şi trogloditul? cel ascuns de evoluţionişti?

„Pus astfel în lumina, ancorat in sinergia faptelor, recursul la universalitate nu eludeaza meandrele concretului.”
Ion Iliescu

Acest topic a fost editat de shapeshifter: 8 Jul 2009, 04:23 PM

„cea mai nobilă preocupare a omului e omul” - merită reflectat pe marginea acestui citat... pt. că e cu dute-vino... nu poţi avea preocupări nobile dacă crezi că ceva în om, omul nu este mai mult decât o simplă maimuţă învingătoare printre altele... sau poate deveni!

„The prerogative of the human state is objectivity; the essential content of which is the Absolute. There is no knowledge without objectivity of the intelligence; there is no freedom without objectivity of the will; and there is no nobility without objectivity of the soul” - Frithjof Schuon

preocupă-te de semenii tăi şi poate vei avea şansa ca Dzeu să se preopcupe de tine... merită-ţi locul promis realizându-te în primul rând ca om!

Acest topic a fost editat de shapeshifter: 8 Jul 2009, 04:43 PM

când spun că cineva se poate preocupa de tine, spun implict că trebuie a priori să te ocupe pe tine, sau cel puţin o parte din tine... altfel preocuparea sa de tine, e doar un hobby...

comunismul şi capitalismul în teorie au plecat din ceva foarte apropiat... distanţa a apărut pe drum...

e interesant de făcut o paralelă: apariţia şi dezvoltarea dreptului asupra proprietăţii vis-a-vis de momentul de dinainte al descălecatului statelor româneşti, adică pe când oamenii nu ştiau ce-i aia proprietate şi poate nici ce-i ăla hotar... ca să nu mai zic de hotărnicirea spiritului în/printre meandrele concretului...

Acest topic a fost editat de shapeshifter: 8 Jul 2009, 04:42 PM

chestia asta cu "descalecatul" este alta poveste si nu poate fi facauta o paralela cu "aparitia si dezvoltarea dreptului asupra proprietatii" in cel mai bun caz ai putea compara "descalecatul" cu luarea in posesie a pamantului in vestul american, desi acolo avem niste pamanturi care apartineau unor indieni, nativi americani.

atunci să zicem înainte ca oamenii să fie legaţi de vreun pământ prin vreun act sau altceva...

crezi ca ne ajuta daca incepem sa discutam despre triburi, tribalitate, sefi de trib, vrajitori, religie, regalitate, imperialism?

da! mult de tot!

btw: pe Iliescu îl suspectez de iniţiere regală ceva (ordin cavaleresc) nu neapărat sacerdotală...

eu cred ca te inseli, Iliescu este doar un ateu comunist si nimic mai mult, orice ar vrea el sa fie, pentru mine asta este.

mda, pentru tine poate asta e... de ce ar trebui să fie la fel pentru toţi? prejudecata asta cu „comunist ateu” am depăşit-o... de obicei astfel de catalogări rezultă din cunoaştere second-hand... adică din auzite... aşa spun alţii, aşa spune la tv etc... dacă vrei să ştii cum e eu zic că poţi intra pe blogul său, merită! aş vrea să văd oameni care la vârsta sa fac ceea ce face el... şi nu în ultimul rând ar fi bine să citeşti şi ce zic alţii despre el pe blogul său... omul e infinit mai interesant decât Constantinescu, Băsescu luaţi pe rând sau la un loc...



Acest topic a fost editat de shapeshifter: 8 Jul 2009, 05:29 PM

Eu n-am zis asta. Era doar o observatie... Habar n-am care e solutia mai buna. Probabil ca in functie de fiecare individ in parte o solutie e mai buna sau mai proasta.



Asta pot ei sa ne spuna mai bine. Eu nu sunt credincioasa. Totusi, misterul transcedentalului te face sa iti vezi cu alti ochi existenta, sa consideri ca nu mai esti doar rezultatul hazardului si viata ta capata o semnificatie aparte. Sau nu crezi ca e asa?



Pt. ca din cele mai stravechi timpuri oamenii si-au creat zei in care sa creada, credintele astea religioase exista de mult prea mult timp ca sa nu te gandesti ca omul are o mare nevoie psihologica sa creada in lucrurile astea. Rezultatele studiilor au aratat ca persoanele care au un locus of control extern (adica plaseaza in exterior responsabilitatea actiunilor lor) au un grad de confort psihologic mai mare decat cei cu LOC intern. In acelasi timp, traim niste vremuri in care nu mai poti ignora complet informatia si logica, de-aia si credinciosii incep tot mai mult sa nu se mai simta confortabil cu credintele lor. Si din cate am vazut, religia pierde tot mai mult teren. Oricum, ideea e ca transcedentalul, miraculosul, magia au fost mereu prezente in credinta oamenilor si asta tot din motive rationale si logice. Care ar fi motivele alea? Tocmai starea de bine psihologic.

probabil că soluţia vine din experiment: sex în laborator

Cine a văzut Malpertuis de aici?

