Cosmology and "Kosmos"

[mikiel]

As a lifelong mystic, seeing visions of the cosmos, and as a lay scientist with a deep interest in cosmology, I've always been avidly interested in the interface, even the coalescense of the two universes of discourse.
As I've stated in other threads here, I've always "seen" the cosmos as "breathing" out ( exploisive/expansiive phase) and in (implosive contractive phase.)
And I've always had an intuitive sense that cosmos is One Intelligent Being, the meaning of the word spelled as "Kosmos." But of course this aspect is presently beyond the realm of science, tho it fits well into the ancient concept of the "sacred sciences."

Scientifically speaking, the above "Bang/Crunch" cosmologyhas been out of favor because of a lack of detectable matter to the reach critical cosmic density required to allow gravity to eventually halt the expansion (catching it all in the "universal gravitational net") and begin to pull it all back again, the contractive half of the cycle.

But recently NASA's orbiting Chandra Observatory has employed both new technology and innovative techniques which are now detecting more and more of the previously unseen matter... that which did not emit or reflect detectable light.
So the "missing matter problem" as it is called is now being "solved."

Another "problem" is a general misunderstanding of the universal law of conservation of matter/energy. Some believe that energy is "lost in space" as cosmos expands to the outer reaches and that cosmos will eventually just "run out of steam" and dissipate into maximum cosmic entropy. Not so. Nothing, not a single atom, is ever "lost." Of course matter changes to energy and vice-versa, but the concept of "heat loss" (second law of thermodynamics) only applies to "local systems) not cosmos as a whole, as just explained.

So the "Bang/Crunch" (oscillating) cosmolological model will work just fine. The "missing matter" is not really missing... just in the process of being "found."

I'll leave it here for openers, inviting comment/dialogue.

mikiel

[maestro]

Both are appearances, the all is unknown, and would remain so.

[Iolaus]

Hi Mikiel,

I think it is strange you would post this thread and then leave for a few days. I'm posting these links detracting from Big Bang theory not because I disagree with your breathing cosmos at all. One of my favorite authors (not presented here) says that the ancient Hindu idea of universes arising and ceasing cyclically is called an incarnation of Brahma and lasts about 23 trillion years. There is a smaller cycle in the billions of years known as a breath of Brahma, but I don't remember what it refers to.

Some of the BB detractors believe in a steady state universe, but I tend to doubt that, and some of them think (oddly!) that a steady state universe is somehow more compatible with atheism.

Perhaps the most accessible and efficient of these links is this first one, scroll down a little and there are links to 4 readable essays by 4 of the well known Big Bang detractors.

The reason I bring all this up is simply that it's quite interesting.

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology ... Theory.htm

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
http://www.rense.com/general63/bbang.htm

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

http://www.amazon.com/Big-Bang-Never-Ha ... 067974049X

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... ry_or.html

http://www.johmann.net/essays/big-bang-bunk.html

http://bigbangneverhappened.org/

[Relo]

The Big Bang Theory. It is probable that we all shook hands and accepted the game when we entered. We knew what it was like before and we still do, it's just something that you can relate simply as "stepping foot on the court" and of where your mind goes, changes, or sends back to be brought up later, if possible, hopefully.

[mikiel]

Iolaus,
Before a take a break here (see new thread) I want to thank you for your contribution here. I've barely started through the links you so kindly provided and already I have some favorite points of agreement.
Here is the first from link #1:

"The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed - inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory..."

I have argued the same (at Myspace) against mystery science, like inflation and mystery matter/energy. The "dark matter" I've spoken of as the "missing matter" in the Bang/Crunch I favor is simply ordinary matter which has so far gone largely undetected... a problem now being solved.

I also heartily agreed with the following statement by Halton
Arp in the "Seeing red" piece:
------------
" The present book is sure to outrage many academic scientists. Many of my professional friends will be greatly pained. Why then do I write it? First, everyone has to tell the truth as they see it, especially about important things. The fact that the majority of professionals are intolerant of even opinions which are discordant makes change a necessity. Those friends of mine who also struggle to get the mainstream of astronomy back on track mostly feel that presenting evidence and championing new theories is sufficient to cause change, and that it is improper to criticize an enterprise to which they belong and value highly. I disagree, in that I think if we do not understand why science is failing to self-correct, it will not be possible to fix it.

