The scourge of modernism.

[TasteyPies]

And what are your 14 points on the world having less time than human species? And what are the dinosaurs? Did they live together, like in the Filstones?

Explain the dates of the human species

And yes no killing in the garden of eden so the dinosours wouldnt be hostile....as for the household chores i doubt it

(discuss in the thread i made)

[Besimudo]

"Of course I believe that everything makes nice little elliptical orbits around the sun for the most part, but as far as relativity goes, it is perfectly legitimate to believe that the earth is the centre of the universe."

Indeed...I would argue that the world is the habitat of man, and man being the measure of all things - that the world is the centre, symbolically. Our fathers spoke of the symbols of the universe, not ephemeral physic, which changes from day to day... and becomes disagreeable from decade to decade. Modernists are obsessed with the changing, improving universe, and evolution serves this egoism. Pragmatism is rational but it is cut down eventually and hence man looses vision of the eternal. Tradition simply wants us, as humans, to realise that the universe has purpose and existence is meaningful. This is our solace, living in a changing imperfect state.

[CloudSquallandZidane]

I dont know u have me stumped with some of the points u make. And i think ur right whats in at the moment does seem to change probably from our need to leave a mark on our world in terms of history.

One thing hough about the embryos and curing disease... 'Sometimes the needs of the many out way the needs of the few.'

[Shadow Nexus]

Modernists are obsessed with the changing, improving universe, and evolution serves this egoism.

Evolution is not improving, evolution is changing. And it is a scientifical theory, not an ideological one. Without the modern attitude you seem to critizize, we would still be in a flat world whith the sun and planets going arround it.

Tradition simply wants us, as humans, to realise that the universe has purpose and existence is meaningful. This is our solace, living in a changing imperfect state.

Yet, why does the universe have a prupouse? Why is existence meaningful? I can't find sense to the origin of the universe, and I have no evidence to believe it has one, although I can hope it does, because it would be preety sad our existance is just a fruit of chance. But it could be. And God may not exist, nor eternal life, and we may just be complex computers that appeared out of pure chance. A sad idea, though.

[Besimudo]

Evolution is not improving, evolution is changing. And it is a scientifical theory, not an ideological one. Without the modern attitude you seem to critizize, we would still be in a flat world whith the sun and planets going arround it.

This is Darwinism at its mildest, where the primitive old world is fundamentally flawed and the modern is better. At its worst we have eugenics. Englishmen believed themselves and their modern west to be above the primitive Africans. However, humans in Africa enjoyed a rich and meaningful life; this was seen in their appreciation of nature and symbolism. And yes they believed in a "...flat world with the sun and planets going around it." What is wrong with this existence?

David Suzuki said that when he studied science he began to feel superior to nature... it was only when returned to tradition that the ecology came alive and became meaningful. Darwinism took away the meaning of nature. Additionally, complex formation make evolution improbable - and it has not been scientifically observed in the lab, with reproducible results... so until then it remains scientific ideology.


"And God may not exist, nor eternal life, and we may just be complex computers that appeared out of pure chance. A sad idea, though."

It does not matter what tradition - but they all assert that this natural changing world is a reflection of the eternal non-changing world. This unchanging aspect may not literally exist as we know it... it is merely a mode of knowing it. Plato had the forms, Christianity has heaven and Taoism has the nameless Tao. All it this means is that for this world there exists another world. In order to study this other world we need messages from it, wether by inspiration or from the prophetic voices. One cannot explain this world by looking within in it ... we cannot explain this worlds origins by looking at it alone. We must ascend outward to understand the inward.

[Shadow Nexus]

Englishmen believed themselves and their modern west to be above the primitive Africans. However, humans in Africa enjoyed a rich and meaningful life; this was seen in their appreciation of nature and symbolism. And yes they believed in a "...flat world with the sun and planets going around it." What is wrong with this existence?

We are scientifically superior, that no one can deny. No, no, I'm not an etnocentrist, I believe they may have many factors where they are superior, such as knowing how to live without a ridiculously large opulency.

As for a rich, meaningful life...I don't know where the meaningful life is. Of course, I don't know what their activity was, but aren't you idealizing it a little bit? Maybe they were not so happy about their lifes, maybe htey depended too much on the fact they could not predict what nature would do, and thus being very vulnerable to the crops being awful that year, and producing illness and hunger. I don't know about African tribes, but in the islands of the south, Stevenson speaks about how illnesses developing in the forests have killed 80% of the population in a side of the island (I am refering to In the South Seas, I recommend that book). Then again, yes, people in Samoa did not have those problems, but they also knew more.

Investigation arround the nature of the cosmos is something natural in our culture, we wonder why this happens. Ortega and Gasset said that when the western saw a flower, he would pluck it out of the ground to observe it's roots and wonder why it grows, what is the arkhé of the things. An eastern will just stare at the flower in awe. I think both outlooks have positive things for development, but I'd rather have both.

It does not matter what tradition - but they all assert that this natural changing world is a reflection of the eternal non-changing world. This unchanging aspect may not literally exist as we know it... it is merely a mode of knowing it. Plato had the forms, Christianity has heaven and Taoism has the nameless Tao. All it this means is that for this world there exists another world. In order to study this other world we need messages from it, wether by inspiration or from the prophetic voices.

The Tao is something like the logos of everything, the eternal flow, the unchanging movement of nature, the arkhé. And the Tao that can be named is not the true Tao, or in other words, we are unable to fully understand the logos of everything. That I understand, and I agree with. Science is merely a strategy, a way of tying up truth, but mystery hides behind it. Yet this is a mystery that cannot be named or comprehended, as it trascends space and time. Science, however, is the useful rule, and yes, always bound to be denied, to be changed, but a way for us to attempt to understand at least a part of the everything. Rules we apply to nature to satisfy the question natural in our culture, and probably in the human race: Why?

Inspiration and prophetic voices? Inspiration through meditation? How do you know the words revealed through meditation are in fact revealing the mystery or if those are just interior revelations from yourself to yourself? Prophetic voices? How can I know I can trust the prophet, how do I know he's not an impostor?