------------
Pt. ca din cele mai stravechi timpuri oamenii si-au creat zei in care sa creada, credintele astea religioase exista de mult prea mult timp ca sa nu te gandesti ca omul are o mare nevoie psihologica sa creada in lucrurile astea. Rezultatele studiilor au aratat ca persoanele care au un locus of control extern (adica plaseaza in exterior responsabilitatea actiunilor lor) au un grad de confort psihologic mai mare decat cei cu LOC intern. In acelasi timp, traim niste vremuri in care nu mai poti ignora complet informatia si logica, de-aia si credinciosii incep tot mai mult sa nu se mai simta confortabil cu credintele lor. Si din cate am vazut, religia pierde tot mai mult teren. Oricum, ideea e ca transcedentalul, miraculosul, magia au fost mereu prezente in credinta oamenilor si asta tot din motive rationale si logice. Care ar fi motivele alea? Tocmai starea de bine psihologic.
------------
transcendentul serenity transcendentul




Credeţi că e Harap-alb sau Dero alb-dalb?

Acest topic a fost editat de shapeshifter: 8 Jul 2009, 06:01 PM

In cazul asta, esti atee. Welcome in the club!

Deci la nedumerirea ta de zilele trecute: nu prea stiu care e treaba cu ateii iti pot raspunde foarte scurt - priveste-te pe tine insati si vei afla.


Fiecare dintre noi suntem, pana la urma, rezultatul unei succesiuni de intamplari. Dar fiecare intamplare este generata de un sir de alte intamplari si tot asa... Viata fiecaruia are o semnificatie aparte pentru el insusi - in fond, este unul dintre cele mai de pret lucruri pe care le avem, si de asemnea pentru cei asupra carora ne punem amprenta, prin interactiune directa ori prin ceea ce realizam. Insa la scara Universului nu suntem decat, asa cum Ion Hobana, pulbere de stele - fire de praf pierdute in imensul vid, conditionate sa supravietuim, sa ne bucuram de clipa cea repede ce ni s-a dat, si sa ne perpetuam pana la marea extinctie pe care nu o putem in niciun fel evita. Intr-un fel, incercam sa sfidam timpul si infinitul, insa pentru propriul nostru confort nu facem altceva decat sa cautam surogate care sa ne faca sa ne dea senzatia ca nu suntem trecatori, ca inevitabilul poate fi pacalit, ca suntem alesi si ca avem totul de partea noastra. Da, pe masura ce am evoluat au aparut noi temeri si angoase, diferite de cele legate de supravietuirea imediata, de satisfacerea instinctelor primare, iar religia a aparut ca solutie la aceste temeri si angoase. Ne agatam de religie cu speranta ca vom evita inevitabilul, ca sfarsitul nu-i aici, ca avem posibilitatea de a invinge timpul si infinitul.

Insa, tot pe masura ce evoluam, raspunsurile pe care ni le da religia nu ne mai satisfac. Este mult prea mare hiatusul dintre ceea ce ne spune religia si ceea ce vedem si simtim; chiar daca multi inca se declara credinciosi (totusi, din ce in ce mai putini), nici ei nu traiesc sentimenul religios la aceeasi intensitate din urma cu cateva decenii ori chiar sute/mii de ani. Religia tinde sa fie (cu toate ca o neaga uneori vehement!) mai degraba un ritual decat traire adevarata; ritualul - cred ca asta poti observa si in alte domenii, nu doar in cel religios - canalizeaza gandurile, controleaza pornirile colaterale, concentreaza energiile in jurul unui singur scop. Un singur exemplu: dansul Haka, pe care il practica jucatorii de rugby din Noua Zeelanda inaintea partidei, are ca scop deconectarea psihicului de celelalte preocupari, concetrarea pe scopul actual, intarirea solidaritatii de grup - exact ceea ce face cu grupul de credinciosi rugaciunea comuna din biserica, templu ori geamie. Este ritualul care iti da putere, energie, te ajuta sa te simti in siguranta, parte a grupului si nu individ izolat, membru al comunitatii (al tribului) si nu lasat in voia stihiilor.

Am observat acelasi lucru cand am facut trecerea dinspre scoala catre facultate. Pana atunci, cand intra profesorul, elevii se ridicau in picioare si salutau. Profesorul saluta si el, se aseza la catedera, se asezau si elevii si ora incepea. Mai mult decat o forma de politete era vorba de un ritual zilnic in urma caruia grupul se deconecta de la preocuparile colaterale si se concentra pe un scop comun. La facultate acest ritual a disparut, iar interesul, concentrarea, sentimentul de apartenenta la grup s-au diminuat; s-a pus in evidenta mai mult individul, decat grupul.

Nu cred ca ateii au conflicte interioare diferite de cele ale credinciosilor, ca sa ating si acest punct ramas oarecum in suspans. Doar ca le rezolva altfel, fara sa apeleze la solutia facila pe care o pune la indemana religia. Bineinteles, nu este nici meritul, nici vina lor acest lucru. Asa cum spunea mothman, nu putem alege sa fim credinciosi sau nu. Credinta ni se impune (sau nu) din afara, nu este o alegere.

Daca crezi ca am vorbit prostii, spune-mi.

---------
Deci la nedumerirea ta de zilele trecute: nu prea stiu care e treaba cu ateii iti pot raspunde foarte scurt - priveste-te pe tine insati si vei afla.
---------
ce să afle? că e atee? păi nu i-ai spus-o tu?

muahahahah...

ps: btw se zice „welcome to” nu welcome in”... clubul ateilor nu e nici măcar cub... welcome to flatland!

hai vă las acu... mă duc să mă joc cu slaxer_pup... flatitudine fără platitudine!

Acest topic a fost editat de shapeshifter: 8 Jul 2009, 06:30 PM

Aici ai dreptate - ateii nu se prea aduna dupa criteriul ne-apartenentei la o religie sa-si faca "Partidul Ateist-Democrat", "Spitalul Memorial Ateist de Ziua a Saptea", "Clubul ateilor fumatori de narghilea" ori altceva de genul asta... Ne asociem cu alti oameni pe alte baze, nu pe cele religioase.