At this point, I believe we must look for salvation from the non-specialists, amateurs and interdisciplinary thinkers - those who form judgments on the general thrust of the evidence, those who are skeptical about any explanation, particularly official ones, and above all are tolerant of other people's theories. (When the complete answer is not known, in a sense everyone is a crackpot - Gasp!)"
---------------
See my thread at Myspace (from which I was banned), "Question Scientific Authority." Also my blog there, "The Myspace Recipe for Mediocre Science"... the piece which, inconjunction with my rude boy insults to many posters there, I believe got me banned, by "Granny" the new (Jan or Feb '08) moderator who culled out all who wouldn't put "talk nice" as highest priority.
(Yes, you are welcome to go there and post the essence of this, my truth. Not attached, but I have no voice there to say what I just said. Then again, maybe if I do "talk nice"... nah... once banned its irreversible, she said.

Well, I'm back to the country for a few more days, and then... I'll go by intuitive guidance on when and if to come back here.

Thanks again.
BTW, There are several versions of the oscillating cosmos, including the M-theory extravaganza requiring at least 11 mysterious "dimensions" to unify the five or six versions of string theory into a unified "Membrane"... the "M" in M-theory, of course.
The 11th dimension was ridiculed a few years ago, but has now come back into favor... it seems just on the popular "steam" of the new champions of M-theory. Hawking has even abandon his "singularity" theory of cosmic origin (out of nothing) to support the latest book (I forget the title) by the "M-theory boys."

But I'm rambling.
Consider "my" multiple "Bangs" (much like supernovae explosions on larger scale) and multiple "Crunches"... a sort of cosmic juggling act keeping several... or at least two cosmi going out and in simultaneously. This is the finer point of my "bang/crunch" vision of cosmos.

See you later.
mikiel

[DHodges]

And I've always had an intuitive sense that cosmos is One Intelligent Being, the meaning of the word spelled as "Kosmos."

Do you have some particular reason to think that your intuition in this matter is correct?

Intuition can be very misleading.

[mikiel]

And I've always had an intuitive sense that cosmos is One Intelligent Being, the meaning of the word spelled as "Kosmos."

Do you have some particular reason to think that your intuition in this matter is correct?

Intuition can be very misleading.

Yes, it can. As a transpersonal psychologist I am very familiar with stories based on everything from simply very active imagination
without basis in reality to neurotic hysteria,to psychotic delusions of grandeur. Common content in my profession.

In my case, I grew up with "out of body experiences" as a fairly common occurrence, and the subjective experience was the classical trance state, which is nothing like ordinary imagination or fantasy. My Dad was a well known trance psychic in my hometown, and we were famous, (also notorious among righteous Christians) for his demonstrations of hypnosis with me and his quite accurate psychic "readings" ( ridiculed in the communuity based on "scientific materialism" which merely scoffs at such "stories.")
Read my "Journey to Awkening" page :http://www.consciousunity.org/MyJourneytoAwakening.html
for details.
But you asked specifically: "Do you have some particular reason to think that your intuition in this matter is correct?"

Yes. Not only what I cited above but my "track record" throughout my life in which my intuitions have turned out to be true, mostly in small, personal matters not mentioned in my "Journey" page.

Just one example should suffice.
I was on a solitary journey in the wilderness when my stomach began to cramp with intense pain and an image of my eldest son with a stomach pain crisis became persistent. I hiked out and drove home to find him in the hospital with a badly bleeding ulcer.

The details of what and why and his recovery are not relevant here, but the story is true. And this is one of literally dozens of similar "intuitions" in my life that have "panned out" to be true.

Of course, hard core skeptics can always call me a liar. There is nothing more to say to them.
But. like my story of awakening, it is true.
So are my lifelong visions of the "breathing cosmos" as one Intelligent Being. I know the Truth of this as a gnostic. It is a universal realization among mystics.... our "Identity with God" the Omnipresent One.

ps: for those wondering... my leave of absence was complete once I "got" that objective science and transpersonal sharing of the reality and direct experience of enlightenment are the "proper" modes for my communication here.

mikiel

[Ataraxia]

What a load of hogwash.

