear the image of God. Maybe that has something to do with Paul's reference to the Gentiles who do not have the law – do instinctively the things of the law [Romans 2:14, 15]. To me that suggests a moral template in people - put there by design, another aspect of the image of God. Think about the many different cultures throughout history that have had some type of codes or laws to prohibit stealing, adultery, murder, etc. – perhaps an indication of a common moral sense integral to human beings.
~~
If the nature of the soul is eternal and yet the Bible also speaks of a physical resurrection, it seems to me that the soul was designed to be housed in a physical body. Physical body, be it an earthly/natural body or a spiritual/supernatural body. Both types of bodies are physical – in that they have specific properties/capabilities [though some differing greatly, I'm sure] that interact with a real world.
I sometimes wonder about all the technicalities of how God is going to resurrect folks. It's entertaining to imagine it like a CSI episode, [Creator Steps In]. Ok - total improv here – just goofing around – if I was God what would I do? Knowing I'd have to find each person's remains – I'd assign a unique frequency to each person's DNA or something [ok – so I'm not a scientist], have the means to detect and identify that stuff – no matter where it is – and have the wherewithal to re-assemble & modify it to new specifications but with the original owner [the self] left intact.
~~
According to some systematic theologies there's an interesting way of defining "death" as separation: physical death [separation of body & soul], spiritual death [separation of man from God in this life], and eternal death [separation of man from God for all eternity; also referred to as "the second death"]. I don't believe the Bible teaches anyone is annihilated – completely destroyed – taken out of existence.
As far as why there is a resurrection of the unjust – I mentioned in a previous post about a continuity of self – where things we do here and now have bearing in the next world. Think about Jesus' words in Matthew 5:29, 30 - it being better to lose one part of the body now than for the whole body to go to hell, maybe that relates somehow to this continuity of self idea…Kinda makes me shudder to think how cavalier the TWI mindset could get – thinking what we do in the flesh has little or no consequence in the bigger picture – eternity.
Rewards and punishments would be senseless unless there was continuity of self – otherwise the recipient would not see the justice in what was given them…I don't think God needs to rake anyone over the coals as an act of mindless torture. I get the idea from the Bible that people receive what they deserve in this moral & just universe – maybe not immediately – but it will all work out that way eventually. And from what I understand of justice in Scripture – just as there is variety & degrees of rewards in heaven – there's variety & degrees of punishment in hell. Hugh Ross in one of his books speculates on one way these variables could work out by suggesting that God could design different bodies with varying degrees of sensitivity to their surroundings.
I tend to view the "authentic self" as who I want to be, what I want to emphasize in developing myself, and acting in congruence with my innermost beliefs. Perhaps some portion of that is genetic, yet as a thinking rational human being I believe I have a great deal to say in what my "authentic self" is.
where does "wanting" come from?
I was hungry this morning and wanted to eat breakfast. - genetic response
I wanted to dress according to cultural norms (or whatever) this morning - programmed response
rational thinking itself was given to us by genetics. you need a physical brain to do so.
If what we were taught in PFAL is correct that the soul is merely "breath life" that perishes when the natural man dies, why have the resurrection of the unjust if only thereafter they are to die again after the Judgment? Does God have the need to rake them over the coals a little before extinguishing them again in the Lake of Fire? Could it be that He wants to have sinners recognize Him as God before He consigns them all to eternal death? Could it be that He intends to grant eternal life to some, most, if not all of them?
I was hungry this morning and wanted to eat breakfast. - genetic response
I wanted to dress according to cultural norms (or whatever) this morning - programmed response
rational thinking itself was given to us by genetics. you need a physical brain to do so.
"Wanting" can be looked at in more than one way. There are certain things we "want" that I don't know if I would say are a genetic response so much as base instincts to ensure survival.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs) is one way of looking at where "wanting" comes from. And I am not distinguishing the stupid delineation between needs and wants taught in TWI - for the purposes of this discussion those words are interchangeable. A need or a want is something a human pursues after satisfying.
As Maslow describes in his writings, the more base things at the bottom of the pyramid are what need to be fulfilled first, then if they are, humans move towards the things up the pyramid. People without food on the table aren't going to be wanting self-actualization, for example. He also describes the interaction of societies, and that as a society progresses and the quality of life raises so that the bottom pyramid needs are consistently met, then you see many of the top portion of the pyramid needs being expressed - like the Rennaisance period and all of the rich art and music from there.