Da, probabil ca sunt atee, desi las portita aia deschisa. Nu cred in nici un caz ce propovaduiesc preotii in biserica, consider ca in biblie, daca cauti bine, exista niste adevaruri mai mult metaforice care, insa, au fost cunoscute cu mult timp inaintea aparitiei acestei carti, nu merg la biserica, nu pup icoane, lucrez duminica fara remuscari si-asa mai departe. Totusi, nu merg pe ideea ca nu mai exista nimic dincolo de aceasta existenta fizica. S-ar putea sa existe, s-ar putea la fel de bine sa nu existe.



Da, perfect de acord. Vroiam si eu sa spun lucrurile astea ceva mai devreme, dar mai bine ca tine nu cred ca as fi reusit sa le exprim. De aici si conflictele psihologice ale credinciosilor. Singura diferenta intre viziunea mea si a ta e ca eu vad credintele religioase ca fiind mai putin o solutie pe care ei o aleg, ci ca ceva ce se dezvolta o data cu dezvoltarea ontogenetica, odata cu dezvoltarea personalitatii, a valorilor, a tuturor celorlalte procese psihice. Majoritatea "invata" sa creada lucrurile astea de la parinti. Alegerea, daca e cazul, apare atunci cand credinciosul decide sa abandoneze "mostenirea" asta si sa "cerceteze" de unul singur. Iar credintele religioase sunt, pana la urma, mecanisme de aparare la care ateul a decis sa renunte (sau, in mai putine cazuri, nu le-a avut niciodata). Daca nu le inlocuieste cu altele, va trai cu conflicte psihologice, angoase, frustrari.

Exact asta este si parerea mea. La fel ca tine, sunt convins ca in biblie (si in toate marile mituri ale omenirii) se ascund atat perle de intelepciune, cat si adevaruri pe care oamenii din vechime le stiau, insa noi le-am uitat; asa cum in natura nimic nu se pierde, ci totul se transforma, si in mitologie personaje, intamplari, invataminte, percepte morale trec de la o credinta la alta, in religiile actuale cine se pricepe putand gasi urme adanci ale celor mai vechi credinte ale omenirii. Totul este sa reusesti sa discerni perlele autentice de zgura care le inconjoara.

Cred ca cel care afirma cu tarie inexistenta divinitatii (adica afirma ca nu exista ceea ce nu poate dovedi, simti, arata) fac aceeasi greseala ca cei care pretind ca pot prinde absolutul de-un picior. Diferenta dintre ateii pozitivi si cei credinciosi este, prin urmare, una minora. Si unii, si altii, fac afirmatii - e drept, contradictorii, dar la fel de imposibil de demonstrat. Si unii, si altii fac doar o demonstratie de credinta.

Poate ca n-am fost suficient de clar, dar nu cred ca ei aleg de buna-voie sa fie credinciosi. Cred ca li se impune credinta, asa cum bine ai spus, odata cu dezvoltarea personalitatii. Un factor important il are familia; joaca un rol si prietenii, experientele de viata si de ce nu chiar predispozitia genetica. Deci numai factori independenti de vointa.

Aici te contrazic: mai degraba in cele mai multe cazuri ateii sunt persoane care nu au avut niciodata acest mecanism de aparare care este religia, si in mult mai putine sunt persoane care au renuntat la religie. Toti ne nastem atei; unii dintre noi, la un moment dat in viata, sunt convertiti. Si culmea, intamplator aceia care devin religiosi descopera ca printr-un mare noroc s-a nimerit sa se nasca exact intr-o familie/tara/regiune in care este majoritara singura credinta corecta, adevarata.

Eu, din experienta personala (adica din contactul direct cu ateii pe care ii cunosc) am vazut ca toti au fost crescuti in familii mai mult sau mai putin 'crestine', cu valori 'crestine' si-asa mai departe. Deci toti si-au insusit, inca dinainte sa li se dezvolte discernamantul, ratiunea, logica si mecanismele cognitive mai complexe, niste modele comportamentale, niste valori, idei, notiuni religioase. O sa dau un exemplu personal. Tin minte ca m-am imbolnavit destul de rau pe la 7 ani. Am incercat ceva tratamente degeaba si intr-o seara m-am rugat foarte inflacarat () la dumnezeu, iar a doua zi nu mai aveam absolut nimic. Eu la vremea aia am considerat asta o confirmare a existentei divine. Mi-am adus aminte acum intamplarea asta, aproape uitasem ca la un moment dat credeam si eu in asa ceva. In ciuda faptului ca tatal meu e ateu iar mama cred ca a fost de 2 sau 3 ori la biserica in ultimii 20 de ani. Credinta mi-am pierdut-o odata cu maturizarea, odata ce am intrat in contact cu anumite informatii, cand credintele respective nu prea mai aveau pentru mine logica si nu ma mai multumeau.
De-aia ziceam ca am avut mecanismele astea de aparare si am renuntat la ele.

Arnold Toynbee has clearly delineated the prevailing attitudes and convictions about the nature of “spirituality.” This opinion however is a gross distortion, the consequences of which are fraught with dangers for those who legitimately seek out the “higher” things in life. Our Psychies, which include not only our subconscious drives, but also our egos and our thinking processes are notoriously unstable in the sense that what we think or feel at any given time can easily shift and change. Moreover, they fail to embrace the totality of what we are as human beings. That spirituality should have its foundation on such “shifting sands” belies its intrinsic nature, for Spirituality, if it be True and Real, must be established on more solid ground .At the same time, it ignores what is most central to our nature as human beings made in the image of God. It almost inevitably follows that Spirituality has become divorced from religion, from true intellectuality, from reason, and even from common sense; and that some of the most bazaar cults get characterized as religion.4
One of the reasons for this is that currently there is considerable confusion between “religion” and “belief systems.”