[mikiel]

What a load of hogwash.

Please explain, from your personal perspective and opinion (which is clearly unfamiliar with such experiences as I've shared above) how the true story of my life is "a load of hogwash."

Is you argument merely: "I am ignorant of such things. Therefore they can not be true."..? A fairly weak argument in a forum such as this.
mikiel

[Alex Jacob]

It is a 'load of hogwash' because you rely on very sketchy examples, that are limited and subjective, to 'prove' grand things. Because you experienced a condition and an intuition that your son had an ulcer, cannot mean that you intuitions about the structure of the Kosmos are accurate.

But don't get me wrong, I am not a skeptic necessarily about some of these local mysteries, and I've had many of my own.

"So are my lifelong visions of the "breathing cosmos" as one Intelligent Being. I know the Truth of this as a gnostic. It is a universal realization among mystics.... our "Identity with God" the Omnipresent One."

The problem with this---though I don't myself doubt the truth of it---is that mystical experience is often highly mythological and psychological in content. It has to do often with the way a mystic organizes their perceptions about the Kosmos not because it reveal anything 'true' about the Kosmos, but because it expresses deeply embedded psychological truths. Doesnt at all mean that these truths are not relevant, but they are of a different order.

The interesting thing is when scientific theory and speculation comes into the picture, and yet the ideas presented (especially when subjective and speculative) also seem to reflect and represent mythological truths.

[DHodges]

Yes. Not only what I cited above but my "track record" throughout my life in which my intuitions have turned out to be true, mostly in small, personal matters not mentioned in my "Journey" page.

While your experience explains why you believe what you do, it does not present anything to me that I can take as evidence that it is actually so. All I have is your interpretation of the experience, not the experience itself.

I accept the idea of the universe being one, in some sense - because the divisions and borders between separate things are products of the mind, not entities that exist inherently (on their own).

Intelligence, as far as I know, is an emergent property of a very complex system. The universe has complex systems within it that can be intelligent, but I don't see how intelligence could possibly be a property of the universe as a whole, or what that could even mean.

[mikiel]

Alex and DHodges,
Your replies are well taken. I do not present the gnosis of Kosmos as the One Inteligent Being as in any way objectively "provable." There is no "proof of God" and I do not present my out-of-body "viewing" and inner "knowing" of the "intelligent Kosmos" as such.

My experience is very much like that portrayed by Jodie Foster in the '97 film (adapted from a book by Carl Sagan), "Contact." Her journey to a far-away part of the cosmos was as real to her as everyday life but it was also the subject of skepticism by the scientific community, and properly so.

But consider this analogy: I'm sure the micro-organisms in my body have no idea that their host is an "intelligent being" on a scale far beyond their local living environment. Likewise, the human concept of "intelligent life" almost always assumes the qualifier, "as we know it," excluding the supposedly "inanimate objects" which seem to comprise the vast majority of the cosmos. Yet indigenous peoples around the world have a deeper appreciation of the general "animus" of Nature as "alive" , each form in its own way, without the limitation imposed by Western science as "life as we know it."

Thank you both.
mikiel

[mikiel]

Iolaus,
I am still in the process of reading the several links you provided above and will be responding after a thorough study of the material.
mikiel
Well, I ended up with a ream of notes from just the four up-front papers given on the first link.
This is not, I think, the place for such an extensive critique as would be generated as response to the above content.
Maybe just a few basics, via "my cosmology" are here in order.

Space is emptiness, therefore it does not expand (as inflation theory posits) nor bend into "curved space" (either positive/closed or negative/open.) Rather the actual "stuff" of cosmos is expanding *into space.*
This "stuff" did not appear magically out of nothing (as from a "singulatity" or God's "magic hat.") It all came back from the imploding/contracting last half-cycle after being turned around by gravity.
There *is* enough matter in the cosmos to reach the cosmic critical density to create the "gravitational net" required for this reversal of the present expansion. It is not "mystery matter" but ordinary matter not emitting or reflecting light, and it is now increasingly being detected, i.e., not "missing matter" at all.