One thing interesting to me about this line of thinking and "the authentic you" we're discussing in this thread is that people seeking the authentic you would be more in the upper portion of the pyramid in Maslow's diagram. Self actualization is a higher level need. It involves complex thought, goal setting, and action.
TWI actually through its doctrine in many ways keeps people in the lower base levels of Maslow's pyramid. Scrambling to fulfill prescribed numbers of meetings per week / month, living in rentals, free thought being discouraged, large amounts of lower level functions of life being "re-taught" (breathing, exercise, nutrition, dress, etiquette), sending in large portions of income to support the system. People are too poor and occupied to have time to think to the point of inner reflection.
Education, job success, and "secular" goals being taught as less important than "spiritual goals", which by translation means becoming more subject to the will of TWI leaders with more time, money, life to dedicate to them. They use Jesus as an example, yet they are not the God he served. People live on a hamster wheel running and running with no time for free thought and liberating self-actualization goals. I'm sure if you would question some of the leadership about this they would respond that the greatest leader is the greatest servant and self actualization comes within a life of service. But then you start to compare their words with how they live, and very little of their lives goes towards actually serving people as opposed to orchestrating ways to control people and for people to serve them. They set themselves up to be the representatives of God, and are served as such, never questioned. Yet they live to control others and worship the positions they themselves hold as the source of that power and control.
God's desire is a stark contrast to that in that every person lives up to their individual calling and relationship with Him. This is not in some blind-obedience, self-perpetuating morass of people climbing a Pharisees political ladder, but in the full development of all of the self-actualization of what a person wants to accomplish in their life with God working in them.
"Wanting" can be looked at in more than one way. There are certain things we "want" that I don't know if I would say are a genetic response so much as base instincts to ensure survival.
. . .
I don't know that there is anything about human behavior/thought that hasn't been explained by evolution and genetics, directly or indirectly. In that way it appears that an individual's control of their mind and life is an illusion.
I don't know that there is anything about human behavior/thought that hasn't been explained by evolution and genetics, directly or indirectly. In that way it appears that an individual's control of their mind and life is an illusion.
Welcome to the matrix.
i think that there's enough about the brain and how it functions and why it functions the way it does with thought that is not known to say that what is not known leaves all those questions to which a full answer can't be concluded. things like dreams have yet to be fully understood, and evolution would say that a mother's "evolved" fierce protection of her children for survival of the species would lead to a society that protects its children, but every single day there is some news somewhere of mothers killing and maiming their children, and what about war when it comes to survival of the species? and genetics does not account for why one genetically predisposed person will not develop cancer or something when a majority of that family the person comes from has developed cancer, or anything else like diabetes or mental illness or obesity. at least i don't think there's enough real knowledge to make a definite conclusion.
i think that there's enough about the brain and how it functions and why it functions the way it does with thought that is not known to say that what is not known leaves all those questions to which a full answer can't be concluded. things like dreams have yet to be fully understood, and evolution would say that a mother's "evolved" fierce protection of her children for survival of the species would lead to a society that protects its children, but every single day there is some news somewhere of mothers killing and maiming their children, and what about war when it comes to survival of the species?
evolution involves a group and not honing in on the individuals. genetic evolution gave us the mind and it's complex possibilities. dreams and "losing it" wouldn't fit under that umbrella? where else could they come from?
why wouldn't war benefit the species? great scientific advances come from the crucible of war. evolution itself is driven by death. war is just life at warp speed.
and genetics does not account for why one genetically predisposed person will not develop cancer or something when a majority of that family the person comes from has developed cancer, or anything else like diabetes or mental illness or obesity. at least i don't think there's enough real knowledge to make a definite conclusion.
that someone has the genetic likihood of developing a condition doesn't guarantee they will. that they don't get cancer doesn't mean they don't carry the possibility. environmental conditions, lifestyle, and luck have an influence. we're not built to survive a bullet to the head. as long as it doesn't happen, we're okay.
genetics sets the stage for possibilities, and probabilities, not guarantees. we can try to think we transcend it. but without it, what is there?