Indeed, there is an attempt on the part of certain academics to reduce all religions to “belief systems” that have somehow “caught on” and become accepted by large numbers of people. But there is a distinction to be made between them, for genuine religions are based on Revelation which provide them with a fixed creed, code and cult that is independent of any individual thought or feeling, while belief systems not based on revelation are inevitably subject to human opinion One recognizes of course that many founders of sects base themselves partially on revelation - accepting what they like and rejecting what they find offensive - and that almost all of them claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. But the fact remains that all of them are based in part, if not completely, on the thinking and understanding of a human person. The problem is that such thinking and feeling resides in the psyche and is subject to illusion, a problem that can only be avoided by adhering to a fixed external source. Unfortunately, many religions representatives currently attack the revealed basis of their faith in an attempt to accommodate them to the values of the modern world which in effect reduces them to the same level as other belief systems.

Many people like to describe themselves as “non-believers.” I have never met a “nonbeliever.” Most people believe in evolution and that they themselves are the product of an ongoing evolution which makes them more intelligent than their ancestors. They believe in the inevitable progress of mankind towards a united humanity which will be socialist in its organization (without however reducing their personal holdings). They admit that things aren’t perfect yet, but with the help of science such defects can be corrected. In essence they are sincerely convinced in the perfectability of the world, and above all of man. This evolutionary secular “vision” was well described by H. G. Wells’ Outline of History in the 20's which clearly replaced the Glory of God with the principle of Homo Mensura - man as the measure of all things. Many of these ideas may not be clearly thought out or formulated, but then the same can be said of the belief system of many Catholics - it is simply accepted without much thought.

Behind all this confusion is a certain “self image” of what we are as human beings. It is easy for philosophers to specify the origin of this self image, but most people don’t read philosophy or even think in terms of the nature of man. However, it is useful to have some idea of the philosophical background involved. Now in some ways one can trace this back to the fall of Adam, but more immediately, we can start with Descartes. Descartes taught that all reality could be encompassed by and was limited by what he called res extensa (basically what had extension and therefore could be measured, and res cogitans, or what we could think about. Such ideas took some time to permeate society, but from the middle of the 1800s this Decartian dualism has been the philosophical bedrock of scientific endeavor, as well as a great influence on all branches of academia, as well as the political and social order.
This Cartesian self image is vastly different from that which virtually all of mankind held prior to relatively modern times. Because of our convictions about progress and evolution we have blinded ourselves to other possibilities. How could we even consider examining the opinions of our forefathers prior to the time of Descartes? We might study them as part of a historical survey - usually in slightly distorted form - but to take seriously what they said and apply it in our own lives, that would be foolish, like attempting to reverse the hands of the clock. And so it is that we stuck with our self image and refuse to consider any alternative. It may surprise us to know that our self image is not exactly new. Boethius in the fifth century commented that those who think man is only an animal who reasons have forgotten who and what they are. Be this as it may, let us for a moment consider the more traditional (traditional in the sense of “handed down”) view of man. If one agrees that most of our belief systems are based on feelings and thoughts - all properties that, as will be shown, lie within the realm of the psyche - it follows that it becomes impossible to criticize any given belief system.
As everyone’s psyche and thoughts are of equal value, it follows that all religions and belief systems are of equal value because everyone’s truth or beliefs - providing they do not create a problem for others - become acceptable. For one to say that any given cult or religion is false is an act of presumption which no one dares to express. Moreover, it is thought that it this kind of exclusive outlook that has led to conflict and war - all in the name of God - and hence such attitudes must be eschewed .(It should be noted however that it is, as St,. Paul said, “our lusts and our greeds” that are the cause of war, and however much we like to indulge these in the name of Gods or Democracy, they remain the root cause of conflicts.) In the practical order, whatever works for an individual is considered acceptable. And indeed, psychiatrists are now recognizing that “religion” has its use in that it helps people face problems in life, and a belief in the afterlife makes death easier to deal with.5
This Traditional view sees man as consisting of three parts, Spirit, Psyche (which includes our usual thinking processes) and Body. The following table outlines this in various cultures:



One should add that the Spirit in Hindu and Buddhist terminology is referred to as the Atman; in Egyptian as Amon, in the Jewish tradition as Ruah6 and in the Chinese as Ch’i (Tai Ch’i or Wu Ch’i to avoid the limited meaning of Ch’i in martial arts ). Again, the mediaeval theologians and physicians distinguished between Animus vel Intellectus and Anima which referred to the psyche and which included the mind or mental processes. It is perhaps unfortunate that the term “soul” is currently used for both Animus and Anima, but such is inevitable in so far as many
contemporary theologians, while giving lip service to the Spirit, are in the practical order Cartesians.7
Even though traditional psychologies often speak of a tripartite anthropology, The Psyche and Body are frequently classified together as the lesser “self” or “ego.” Thus it is that we have St. Thomas Aquinas teaching “duo sunt in homine,” (There are two in man) and St. Paul speaking about the Law of his members being opposed to the law of his mind (Rom. 7:23)8 The Body and the psyche are conceptually merged for two reasons. 1) the Body in se has no directive force. It needs some higher “power” like the psyche to tell it what to do, or at least to go along with it; and
2) both the body and the psyche lack permanence or consistency in so far as hey are always in flux, or in a state of what the theologians call “becoming.” Note that I, or rather, traditional psychologies, have equated the lesser self with the ego. Theologians use the term ego in a slightly different sense than Freudian psychologists do. They both agree that self-centeredness - what, when excessive is called by psychologists malignant narcissism resides in the ego, but while the psychologist speaks in terms of “ego strengths,” the theologian sees egoity as equivalent to pride and seeks to control or convert this lesser self by having it accept the direction of the Spirit. Its refusal to do so renders the individual as “self-ish.”In such a state the lesser self or ego is in conflict with the Spirit, and thus many individuals are “at war with themselves.” Now the ego resides in the realm of the psyche (for it clearly is neither in the body nor the Spirit), and is in itself a very nebulous entity. As n said, “our ego is nothing but a name for what is really only a sequence of observed behaviors.” Or again, Albert Ellis: “this ‘I’ is an ongoing ever changing process.” Yet the psyche (including our thoughts) and how we see ourselves is to a great extent organized around our egos. It is its very potential for change which makes this lesser self the subject of psychiatric endeavor.
As opposed to this lesser and inconsistent “self” - the self or “selves” that psychiatrists and psychologists deal with and attempt to modify,9 the traditional psychologies hold that Man also has a higher or inner Self. This inner Self, often distinguished by the use of a capital S, goes by many names, some of which have been lis ted above. It is seen as “divine,” is often described as the “indwelling of the Holy Spirit,” the scholastic “Synteresis,” the Hindu “source of the breaths” or Atman, the Arabic “Ruh,” Philo’s “Soul of the soul, “ and Plato’s “Inner Man” etc. etc. Such a metaphysical outlook further presumes that the average person is “at war with himself” precisely because these two selves are in conflict and that true sanity or wholeness is ultimately to found only in the saint whose two selves are at one - the essential nature of “at-onement” or “atonement,” a state in which the “lamb and the lion” can be said to lie down together. As Socrates prayed: “may my outer and my inner man be one.” St. Thomas Aquinas tells us that tranquility and happiness can only result from the ordered life, by which he means that Spirit, Psyche and Body must be ordered or “lined up” properly - any departure from the order to end being sinful. It is in this sense that we speak of someone being in control of him-self and admonish the distraught to “get hold of your self” or “pull yourself together.” It is also in this sense that one can speak of some forms of mental illness as a “dis -order.”10 On the practical level it is clear that one can center one’s life in the Body, in the Psyche or in the Spirit. The latter of course demands that we not do “as we like,” but “as we should.” From a metaphysical viewpoint, to chose to center our lives in our psyches is to ascribe to ourselves the property of discerning what is true and false - and as the Jewish Fathers state, to make oneself the source of truth is the greatest form of idolatry. It is to declare that “we will not serve,” that we are gods unto ourselves, a condition which in the last analysis is nothing other than pride.
Many new age belief systems declare that we are in fact gods unto ourselves..11 And even those who declare that they will decide for themselves what is true are unwittingly playing the same game. It is important for us to understand in just what sense traditional religions envision the indwelling of God in man. Turning to St. Teresa of Avila’s explanation, we are told: "It is often of the greatest importance, that you should understand this truth, namely that God dwells within you and that there we should dwell with Him... Let us not imagine that the interior of our hearts is empty... And to understand how God is always present in our soul, let us listen to St. John of the Cross, another distinguished master of the science of the saints: 'In order to know how to find this Bridegroom, we must bear in mind that the Word, the Son of God, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, is hidden in essence and is present in the inmost being of the soul... And this is why St. Augustine, speaking to God, said: 'I do not find Thee without, O Lord, because I had no right to seek Thee there, for Thou are within.' God is therefore hidden within the soul." (A Spiritual Canticle, Stanza I).12
St. John of the Cross continues later on to explain this more at length, remarking that God may be present in the soul in three different ways: "To explain this," he says, "it must be observed that there are three ways in which God is present in the soul. The first is His presence in essence, and in this respect He dwells not only in souls that are good and holy, but likewise in those that are bad and sinful, and indeed, in all creatures; for it is this presence that gives them life and being, and if it were once withdrawn they would cease to exist and would return to their original nothing. Now this kind of presence never fails in the soul. The second manner of god's presence is by grace, when He dwells in the soul pleased and satisfied with it. This presence of God is not in all souls, because those who commit a mortal sin lose it. The third kind of presence of God is by means of spiritual affection; for God is want to show His presence in many devout souls in divers ways of refreshment, joy and gladness." St. Theresa continues:
"Of the first kind of divine presence we can never be deprived. The second we must procure for ourselves with all the powers of the soul, and we must guard it at any cost. The third isn't within our power. God gives to whom He pleases."
To say that God dwells within each and everyone of us is not Pantheism. Indeed Pantheism is a fairly modernist concept, for other societies who give God’s many manifestations a variety of names, have, to my knowledge, never denied the unity of God. What then of Pantheism? It is the idea that God is in everything and everything is in God - as such, no demands are made on us to either worship Him or conform to His commands. It is one thing to proclaim the immanence of God in all creation_ for clearly He is immanent in all things_and quite another to deny His transcendence. Both are realities. Transcendence without immanence cuts us off from the Divine, Immanence without transcendence cuts the Divine off from us. Both the Transcendent and the Immanent must go together because of the duality “Principle and Manifestation.” While the Supreme Principle in itself is neither transcendent nor immanent, but “that which it is,” on the plane of manifestation one needs a transcendent Creator and the resulting creation needs immanence for its very existence. And both are united in the theophany, in the Logos, the Man-God. From our human point of view one can say that transcendence annihilates the manifestation, while immanence ennobles it. In accord with religious expression, on the one hand, transcendence reduces man to “sinner” and “slave”, and on the other hand, thanks to. immanence, he is also is a “child of God” and His “Representative” on earth. These two can be said to meet in the Man-God: for if on the one hand “God alone is Good”, on the other, “He who has seen me has seen the Father”. This brings us back to the issue of prayer, one cannot pray to oneself, but only to a transcendent God.13

