Simone Vs. Dawkins

[Nick_A]

How do we see the universe in perspective? Richard Dawkins' perspective sees it as chaos. Simone Weil' perspective,sees it as perfect order. What does your perspective reveal to you?

The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.-- Richard Dawkins, "God's Utility Function," published in Scientific American (November, 1995), p. 85

“The sea is not less beautiful to our eye because we know that sometimes ships sink in it. On the contrary, it is more beautiful still. If the sea modified the movement of its waves to spare a boat, it would be a being possessing discernment and choice, and not this fluid that is perfectly obedient to all external pressures. It is this perfect obedience that is its beauty.”

“All the horrors that are produced in this world are like the folds imprinted on the waves by gravity. This is why they contain beauty. Sometimes a poem, like the Iliad, renders this beauty.”

“Man can never escape obedience to God. A creature cannot not obey. The only choice offered to man as an intelligent and free creature, is to desire obedience or not to desire it. If he does not desire it, he perpetually obeys nevertheless, as a thing subject to mechanical necessity. If he does desire obedience, he remains subject to mechanical necessity, but a new necessity is added on, a necessity constituted by the laws that are proper to supernatural things. Certain actions become impossible for him, while others happen through him, sometimes despite him.”

Excerpt from: Thoughts without order concerning the love of God, in an essay entitled L'amour de Dieu et le malheur (The Love of God and affliction). Simone Weil

[bernee51]

Is it? That's news to me.

Either you are a denier of the truth of Buddhism or we have a difference of opinion.

I refer to the five aggregates and their divisions. They are not unity.

http://www.buddhaweb.org/6.html

Nor are they the Self - nor 'real'.

The small 'i's do not exist - they are illusion. They are projections of the screen of the 'I', the Self that is common to all.

Do you mean that the aggregates such as perception and its many i's do not exist?

Only as objects in the awareness of "I".

This can only be a subjective belief. Self enquiry reveals that the 'soul' like the ego is a product of the mind.

Actually the development of the soul begins with the development of our emotional aggregate. The emotions reconcile the disparity between consciousness and our physical selves. This is why Christianity for example values the attention of the heart.

Indeed. And when the physico-conscious being ceases to exist so too the soul.

Conscious evolution and mechanical evolution are inextricably bound as the former cannot and did not occur without the latter.

Conscious evolution is just the conscious return to where conscious involution initiated from. In that sense, once involution is complete, evolution can occur mechanically up to a point and then with help from above, make the transition into conscious evolution.

This cab only be a matter of faith - and subjective opinion. It may look to you to be that only alternative but your denial of any other alternative does not make you opinion fact.

The Self - 'I' - is our true nature it is not a potential. Without it we would not exist. Realization of this Self, however, is a different matter.

Man is dual natured.

This is an illusion. You are caught in the illusion. Shadows on the wall of your cave.

Arising from below he is a representative of organic mechanical life on earth. This is our body. He also has a higher nature that involved from above.

There is no 'above' to 'involve' from. This is your rationalization of your a priori belief in god. The mythic god in which you believe )rightly) assaults your rationality. To make sense of it you have built a rational construct to answer the many questions a belief mythic god leaves unanswered

All other than Self is imagined. All imagination is a product of the mind.

When you stub your toe, do you believe that the pain is imagined?

How real is the pain in the toe I stubbed last year?

To call others considered opinions denial is arrogance in the extreme.

I don't see why. It appears to me that emotional denial denies impartiality necessary to become more open to experience. This isn't a new observation.

Being 'not new' does not counter its arrogance and lack of substantiation.

Maximum evolutionary growth occurs at the border of challenge and support.

I think you are referring here to adaptation rather than conscious evolution.

Not at all - this 'universal law' apples to all aspects of evolution. Think what it takes to evolve in consciousness and you will see the challenge/support ratio at work.

[Nick_A]

Bernee

Nor are they the Self - nor 'real'.

Well if they are not real, the function they serve which is the same as all organic life does is also not real. There is a lot of unreality going on in the jungle which seems real to me.

Only as objects in the awareness of "I".

A virus which is a mechanical form of life is not in the awareness of I yet the virus is real enough that it cause a cold. Denial can only go so far without becoming truly absurd.

Indeed. And when the physico-conscious being ceases to exist so too the soul.

Sometimes yes and sometimes no. If the seed has matured to be capable of survival on its own, it may not perish.

This cab only be a matter of faith - and subjective opinion. It may look to you to be that only alternative but your denial of any other alternative does not make you opinion fact.

It is verified through inner empiricism. From the Gospel of Thomas:

(3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

This is an illusion. You are caught in the illusion. Shadows on the wall of your cave.

Sez you!

There is no 'above' to 'involve' from. This is your rationalization of your a priori belief in god. The mythic god in which you believe )rightly) assaults your rationality. To make sense of it you have built a rational construct to answer the many questions a belief mythic god leaves unanswered

It is only through denial that you cannot experience "As above, so below" as was known even in ancient times.