evolution involves a group and not honing in on the individuals. genetic evolution gave us the mind and it's complex possibilities. dreams and "losing it" wouldn't fit under that umbrella? where else could they come from?
why wouldn't war benefit the species? great scientific advances come from the crucible of war. evolution itself is driven by death. war is just life at warp speed.
that someone has the genetic likihood of developing a condition doesn't guarantee they will. that they don't get cancer doesn't mean they don't carry the possibility. environmental conditions, lifestyle, and luck have an influence. we're not built to survive a bullet to the head. as long as it doesn't happen, we're okay.
genetics sets the stage for possibilities, and probabilities, not guarantees. we can try to think we transcend it. but without it, what is there?
to me either the species protects and furthers itself or it doesn't, and even scientists disagree on the actual nuances of evolution, so to me this is an incomplete discussion and there can't be an "arguement" towards one way of thinking or another because it is incomplete. and so i wonder now if you are throwing things out for discussion or if you "believe" that what you say is the way it is? and i ask this because it helps me to know if i'm treading on your "beliefs" or if you're just discussing things and kind of playing a "devil's advocate" with me?
to me either the species protects and furthers itself or it doesn't, and even scientists disagree on the actual nuances of evolution, so to me this is an incomplete discussion and there can't be an "arguement" towards one way of thinking or another because it is incomplete. and so i wonder now if you are throwing things out for discussion or if you "believe" that what you say is the way it is? and i ask this because it helps me to know if i'm treading on your "beliefs" or if you're just discussing things and kind of playing a "devil's advocate" with me?
I felt you're making some assertions. I don't follow the logic anyway.
Hmmm, it's been over 15 years since I read "Origin of the Species" Bolshevik and did any study in it - and genetics is a whole ballgame underway - but Darwin's original propositions didn't attempt to tackle what he called "the origin of the primary mental powers" or "of life itself". Evolution's come a long way since Darwin's day (little evolution humor there) but I think the same thing would apply, directly and indirectly.
Consciousness, the "you" that identifies itself as unique and not something else and defines itself locally to your body, has yet to be measured and weighed. Science does it's part and a big part but I think (*think*) that the strength of science is that it understands it's boundaries and means of endeavor. How something like human conciousness reveals itself through scientific means may or may not define it, in part or in ful or even correctly.
Religion ("religion") and theology, likewise. These two aren't exclusive but cooperation has proven to be difficult when they aren't allowed to inform each other or speak for themselves. Not that that's what you're doing, just sayin' here.
Genetics won't account for everything. In fact, a unique aspect to human "self" life is the ability to choose for or agains't one's own predications and to even choose right over wrong, as perceived. Bad over good. Predisposition is limited to the material there is to work with, withn a species. Genetic manipulation is finding it very difficult so far (*so far*) to overcome that in a meaningful way. Not to mention that I think we're seeing that releasing genetic changes with minor ("minor") risk has yet to fully recognize the fact that a tiny risk is still a risk, in the wide world of "life". Put another way, if evolution was in the tool bin of "God" He allowed for it to be mixed with time - lots and lots of time. Squeezing several millions of years into an 18 month federal grant may prove to be... less productive, in the long run.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
15
19
33
17
Popular Days
May 13
25
May 15
20
May 11
14
May 20
12
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 15 posts
socks 19 posts
Bolshevik 33 posts
brainfixed 17 posts
Popular Days
May 13 2009
25 posts
May 15 2009
20 posts
May 11 2009
14 posts
May 20 2009
12 posts
Popular Posts
Tzaia
I didn't (and still don't) think that any organization is perfect. TWI had this thing for doublespeak. It talked about legalism and not being that way, but it was very legalistic. It talked about ho
Tzaia
Yes, we all had to make choices. My husband was sending a $75 check every week to HQ in 1980, and I was having to scrape to put shoes and clothes on the kids, food on the table, and I didn't have a ca
Tzaia
I think one has to avoid confusing the comfort of familiarity with being real (authentic).
excathedra
i still am not sure about many things. sometimes i feel like i'm absolutely dead certain and other days well maybe not
but of course i'm 52 now looking back
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
See?
That's the problem.