Those that recognize the indwelling of the Holy Spirit immediately recognize that Truth. Justice and a host of other values, cannot depend upon our feelings or even our personal thoughts. There has to be some “outside” source or criteria to which one can appeal, or to which one’s thoughts can conform. This may be as a result of that immanence we have referred to above, or based on transcendent principles. Despite all the theories about the super-ego, patients, like the rest of us, often “know” when they are doing something wrong. As mentioned earlier, we have an “intellectus vel spiritus (not to be confused with the commonly understood meaning of intellect which is just clever thinking) that can direct our thoughts and will. The problem is that when one relies on “immanence,” one runs the risk of error, for the Intellectus can be distorted, or as St. Paul said, “we see through a glass darkly.” Adam before the fall “walked and talked with God.” His intellect had a clear vision and understanding of Truth and Reality. After the fall his disobedience and self-will clouded his intellect, leading to his expulsion from Paradise.
Adam, originally made in the “image and likeness” of God, lost that likeness which it is our task to regain. Our intellects, while capable of apprehending Truth and Reality, are distorted by our passions and personal opinions. Hence it follows that, unlike Adam who before the fall “walked and talked with God,”we have need of a Revelation which provides us with a clear cut source of Truth and direction.

Freud found that patients did in fact have a sense of right and wrong. Being a convinced Decartian which precluded the possibility of a “superconsciousness,” he had to find the source for this in what he called the “super-ego” which he related to the subconscious and the ego which were formed by both society and parental pressures. Granted our morality is greatly influenced by family and society; it is also based on external principles, but this, which Freud philosophically denied, forced him to develop his theory of the super-ego. Jung threw the public a bone in accepting God, but then went on to show that God and the various “archtypes” all had their source in the subconscious. We are in many ways stuck with a psychology based on Decartian principles, and while at times we may use the Intellectus, in the practical order we deny its existence.

We have made a distinction between a “religion” and a “belief system” in that a religion is based on Revelation, on a code, cult and creed that is fixed and external to the individual. Indeed, Webster’s Dictionary defines a religion as an “adoration of God... as expressed in formal worship in obedience to divine commands...” A “belief system” is based upon what some individual has thought was worthy of belief, and frequently is accepted because the “collective unconscious” of the prevailing society finds it acceptable. As mentioned above, there is a tendency of scholars to describe true religions as “belief systems” that somehow caught on, but such fails to recognize the nature of true religions.1415

Immediately one hears the protest of those who declare that nobody is going to tell them how to think or behave. They insist on the freedom to decide these things for themselves. And this is quite understandable in one whose whole outlook is based on the Decartian principle that we consist of Body and Mind. If that is all we are, then indeed, they have a right to such a stand, for your mind and body has no more authority than mine.16 .

This tendency to place not only good, but also evil within the realm of the psyche has increasingly been accepted in the public arena. As a result one rarely hears evil spoken of, for evil implies a choice which evolutionary reductionism to a great extent denies..Evil is seen as the end result of childhood traumas or societal pressures. The fact that man is endowed with an Intellect (to know the Truth and what is right and wrong) and a Will, by which he can choose is almost forgotten. Belief systems based on the psyche rarely have a fixed morality with which to face such realities. Indeed, our moral codes are to a great extent based on public opinion which of course can be easily manipulated. We shall be examining Spiritism as a belief system, more as a case in point, but before doing so let us consider some of the problems that result from the Decartian outlook which places values and spirituality in the realm of the psyche..

One direct result of all this is that we no longer have a basis for morality. Serving on ethics committees at hospitals it is clear to one that decisions are made by vote, never on principle. This is not to deny that those involved do their best and vote according to their conscience, but only to say that any person’s conscience is only as good or as bad as his neighbor’s. More recently Princeton University has hired a Dr. Singer who has developed new criteria for deciding about the life and death of children, namely determining if they are “sentient.” If not, they can be sacrificed in the name of - I don’t know what “god.” It is forgotten that these were the criteria used by the Nazi regime to slaughter schizophrenics and others in mental hospitals.

Another major problem that results is a false spirituality, a spirituality based more on feeling than on principle, a spirituality grounded in the psyche rather than the Spirit. . Many people, aware of the fact that crass materialism - in one sense the level of the body - is insufficient to satisfy a certain inner hunger, seek for something “spiritual” in their lives. Where to look? The answer is in the Psyche, and not in the Spirit the existence of which they deny.17 They turn to music, art, or a host of other interests such as ecology, ecumenism and world government, many of which they label as having their source in the “spirit,” but which in the long run doesn’t feed their hunger for something real. And those who guide them - often for a hefty price - are happy to keep them in the psyche.