There was no "beginning" and there will be no "end" of cosmos, or of "time", which is merely the erroneously reified concept of event duration... the "history of 'nows'" for any *selected* observation. (Now is perpetually ongoing everywhere, always. Relative, local perspective, dependent on lightspeed, is not the end-all cosmic perspective it is now largely taken to be in mainstream science.)

A series of supernova- like explosions may better explain the presently observed cosmos... with other, further- out cosmi from previous "launches" yet undetected as spheres of cosmic matter larger than and containing our cosmos within.

Lerner said:
"Because they believe it solves one of Big Bang Theory's major problems ... some Big Bang cosmologists still favor a closed cycling Big Bang universe. They feel that, because it didn't come out-of-nothing, but from the remains of a previous universe, the explosion of a collapsed universe avoids the singularity problem. However, there is no theory in physics that can account for the re-explosion, or "bounce", of the universe."

Perhaps my vision/model of multiple, smaller bangs, the cosmic juggling act, in conjuction with the found (no longer missing) matter... a major objection, will eventually be seen as a viable model.

Plasma physics, largely ignored my comologists might present an alternative dynamic for the force behind the bang(s). What happens when the whole ball-O-wax, or several "shells" come back into a super dense-gravity ball is still obviously an unknown, but fusion at center and a matter/energy plasma around the core exploding the outer shell of matter back out again may be a plausible model if scaled down to less than an all-at-once "Bang."

There's losts more in my notes to cover, but, maybe later. The above are enough for now.

Thanks again for the links.
mikiel

[Jason]

I accept the idea of the universe being one, in some sense - because the divisions and borders between separate things are products of the mind, not entities that exist inherently (on their own).

How do you know that divisions are products of the mind? Have you ever tried looking for divisions when your mind wasn't around?

[Alex Jacob]

Mikiel wrote:

"Yet indigenous peoples around the world have a deeper appreciation of the general "animus" of Nature as "alive" , each form in its own way, without the limitation imposed by Western science as "life as we know it."

In my own case I have written quite a bit here about the idea of 'spirits' in all the different things, people, events and ideas that come our way. As you communicate your ideas those who read you come into contact with 'spirits', and those spirits have effects. One can then 'dialogue' with spirits, one can invite them or banish them, commend or rebuke them, feed them or starve them. I even suggested that Isaac convert his teevee Entertainment Center (the locus and the entity through which the joyful spirits of Entertainment enter his personal universe, the portal if you will through which they move) into an altar where he could then honor the 'kami' (spirits) that he so loves and that so increase his joyousness of living! ;-)

Our scientism is of course extremely useful in so many ways but it hardly allows us to live a wholesome psychological existence within a living and breathing world. Sadly, our scientism cuts us off from the world even as it allows us to penetrate that world.

In the 'old days' (there really are no old days though) the sun and the moon were the two, grand luminaries of earth-existence. These two vital entities were more than mere 'spirits', they were the basic terms through which 'spirits' existed. The sun is there illuminating existence and yet I'll bet you that very few are even aware of the utter strangeness, if you will, of that light. We have a group of ideas and interpretations that stand between what is more than anything else a literal divinity that enters and leaves our world every day and causes life, and yet these ideas we have do not allow any sort of relationship with that unreal, magnificent orb. Most of the time, the same is true with the moon and the stars....and just about everything else. However, if we can find the conceptual pathway to contact the sun and moon as divinities, as grand spirits, and all the earth under the dome of heaven as a teeming ground of spiritual life, suddenly everything changes. The religion of the sun and the moon, the songs of the sun and the moon, the poetry of the sun and the moon, the interrelationship of the sun and the moon, even the interplay between the conscious-intellectual and the subconscious-sentimental (feeling) is exemplified in the sun and the moon. But our scientism cuts us off from all that and so much more, unfortunately.

But, if we don't have a good grasp of intellectual and rational processes, if our education is still at a medieval level, all of what I am 'recommending' for psychological health can turn into almost ridiculous superstitionism, and becomes the invocation and the feeding of backward and regressive spirits...