At 52, you're still just a kid trying to sort it out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
dear veepee
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i want to talk to socks and linzee and simonzee etc
because i really want you to understand something
i love god and christ so much
but wierwille hurt me a lot and in my case he represented the way to getting closer to them
so it was a betrayal
but i think you already understand that
thanks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
Only a 9 Socks?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
oh
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
do you know about epigenetics? explains differences in twins.
not that I think genetic/non-genetic inheritance is everything. but a huge part I think.
if twi could lead us to think certain thoughts, no doubt everyone else is at our minds too. that there is a "self" that is "authentic" is quite a statement to throw out there.
like everything, we make up, or reinvent, or recycle, ourselves as we go.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I tend to view the "authentic self" as who I want to be, what I want to emphasize in developing myself, and acting in congruence with my innermost beliefs. Perhaps some portion of that is genetic, yet as a thinking rational human being I believe I have a great deal to say in what my "authentic self" is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Oh. Yeah, the hits never stop coming once you login and post some words.
Check this out
Wayne Dyer wants to show you how to Discover YOUR Power to Manifest!
It is moderately tragic how googleads "reads" GS and what it chooses to show in the ads banner. The authentic you?
The bit about womenses supporting socks though - google was walking. Or predicticating. Or sumpin'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
wimminz almost always will go for the guy in the band. i'm just happy my screen name doesn't yield itself easily to athletic supporter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
There's a lot to what you're saying - at least it sounds good to me - perhaps similar to how I view the self...being partly genetic, partly an ideal of what I want to become, partly being true [congruent] to my core of beliefs, values...I think TWI fostered incongruity - telling people to "renew their mind" to some standard they put forth, to ignore feelings, don't trust their own reasoning skills, etc.. I'd even go so far as to say they'd try squeezing you into a mold - so you became what they needed to get their agenda done...regardless if you're wired a certain way or not. I'm not a salesman or managerial type - so didn't enjoy witnessing or being a twig, branch or area leader.
An amazing aspect of the "self" is the ability to transcend itself - in that I can reflect on who I am, see something I want to change and work toward that...TWI held up an image of the ideal TWI follower and said "this is what you want to become."
My Christian viewpoint loves to explore things like this - I even wonder about some kind of continuity of self from the here and now to the next life. Probably getting off topic here - maybe stuff more for the doctrinal forum - but I lean toward our "self" being important enough that there's some kind of continuation of it into eternity - though in a re-constituted form - what's that? - dunno - but Romans 8 talks about the redemption of our bodies and I Corinthians 15 & II Corinthians 5 speak about the immortal first starting out as mortal - which makes me think of the physical aspect of the self [as you mentioned earlier - genetic].
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
If what we were taught in PFAL is correct that the soul is merely "breath life" that perishes when the natural man dies, why have the resurrection of the unjust if only thereafter they are to die again after the Judgment? Does God have the need to rake them over the coals a little before extinguishing them again in the Lake of Fire? Could it be that He wants to have sinners recognize Him as God before He consigns them all to eternal death? Could it be that He intends to grant eternal life to some, most, if not all of them?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brainfixed
i think it's just that She might just want to feed them some apple pie, what do you think?
sorry, sorry, couldn't help myself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I'm of the opinion that PFAL had it wrong on a lot of things – and excuse the short treatise to follow – but your post touches some deep & intriguing issues. Not saying I've got it all right – just throwing in my 2 cents…
I believe there's something of the soul that bears the image of God [as mentioned in Genesis 1:26, 27] – and as such is eternal. The reason I believe this is that there are other passages after the fall of man that imply this image of God still resides in man – although now a tarnished likeness of the Creator [Genesis 9:6; James 3:9].
I'm ashamed to recall how we were taught by TWI to view unbelievers – "they're just empties floating by"…There's a lot to the great commandment of loving my neighbor as myself – I figure there's an assumption there that my neighbor and I both bear the image of God. Maybe that has something to do with Paul's reference to the Gentiles who do not have the law – do instinctively the things of the law [Romans 2:14, 15]. To me that suggests a moral template in people - put there by design, another aspect of the image of God. Think about the many different cultures throughout history that have had some type of codes or laws to prohibit stealing, adultery, murder, etc. – perhaps an indication of a common moral sense integral to human beings.