Being 'not new' does not counter its arrogance and lack of substantiation.

Even modern psychology is advanced enough to admit the reality of denial and document how people live in denial. But for you it is arrogance to admit to the obvious.

Not at all - this 'universal law' apples to all aspects of evolution. Think what it takes to evolve in consciousness and you will see the challenge/support ratio at work.

If an animal species adapts to nature because of an increased challenge to its survival, this is not evolution. Its being is the same and just adapted to circumstances.

[bernee51]

Bernee

Nor are they the Self - nor 'real'.

Well if they are not real, the function they serve which is the same as all organic life does is also not real. There is a lot of unreality going on in the jungle which seems real to me.

Yes - you are well constrained within your cave.

Only as objects in the awareness of "I".

A virus which is a mechanical form of life is not in the awareness of I yet the virus is real enough that it cause a cold. Denial can only go so far without becoming truly absurd.

Just because you are unable to 'realize' the awareness does not mean it is not there.nor its effects felt. The shadows seen in your cave are thought to be real have real effects. The real virus (though unseen) also has real effects.

I agree with you on 'denial' and absurdity.

Indeed. And when the physico-conscious being ceases to exist so too the soul.

Sometimes yes and sometimes no. If the seed has matured to be capable of survival on its own, it may not perish.

The soul is an emergent phenomena of a being’s mental faculty. And mental faculty is an emergent phenomena of the brain’s neural network.

No neural network - no soul.

soul is an emergent phenomena of a being’s mental faculty. And mental faculty is an emergent phenomena of the brain’s neural network.

This cab only be a matter of faith - and subjective opinion. It may look to you to be that only alternative but your denial of any other alternative does not make you opinion fact.

It is verified through inner empiricism.

Verified as a subjective reality.

From the Gospel of Thomas:

(3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

Exactly - the whole of reality, subjectively, is a construct. Why can't you see this?

This is an illusion. You are caught in the illusion. Shadows on the wall of your cave.

Sez you!

My cave is my cave., and yours yours. Each constructs his own. How we choose to populate it is personal.

There is no 'above' to 'involve' from. This is your rationalization of your a priori belief in god. The mythic god in which you believe )rightly) assaults your rationality. To make sense of it you have built a rational construct to answer the many questions a belief mythic god leaves unanswered

It is only through denial that you cannot experience "As above, so below" as was known even in ancient times.

It is your interpretation of "As above. so below" that is flawed. It is the illusion of duality. There is no "above' or "below". There is only One. It means "One Taste".

Being 'not new' does not counter its arrogance and lack of substantiation.

Even modern psychology is advanced enough to admit the reality of denial and document how people live in denial. But for you it is arrogance to admit to the obvious.

I refer to you warped use of the term - not the term itself.

Not at all - this 'universal law' apples to all aspects of evolution. Think what it takes to evolve in consciousness and you will see the challenge/support ratio at work.

If an animal species adapts to nature because of an increased challenge to its survival, this is not evolution. Its being is the same and just adapted to circumstances.

Of course it is evolution which is simply change over time. The animal has included and transcended its previous form

[QED]

Bernee

Nor are they the Self - nor 'real'.

Well if they are not real, the function they serve which is the same as all organic life does is also not real. There is a lot of unreality going on in the jungle which seems real to me.

Only as objects in the awareness of "I".

A virus which is a mechanical form of life is not in the awareness of I yet the virus is real enough that it cause a cold. Denial can only go so far without becoming truly absurd.

Nick_A, Douglas Hofstadter's thesis about "I's" being "strange loops" makes far more sense to me than what you seem to be proposing. He relates the "I-ness" of the mind to the properties of self-referential systems and the paradoxical illusions they can create. It may be another easy put-down to talk about the reality of experience and the futility of its denial, but there's much that can be said for consciousness being a kind of illusion.

[Nick_A]

Bernee

Yes - you are well constrained within your cave.

Which is not to deny the results of the interactions of the life process being carried out in the jungle. You may claim it doesn't exist and I see the collective results of this continual interactions of organic life being the purpose of organic life on earth.

Just because you are unable to 'realize' the awareness does not mean it is not there.nor its effects felt. The shadows seen in your cave are thought to be real have real effects. The real virus (though unseen) also has real effects.

One minute all this is imagination and then all of a sudden something exists I is unaware of. I may get Bernee to admit an objective universe yet.

The soul is an emergent phenomena of a being’s mental faculty. And mental faculty is an emergent phenomena of the brain’s neural network.

No, you are constructing an exalted ego from defensive mental constructs. It is very dangerous to confuse this with the seed of the soul.

Verified as a subjective reality.

Which is not to say it is not connected directly with objective reality. In contrast, La La Land is fantasy with no connection to objective reality.

Exactly - the whole of reality, subjectively, is a construct. Why can't you see this?