[Jason]

We have a group of ideas and interpretations that stand between what is more than anything else a literal divinity that enters and leaves our world every day and causes life, and yet these ideas we have do not allow any sort of relationship with that unreal, magnificent orb. Most of the time, the same is true with the moon and the stars....and just about everything else. However, if we can find the conceptual pathway to contact the sun and moon as divinities, as grand spirits, and all the earth under the dome of heaven as a teeming ground of spiritual life, suddenly everything changes. The religion of the sun and the moon, the songs of the sun and the moon, the poetry of the sun and the moon, the interrelationship of the sun and the moon, even the interplay between the conscious-intellectual and the subconscious-sentimental (feeling) is exemplified in the sun and the moon. But our scientism cuts us off from all that and so much more, unfortunately.

But science created plastic bags!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The religion of the sun and the moon, the songs of the sun and the moon, the poetry of the sun and the moon, the interrelationship of the sun and the moon, even the interplay between the conscious-intellectual and the subconscious-sentimental (feeling) is exemplified in the sun and the moon. But our scientism cuts us off from all that and so much more, unfortunately.

And at the same time, Alex, you'd probably agree that this 'scientism' is just another form of religion, with its own songs, poetry, interrelationships, awe and inspiration.

But it's more interesting to realize the religions, the songs, the poetry, the interplay of feeling and the intellectual - they all have cut us off just as much as they might have connected. It are always the romantics who want, who desire to interpret the history, the evolution of these things differently, to mourn over something 'lost' while it only changed shape and form.

Again, what's happening now is way more difficult to recognize for what it is. The past, with its memories, writings and analysis creates a worldview, a belief that makes us wonder what 'went wrong'. Actually there's not much new under the sun in this sense, really.

[brokenhead]

It are always the romantics who want, who desire to interpret the history, the evolution of these things differently, to mourn over something 'lost' while it only changed shape and form.

This is quite right, IMHO. It is useless sentimental baggage. There was no such idyllic era in the past that was superior overall to our own. Things have changed shape and form, but this only masks the fact that overall, "things" are improving. Right here. Right now. There is no other place I'd rather be.

[Alex Jacob]

I read what you wrote, Deibert, and yet I don't know quite what to do with it. As is often the case you seem to interpose yourself, to interpose another view, but I am not sure to what purpose. I am not completely sure you understand what I am getting at, to be frank, and so your responses seem to come sideways.

Certainly there was a time (I say in the past now) where I was inspired by ideas and feelings you might call romantic. There was a time when I was sort of shocked to realize that I was a romantic (gasp). But now, a little farther down the line, I am not sure that is true.

In respect to the first point---I think I would disagree. I don't at all think that scientism offers something comparable to what religion might offer. By the very nature of itself, it can't. In this sense what it offers is something rather dry, even empty. And my point is that though it 'penetrates' nature in an incredibly substantial way, it does not seem to offer a relationship to nature. That is, to the world, to the kosmos. The operative word is relationship and connection. If it is a religion (with poetry, etc.) the priest of that religion seems to me to be someone like Kevin. True, I may not fully grasp what he represents, but I will say, as I have said so often, that whatever it is, seems dead to me. Life and energy does not jump out of it. To be real to me, now, it has to have real life and real energy. It has to be acutely relevant.

As seems often the case, you seem to take issue with the reference to 'poetry' or perhaps a lyrical spirit, as if I am trying to sell something specific, like emotional yodeling to the hills and dales of Earth or pixies and fairy dances and burning sparklers in the month of June. But that is not at all my point. I am interested and writing about, if you will, a 'new way' to connect through our scientism with a living spirit in the creation. I am looking for a way to discover religio not through turning back, but through continuing forward.

It's odd, Diebert, with you: it often turns out the same. Somehow, in what you communicate, it's like the wind goes out of the sails and the sea goes flat...

What is your angle man? ;-)

[brokenhead]

But consider this analogy: I'm sure the micro-organisms in my body have no idea that their host is an "intelligent being" on a scale far beyond their local living environment. Likewise, the human concept of "intelligent life" almost always assumes the qualifier, "as we know it," excluding the supposedly "inanimate objects" which seem to comprise the vast majority of the cosmos. Yet indigenous peoples around the world have a deeper appreciation of the general "animus" of Nature as "alive" , each form in its own way, without the limitation imposed by Western science as "life as we know it."