~~
If the nature of the soul is eternal and yet the Bible also speaks of a physical resurrection, it seems to me that the soul was designed to be housed in a physical body. Physical body, be it an earthly/natural body or a spiritual/supernatural body. Both types of bodies are physical – in that they have specific properties/capabilities [though some differing greatly, I'm sure] that interact with a real world.
I sometimes wonder about all the technicalities of how God is going to resurrect folks. It's entertaining to imagine it like a CSI episode, [Creator Steps In]. Ok - total improv here – just goofing around – if I was God what would I do? Knowing I'd have to find each person's remains – I'd assign a unique frequency to each person's DNA or something [ok – so I'm not a scientist], have the means to detect and identify that stuff – no matter where it is – and have the wherewithal to re-assemble & modify it to new specifications but with the original owner [the self] left intact.
~~
According to some systematic theologies there's an interesting way of defining "death" as separation: physical death [separation of body & soul], spiritual death [separation of man from God in this life], and eternal death [separation of man from God for all eternity; also referred to as "the second death"]. I don't believe the Bible teaches anyone is annihilated – completely destroyed – taken out of existence.
As far as why there is a resurrection of the unjust – I mentioned in a previous post about a continuity of self – where things we do here and now have bearing in the next world. Think about Jesus' words in Matthew 5:29, 30 - it being better to lose one part of the body now than for the whole body to go to hell, maybe that relates somehow to this continuity of self idea…Kinda makes me shudder to think how cavalier the TWI mindset could get – thinking what we do in the flesh has little or no consequence in the bigger picture – eternity.
Rewards and punishments would be senseless unless there was continuity of self – otherwise the recipient would not see the justice in what was given them…I don't think God needs to rake anyone over the coals as an act of mindless torture. I get the idea from the Bible that people receive what they deserve in this moral & just universe – maybe not immediately – but it will all work out that way eventually. And from what I understand of justice in Scripture – just as there is variety & degrees of rewards in heaven – there's variety & degrees of punishment in hell. Hugh Ross in one of his books speculates on one way these variables could work out by suggesting that God could design different bodies with varying degrees of sensitivity to their surroundings.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
where does "wanting" come from?
I was hungry this morning and wanted to eat breakfast. - genetic response
I wanted to dress according to cultural norms (or whatever) this morning - programmed response
rational thinking itself was given to us by genetics. you need a physical brain to do so.
why argue twi beliefs?
don't worry. nobody will bother us after we go.
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
"Wanting" can be looked at in more than one way. There are certain things we "want" that I don't know if I would say are a genetic response so much as base instincts to ensure survival.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs) is one way of looking at where "wanting" comes from. And I am not distinguishing the stupid delineation between needs and wants taught in TWI - for the purposes of this discussion those words are interchangeable. A need or a want is something a human pursues after satisfying.
As Maslow describes in his writings, the more base things at the bottom of the pyramid are what need to be fulfilled first, then if they are, humans move towards the things up the pyramid. People without food on the table aren't going to be wanting self-actualization, for example. He also describes the interaction of societies, and that as a society progresses and the quality of life raises so that the bottom pyramid needs are consistently met, then you see many of the top portion of the pyramid needs being expressed - like the Rennaisance period and all of the rich art and music from there.
One thing interesting to me about this line of thinking and "the authentic you" we're discussing in this thread is that people seeking the authentic you would be more in the upper portion of the pyramid in Maslow's diagram. Self actualization is a higher level need. It involves complex thought, goal setting, and action.
TWI actually through its doctrine in many ways keeps people in the lower base levels of Maslow's pyramid. Scrambling to fulfill prescribed numbers of meetings per week / month, living in rentals, free thought being discouraged, large amounts of lower level functions of life being "re-taught" (breathing, exercise, nutrition, dress, etiquette), sending in large portions of income to support the system. People are too poor and occupied to have time to think to the point of inner reflection.