Religion has become a discouraging collection of cliches and sentimentalities, more concerned with social issues than with Truth. Our religious spokesmen are no longer trusted or respected, for they too, despite lip service, are Descartians.

Acest topic a fost editat de shapeshifter: 8 Jul 2009, 11:09 PM

Pagina 461
http://books.google.ro/books?id=VLnfD_KzTb...pg=PA457&dq



Acest topic a fost editat de jet li: 8 Jul 2009, 11:11 PM

un lucru trebuie subliniat: omul nu se naşte cu o credinţă particulară ci cu predispoziţia sau "gramatica elementară a credinţei", aşa cum nu se naşte ştiind vreo limbă ci cu potenţialitatea vorbirii. Dacă mediul este favorabil, se dezvoltă acea credinţă, aşa cum învăţăm limba maternă dacă suntem crescuţi de părinţi şi nu izolaţi în pădure. Potenţialitatea credinţei este moştenită, nu credinţa în sine. Ba mai mult, credinţa adevărată n-o poate dobândi nimeni numai prin învăţare aşa cum se invaţă o limbă, ci numai prin experienţa spirituală adecvată. Aşa că eu consider că dogma religioasă nu poate face pe nimeni credincios ci numai trăirea autentică (cum spunea mai demult IoanV) a credinţei. Or, astfel de experienţe pot apărea în viaţa omului fie în copilărie, fie la maturitate sau abia la senectute. Indiferent care ar fi învăţătura, accesul la experienţa spirituală este un proces subiectiv, individual, netransmisibil (o taină)... şi nu toate experienţele spirituale sunt capabile să facă omul credincios ci doar acelea speciale însoţite de "iluminare".

am putea spune că ateii n-au atins nicio formă de "iluminare" divină, nu pot accesa tainele credinţei adevărate, dar asta-i adevărat şi pentru falşii credincioşi care s-au limitat doar la învăţătura religioasă, sau care se autoiluzionează că ar crede...

arice mai subzişti?

Observ ca faci distinctia intre credinta adevarata, pe de-o parte, si falsii credinciosi, pe de alta. Ce inseamna cuvintele bolduite?
Cum se poate autoiluziona un om cum ca ar crede, desi el nu crede cu adevarat?

Eu consider ca dogma religioasa, implantata la varsta si in conditiile necesare, daca intalneste un mediu propice (predispozitia genetica...), poate face pe oricine credincios.

Si totusi cum faci distinctia intre "adevaratii credinciosi", cei care au "trait autentic credinta" si cei care "se autoiluzioneaza ca ar crede" sau falsii credinciosi. Hai sa spunem ca cei care invata si urmeaza doar dogma sunt mai usor de identificat, chiar ei pot sa precizeze faptul ca urmeaza doar o simpla dogma, nu au avut "trairi autentice".
Dar cei care se autoiluzioneaza, oare ar recunoaste ei vreodata ca s-au autoiluzionat? Adica si-ar da vreodata seama ca s-au autoiluzionat? Si daca ei nu isi dau seama, noi cum sa ne dam seama si mai ales cum sa ii deosebim de cei care intr-adevar au avut "traire autentica"?

ăia cu auto-iluzionatul sînt cazul ușor, dar ce te faci cu cei care se moto-iluzionează sau chiar velo-iluzioneazaă?!? ...

Da, pai cred ca tu mori de vreo doo, trei ori pe zi! Bre, te roaga tetea nu mai scrie in cinzaci de culori, si cu fonturi cat tot ecranul. Imi da impresia ca am nimerit pe siteuri d-alea cu "cumpara acum...oportunitatea vietii tale". Si mai ramai si cu posturile necitite, zau, ca eu chiar te citesc cateodata.



Da, nene, da' asta nu e un "must have" (m-am dat dreacului, ce termeni elevati cunosc ), e cam la fel cu "maselele de minte", iti cresc acolo, da' nu prea le folosesti, decat doar dupa ce iti zboara restul dintilor si maselelor.

Masochistule! Probabil ca esti singurul.

Banuiesc ca asta ti-a spus-o un zeu.
Ok, conventional asa este.

pfoa mie-mi spui?! să vezi ce se iluzionează ăştia cu motoarele în weekend la Predeal!

East European Motor Show, Predeal 2009 - cea mai mare intalnire a motociclistilor - program si info

Intre 10 si 12 iulie 2009, are loc East European Motor Show, in orasul Predeal. East European Motor Show va fi cea mai mare intalnire a motociclistilor din zona estica a Europei si va avea un program organizat ca la carte: concerte, concursuri, streaptise...
Pentru concerte vor fi amenajate doua scene de 130000 wati si de 60000 wati, pentru 15 trupe. Intre ele: Cargo, Sister Sin (Suedia), Trooper, Highlight Kenosis, Guerrillas, Act, Tiarra, Aia, True Mind, Black Jack, Inopia, Fireball etc.





Acest topic a fost editat de shapeshifter: 9 Jul 2009, 01:47 PM

Am zis ca este vorba de un anumit grad de determinism. Daca am spus asta, eu zic ca e clar ca n-are cum sa fie vorba de un procent de 100%. Tot ce am lasat sa se inteleaga, este ca vointa este conditionata, si ca aceste conditionari sunt invers proportionale cu complexitatea sistemului nervos. Cu alte cuvinte, cu cat un organism are un creier mai putin complex, deci implicit si un psihic pe masura, conditionarile respective sunt mai numeroase - grad de determinism mai mare. Nu putem cuantifica procentul asta, asta este limpede. Desigur, cand vorbim de celelalte specii, nu ne mai referim la vointa, ci aplicam termenul mai generic de motivatie, insa ideea este aceeasi. Vointa, din acest punct de vedere, ar reprezenta o treapta superioara (se bazeaza pe motive constientizate, pe canalizarea pe obiective, necesita efort sustinut), iar ea are ca resort o motivatie - fie ca este constienta/inconstienta-biologica/sociala.