I see this as more than an analogy, rather as a statement as to the way things actually are.

However, mikiel, you are not likely to convince anyone here with references to the worldviews of indigenous peoples around the world.

I have refrained from employing your "analogy" simply because it is likely to have been considered and rejected by the talking heads at GF. But it truly does strike home. It doesn't take shroom tea or ayahuasca to look up at the unspeakable vastness of the night sky with the unaided eye and refuse to conclude that creation in the large is devoid of life. While the average mind has distinct trouble with the concept, it seems that the right answer, the only truth of it, is that Consciousness is primal, that it indeed is a Creation we are viewing in the night sky.

Speaking of shroom tea, I think it was David that related his brief encounter with it and how terrible it was and ended it with "never again." I submit that it was not the psilocibin or psilocin that was responsible, but rather the fragile strictures of his philosophy that were not able to handle the truth when he inadvertantly caused himself to face it.

[mikiel]

DvR wrote:

And at the same time, Alex, you'd probably agree that this 'scientism' is just another form of religion, with its own songs, poetry, interrelationships, awe and inspiration.

If "scientism" denotes a belief system, I would have to agree. And much mainstream science today is literally dogma created by the presently most popular and well published "scientists." Many of the essays/papers found through Iolaus' links above testify to this pathetic fall from grace, the scientific ideal of objectivity in seeking the truth about the world and cosmos... and more recently, consciousness itself as a ligitimate branch of science.

Anyone here want to talk cosmology as scientists? Yes amateurs can be scientists too.... More likely so, probably than those on a payroll determined by the prejudices of the "bosses", whether university department heads or CEO's of that unlikely blend of science and industry.

mikiel

[Carl G]

It doesn't take shroom tea or ayahuasca to look up at the unspeakable vastness of the night sky with the unaided eye and refuse to conclude that creation in the large is devoid of life. While the average mind has distinct trouble with the concept, it seems that the right answer, the only truth of it, is that Consciousness is primal, that it indeed is a Creation we are viewing in the night sky.

I agree. To me it seems illogical to not see it as ALL alive.

[mikiel]

But consider this analogy: I'm sure the micro-organisms in my body have no idea that their host is an "intelligent being" on a scale far beyond their local living environment. Likewise, the human concept of "intelligent life" almost always assumes the qualifier, "as we know it," excluding the supposedly "inanimate objects" which seem to comprise the vast majority of the cosmos. Yet indigenous peoples around the world have a deeper appreciation of the general "animus" of Nature as "alive" , each form in its own way, without the limitation imposed by Western science as "life as we know it."

I see this as more than an analogy, rather as a statement as to the way things actually are.

However, mikiel, you are not likely to convince anyone here with references to the worldviews of indigenous peoples around the world.

I have refrained from employing your "analogy" simply because it is likely to have been considered and rejected by the talking heads at GF. But it truly does strike home. It doesn't take shroom tea or ayahuasca to look up at the unspeakable vastness of the night sky with the unaided eye and refuse to conclude that creation in the large is devoid of life. While the average mind has distinct trouble with the concept, it seems that the right answer, the only truth of it, is that Consciousness is primal, that it indeed is a Creation we are viewing in the night sky.

Speaking of shroom tea, I think it was David that related his brief encounter with it and how terrible it was and ended it with "never again." I submit that it was not the psilocibin or psilocin that was responsible, but rather the fragile strictures of his philosophy that were not able to handle the truth when he inadvertantly caused himself to face it.

brokenhead,
The analogy and the ref to indigenous peoples' sense that "things are alive" were in reply to DHodges' statement:

Intelligence, as far as I know, is an emergent property of a very complex system. The universe has complex systems within it that can be intelligent, but I don't see how intelligence could possibly be a property of the universe as a whole, or what that could even mean.

Clearly the mainstream Westen worlview does not share the above "appreciation", say that all "things" are manifestations of Creator Consciousness and parts of the living body of Kosmos.