Education, job success, and "secular" goals being taught as less important than "spiritual goals", which by translation means becoming more subject to the will of TWI leaders with more time, money, life to dedicate to them. They use Jesus as an example, yet they are not the God he served. People live on a hamster wheel running and running with no time for free thought and liberating self-actualization goals. I'm sure if you would question some of the leadership about this they would respond that the greatest leader is the greatest servant and self actualization comes within a life of service. But then you start to compare their words with how they live, and very little of their lives goes towards actually serving people as opposed to orchestrating ways to control people and for people to serve them. They set themselves up to be the representatives of God, and are served as such, never questioned. Yet they live to control others and worship the positions they themselves hold as the source of that power and control.
God's desire is a stark contrast to that in that every person lives up to their individual calling and relationship with Him. This is not in some blind-obedience, self-perpetuating morass of people climbing a Pharisees political ladder, but in the full development of all of the self-actualization of what a person wants to accomplish in their life with God working in them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I don't know that there is anything about human behavior/thought that hasn't been explained by evolution and genetics, directly or indirectly. In that way it appears that an individual's control of their mind and life is an illusion.
Welcome to the matrix.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brainfixed
i think that there's enough about the brain and how it functions and why it functions the way it does with thought that is not known to say that what is not known leaves all those questions to which a full answer can't be concluded. things like dreams have yet to be fully understood, and evolution would say that a mother's "evolved" fierce protection of her children for survival of the species would lead to a society that protects its children, but every single day there is some news somewhere of mothers killing and maiming their children, and what about war when it comes to survival of the species? and genetics does not account for why one genetically predisposed person will not develop cancer or something when a majority of that family the person comes from has developed cancer, or anything else like diabetes or mental illness or obesity. at least i don't think there's enough real knowledge to make a definite conclusion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
evolution involves a group and not honing in on the individuals. genetic evolution gave us the mind and it's complex possibilities. dreams and "losing it" wouldn't fit under that umbrella? where else could they come from?
why wouldn't war benefit the species? great scientific advances come from the crucible of war. evolution itself is driven by death. war is just life at warp speed.
that someone has the genetic likihood of developing a condition doesn't guarantee they will. that they don't get cancer doesn't mean they don't carry the possibility. environmental conditions, lifestyle, and luck have an influence. we're not built to survive a bullet to the head. as long as it doesn't happen, we're okay.
genetics sets the stage for possibilities, and probabilities, not guarantees. we can try to think we transcend it. but without it, what is there?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brainfixed
to me either the species protects and furthers itself or it doesn't, and even scientists disagree on the actual nuances of evolution, so to me this is an incomplete discussion and there can't be an "arguement" towards one way of thinking or another because it is incomplete. and so i wonder now if you are throwing things out for discussion or if you "believe" that what you say is the way it is? and i ask this because it helps me to know if i'm treading on your "beliefs" or if you're just discussing things and kind of playing a "devil's advocate" with me?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I felt you're making some assertions. I don't follow the logic anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Hmmm, it's been over 15 years since I read "Origin of the Species" Bolshevik and did any study in it - and genetics is a whole ballgame underway - but Darwin's original propositions didn't attempt to tackle what he called "the origin of the primary mental powers" or "of life itself". Evolution's come a long way since Darwin's day (little evolution humor there) but I think the same thing would apply, directly and indirectly.
Consciousness, the "you" that identifies itself as unique and not something else and defines itself locally to your body, has yet to be measured and weighed. Science does it's part and a big part but I think (*think*) that the strength of science is that it understands it's boundaries and means of endeavor. How something like human conciousness reveals itself through scientific means may or may not define it, in part or in ful or even correctly.
Religion ("religion") and theology, likewise. These two aren't exclusive but cooperation has proven to be difficult when they aren't allowed to inform each other or speak for themselves. Not that that's what you're doing, just sayin' here.
Genetics won't account for everything. In fact, a unique aspect to human "self" life is the ability to choose for or agains't one's own predications and to even choose right over wrong, as perceived. Bad over good. Predisposition is limited to the material there is to work with, withn a species. Genetic manipulation is finding it very difficult so far (*so far*) to overcome that in a meaningful way. Not to mention that I think we're seeing that releasing genetic changes with minor ("minor") risk has yet to fully recognize the fact that a tiny risk is still a risk, in the wide world of "life". Put another way, if evolution was in the tool bin of "God" He allowed for it to be mixed with time - lots and lots of time. Squeezing several millions of years into an 18 month federal grant may prove to be... less productive, in the long run.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.