La intrebarea ta ma tem ca n-am cum sa raspund prin da sau nu si probabil ai inteles de ce. De ce ? Pentru ca vointa libera nu exista. Cel putin nu asa cum ti-o imaginezi tu. Vointa este foarte strans legata de conceptul de motivatie, discutat mai sus. Motivatia are ca resort anumite nevoi. Noi cand alegem ceva, jonglam defapt in limitele acestor nevoi. Noi nu putem dicta ce nevoi sa avem. Pe astea le avem sau nu le avem. Ceea ce putem face, in schimb, e sa le trecem prin filtrul constiintei, sa le ierarhizam in functie de prioritati. Cum unele ajung sau nu sa fie constientizate - fiind clar ca unele exercita o anumita presiune fara ca noi sa reflectam prea mult asupra acestui lucru, cum le ierarhizam si jongam cu ele, e tot rodul unor alte serii de conditionari si tot asa. Ideea de baza pe care ar trebui s-o retii este ca, din anumite puncte de vedere, jocurile au fost deja facute, in sensul ca probabilitatea sa cred/aleg/vreau/gandesc/evit/cumpar/ignor ceva, este foarte strans legata de pattern-urile psihice construite cu atata migala de ereditate, mediu si educatie, si ca toata inlantuirea asta de cauze merge din aproape in aproape - ca niste piese de domino ce cad, si pe masura ce cad le antreneaza si pe celelalte in cadere.

Este un fapt. O dovedeste inrudirea noastra genetica cu toate vietuitoarele. Bine, ai putea spune ca D-zeu a utilizat aceasi materie prima si s-a folosit de schitze asemanatoare - de aici unele similitudini.



Acest topic a fost editat de mothman: 9 Jul 2009, 01:45 PM

Atata aveam nevoie sa-mi spui...
Ca sa continuam discutia noastra initiala, s-ar zice ca se poate presupune ca o fiinta ar putea fi judecata pentru acel oricat de mic grad de libertate pe care il are.




Daca ai putut cumva observa, nici eu nu am contrazis... In plus tu cumva ai completat asemanarea cu toate vietuitoarele, ceea ce este si mai bine. Problema este ca tu te uiti numai la "lut"( material), nu si la modelul creatiei.

Pai cel mai probabil nu exista nimic. Si chiar daca ar exista ceva undeva, in alta dimensiune. Nu pot concepe niciun mecanism prin care sa poata fi accesata acea dimensiune de catre un individ. Odata ce inceteaza sa bata inima si sangele sa irige creierul dispare si cugetul si simtirea omului si odata cu ele dispare omul. Nu vad pe ce cale s-ar pastra macar o farama din identitatea cuiva si sa transceada in alta dimensiune. Daca incetezi sa simti si sa gandesti, incetezi sa mai existi, iar ca sa simti ai nevoie de organe de simt, iar ca sa gandesti ai nevoie de creier. Moartea fizica le face nefuntionale atat organele de simt cat si creierul, deci cum poate continua existenta? Cum poti accesa o alta dimensiune chiar si daca ea exista?



Pai eu de exemplu nu ma simt responsabil pentru tot ce se intampla. De fapt nu ma simt responsabil pentru nimic din ceea ce mi se intampla. Ma simt responsabil pentru felul in care reactionez la ceea ce mi se intampla. Si cred ca aici e cheia. Cu cat intelegi mai bine ceea ce ti se intampla, cu atat poti reactiona mai bine. Credinta te impiedica sa intelegi prea bine ceea ce ti se intampla. La un moment dat vei spune: "asa a vrut Dumnezeu" si gata, ai incheiat discutia.
Cat despre scopul suprem, al cui e scopul ala? Eu prefer sa fie scopul meu, creat de mine, nu scopul suprem al cuiva din care fac si eu parte...


Eu cred ca dimpotriva, ateii sunt cei mai echilibrati oameni si lipsiti de conflicte interne si sunt atei tocmai pentru ca nu au nevoie sa echilibreze nimic printr-o credinta.

---------
Eu cred ca dimpotriva, ateii sunt cei mai echilibrati oameni si lipsiti de conflicte interne si sunt atei tocmai pentru ca nu au nevoie sa echilibreze nimic printr-o credinta.
---------
sunt echilibraţi aparent, dar nici aia... când nu ai nici un Dzeu e uşor să fii „echilibrat”... trip ya...

cei mistuiţi de focul cunoaşterii sacre ard în fiecare clipă şi renasc...

Feriţi-vă de sintagma OM ECHILBRAT a psihologiei... căci aşa zisul „om chilbrat” e de fapt un monstru... şi să ştiţi aşa: nu există om echilibrat... ci cel mult „în echilibru” dar pe un plan care este mult prea neomogen, cel de dinainte să ţi se „rupă apele”...

corect spus omul trebuie să fie STĂPÂN PE EL ÎNSUŞI, Omul primordial nu este un vârf al vreunei perfecţiuni ci e o NORMĂ...
rectificarea se face prin multe transmutări, inclusiv cea a psihologicului în spiritual...

Acest topic a fost editat de shapeshifter: 9 Jul 2009, 05:04 PM