We seem to be in agreement here. But your references to what " is likely to have been considered and rejected by the talking heads at GF" makes me wonder...
Is this not a forum for open debate/dialogue on these matters? Is there actually an establoished doctrine here which will incurr ridicule of anyone in disagreement? I have had some sense that this is the case. But many do, in fact challenge the obvious bigotry against women, apparently strict adherence to some form of idealism, logic as superior to empirical info about the "real world", etc.

So, whoever disagrees that indigenous peoples have a valid worldview, vis-a-vis the "aliveness of everything", let them present a cogent argument.
And my micro-organism analogy was just that. It could be formally stated as: Micro-organisms are, to their human hosts, as humans are to Kosmos, regarding relative scope of awareness and appreciation of the conscious intelligence of "the whole being" in either case.

If either of these points are to be ignored because they have previously been proven wrong or irrelevant in the archives of GF, then debate and dialogue here is dead to present interaction.

I hope not, but, if so I can live with it and move on. I am still operating on the assumption that free thinking is welcome here.

Ps: About shroom tea. This is not the first forum, the admin of which warns of the "dangers of psychoactive drugs" projected merely from one or more "bad trips" in the very personal experience of the one advocating the WARNING! label.
Of course, making them all illegal is the next step, a clear violation of individual rights (among adults, of course) to the absolute sanctity of their own bodies, to treat as they will as long as none other is harmed... which differes from "hurt" as in offended feelings and lack of shared philosophy.
Pps: Obviously this "next step" has already, long ago been taken in the hysterical political system of the U.S. Our freedom of "the pursuit of happiness" (not to mention choice of religious sacrament) is a joke, over-ruled by the Reigh of Terror (they already won!) in general and the long-fought "war on drugs" which is worse than an ongoing failure... being *the* major contibutor to violent crimes around 'the drug industry.'

I have raised all the hell I can against the "war on drugs"... And am well known to the local goons-in-blue (the "Blue Meanies!) on this matter.
(The local chief of police went into a rage with me in his office when I quoted some pertinent material from J.S. Mills' "Principles of Liberty." This in connection a ticket for no motorcycle helmet ... as justified by "higher insurance rates for everyone" when a biker becomes roadkill. What tipped his scale was when I suggested that all "dangerous sports" be banned by the same "rationale.")

Well, I have again gone ramblin'... oh well, what the hell.

See y'all later.
mikiel

[Alex Jacob]

Mikiel wrote:

"Is this not a forum for open debate/dialogue on these matters? Is there actually an established doctrine here which will incur ridicule of anyone in disagreement? I have had some sense that this is the case. But many do, in fact challenge the obvious bigotry against women, apparently strict adherence to some form of idealism, logic as superior to empirical info about the "real world", etc."

Of course there is an established doctrine, and that doctrine is expressed by those who created this site and participate in that dogma and those values. And there are others who agree in some ways but not in all, and others who take issue with a great deal of it. Are Kevin, Dan and David open to debate/dialogue? Well, they love it of course. To be involved with these issues is their life-blood.

What is one man's 'obvious bigotry' is another man's hard-won realism. If I were to say anything about that, I would say that the worst thing of all is 'standard PC formulations' that would, say, reflexively repeat the known and standard conclusions (about women, say) and too-readily surrender an objective look at the issue, any issue. When PC formulations rule, when these too possessive spirits-within-ideas take possession of people, you can never actually get to the 'truth', and everything gets mired. I don't always agree with QRS but I do value the courage to try to take an objective look at 'woman' as a radically different entity from 'man' that requires a harsh definition, a bold definition. You have to be very careful in doing so, but it is worth it. My latest line of thinking is to propose that women would never, ever have created or be able to create all that man's culture has created. Almost the whole world as we know it is a man's creation---it is a pretty challenging and sobering thought.

"So, whoever disagrees that indigenous peoples have a valid worldview, vis-a-vis the "aliveness of everything", let them present a cogent argument."

It is not and was not an object of indigenous worldview to come to any part of the conclusions of Western science. The whole project is of a completely different order. These primitive types only want to navigate their world, not to penetrate it, not to dominate it, not to go beyond it. They don't want to overturn anything, they just want tools to get through it. The Western game, on the other hand, is something else altogether: something else never before seen on the Earth (I think it's fair to say).

If some indigenous person, and even if some modern person (like myself) chooses to find 'spirits' in objects or processes, it is not necessarily because he (or I) need to impose this paradigm on the paradigms of science, it is because one might live better with such a view. For some Hindus, for example, what we all refer to as 'the moon' (that thing we see up there and that we also landed on) is much more than what we Westerns know as the moon. It is a separate 'loka', a spiritual planet, and it is not possible to go there in a material contrivance! It is simply not possible! If I say to you, well, we did go and we did land, and there was no evidence of a spirit-civilization there on the moon-loka, what are you going to say? You'd have to say that I am deluded or deranged. The whole game gets peculiar when the Western-rationalist view has ascendancy, as it must. The so-called 'creationists' are always looking for a way to locate or discover a creator behind all the complex systems, and yet they cannot: it is impossible to locate the 'mechanism' that caused life and caused complex systems to evolve. The indigenous (and the psychedelic) view of nature and the Kosmos is psychologically, and hence spiritually valid, yet it rarely pans out that a specific indigenous view is ever 'proven' by scientific method.

[mikiel]

Alex:

Of course there is an established doctrine, and that doctrine is expressed by those who created this site and participate in that dogma and those values

Forum credo:
"Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment
- Truth, Courage, Honesty, Logic, Masculinity, Wisdom, Perfection -"

So "discussion" is a euphemism for doctrine/dogma... buy in or ship out.

Damn... something came up. Gotta go. Back soon. (shit happens)

mikiel
Back sooner than I thot... very fleeting crisis... but this is not a forum for personal stories... unless they illustrate a philosopical point. Fair enough. Ed: Euphemisim has a 'u'. Knew that, but i'm often quick and sloppy with spelling... or just forgot my previously infallible spelling excellence.. :)

So, back to the conversation.
Alex wrote:

What is one man's 'obvious bigotry' is another man's hard-won realism. If I were to say anything about that, I would say that the worst thing of all is 'standard PC formulations' that would, say, reflexively repeat the known and standard conclusions (about women, say) and too-readily surrender an objective look at the issue, any issue. When PC formulations rule, when these too possessive spirits-within-ideas take possession of people, you can never actually get to the 'truth', and everything gets mired. I don't always agree with QRS but I do value the courage to try to take an objective look at 'woman' as a radically different entity from 'man' that requires a harsh definition, a bold definition. You have to be very careful in doing so, but it is worth it. My latest line of thinking is to propose that women would never, ever have created or be able to create all that man's culture has created. Almost the whole world as we know it is a man's creation---it is a pretty challenging and sobering thought.

So, man's inherent superiority over woman is a "hard won" realization of truth, as espoused/preached by the women-hating originators of this forum in righteous defiance of the merely "'standard PC formulations" of those of us who have found a peaceful and loving co-existence with these emotionally contaminated inferior beings.

Btw, this is way off subject for this thread... but, again, what the hell.
Then you go:

I don't always agree with QRS but I do value the courage to try to take an objective look at 'woman' as a radically different entity from 'man' that requires a harsh definition, a bold definition.

"Courage?" "..."an objective look"... "requiring a harsh... bold definition."...??
I know women in all walks of life. Some of course fit the limited caricature of the emotional air head presented here. Most who I know do not. Many are very intelligent, logical, "self actualizing" as per creating their lives by conscious choice. (I know, another point to be ridiculed by this admin as just another illusion... actual choice... not robots programed by... "causation."... See my answer to the "free will "question in response to Iolaus in a thread not on that topic... cross-threaded, so to speak.)

So the "harsh" and the "bold" are diminished in the context of a non-sexist view of women as human beings, to the prevailing bigotry... call it what it is... in this forum.

Well, off topic as it is, I'm open to your reply to the above, Alex.
Are you duped by the alpha male syndrome here (and expected to know your inferior place), or are you still capable of thinking for yourself. (No offense intended... actually a sincere question.)
mikiel