I do. I just also recognize a quality of consciousness caapable of objectively comprehending it and distinguishing between the wheat and the tares.

Purity is the power to contemplate defilement. - Simone Weil

There are degrees of experiential conscious purity that lead back to the source of pure consciousness.

My cave is my cave., and yours yours. Each constructs his own. How we choose to populate it is personal.

A minority prefers leaving the cave rather than continually redecorating it.

It is your interpretation of "As above. so below" that is flawed. It is the illusion of duality. There is no "above' or "below". There is only One. It means "One Taste".

Now even the duality of yin and yang is a delusion. The only thing apparently that is not a delusion is Bernee's fantasy.

I refer to you warped use of the term - not the term itself.

When people deny for whatever reason the possibility of intelligence and consciousness greater than their own, there is no logical verification for this denial and just denies gradually acquiring necessary impartiality. You see this as warped. OK

Of course it is evolution which is simply change over time. The animal has included and transcended its previous form

For you, running around in a circle brings change over time so is an evolutionary process. For me, all the body is doing is adapting until it dies. When it dies it no longer has its previous form. Has it transcended it?

[Nick_A]

Bernee

Nor are they the Self - nor 'real'.

Well if they are not real, the function they serve which is the same as all organic life does is also not real. There is a lot of unreality going on in the jungle which seems real to me.

Only as objects in the awareness of "I".

A virus which is a mechanical form of life is not in the awareness of I yet the virus is real enough that it cause a cold. Denial can only go so far without becoming truly absurd.

Nick_A, Douglas Hofstadter's thesis about "I's" being "strange loops" makes far more sense to me than what you seem to be proposing. He relates the "I-ness" of the mind to the properties of self-referential systems and the paradoxical illusions they can create. It may be another easy put-down to talk about the reality of experience and the futility of its denial, but there's much that can be said for consciousness being a kind of illusion.

Consciousness by definition cannot be an illuison. When we are not conscious as in the great majority of our daily activities, imagination takes the place of consciousness in our lives.

I haven't read the book so don't know if he is referring to the creation of contents of consciouosness or trying to show how these loops allow for the experience of consciousness.

The movie "Groundhog Day" was made to introduce this idea of repetition which could be considered loops. As Groundhog Day repeated over and over, our hero became impartial to his subjective interpretations during the day and became capable of a conscious experience of the day rather than continued reaction from imagination based on self justification.

But seeing that Dennett is in the book, my guess is that it deals solely with the creation of contents of consciousness but that is only a guess. I hope I'm wrong.

[bernee51]

Bernee

Yes - you are well constrained within your cave.

Which is not to deny the results of the interactions of the life process being carried out in the jungle. You may claim it doesn't exist and I see the collective results of this continual interactions of organic life being the purpose of organic life on earth.

Just because you are unable to 'realize' the awareness does not mean it is not there.nor its effects felt. The shadows seen in your cave are thought to be real have real effects. The real virus (though unseen) also has real effects.

One minute all this is imagination and then all of a sudden something exists I is unaware of. I may get Bernee to admit an objective universe yet.

You haven't been paying attention Nick - either that or you are overwhelmed by your flatland views. I'll spell it out again for you. Existence is made up of holons. At the core we are atoms and molecules - the physiosphere. It is our interaction at this level with what makes up the physiosphere that stops me from falling through the chair I am sitting on and allows my fingers to interact with the keyboard. Incorporating and transcending the physioshere is the biosphere. At this (and the previous) I interact with the virus you mentioned. It's biosphere and mine interact to cause the physical and biological symptoms. Incorporating and transcending these is the noosphere - that of the mind. All that occurs here is a mental construct. The aforesaid virus however can have an effect here as well - for some the symptoms may make them 'feel' miserable. Others may rejoice the symptoms as it allows them a day or two off work.

The beautiful girl may be very real in the physiosphere and biosphere however to her lover she is an attraction, to an aesthete a distraction and to a wolf a good meal.

The recognition of any 'purpose' of organic life on this planet rests squarely in the noosphere.

The soul is an emergent phenomena of a being’s mental faculty. And mental faculty is an emergent phenomena of the brain’s neural network.

No, you are constructing an exalted ego from defensive mental constructs. It is very dangerous to confuse this with the seed of the soul.

Not at all - the soul is made up of objects that appear on the screen of consciousness. A soul consists of all thought, intellect, emotions, memories, hopes, dreams, aspirations, suffering, loves, joys, hates, sorrows, regrets, creativity, spite, knowledge, learning, understanding, empathy, sympathy, pity, greed, lust, desire, initiative, and instinct of each and every human.

Why is my apparent confusion 'dangerous'?

Verified as a subjective reality.

Which is not to say it is not connected directly with objective reality. In contrast, La La Land is fantasy with no connection to objective reality.

And the connection I have clearly pointed out above.

Exactly - the whole of reality, subjectively, is a construct. Why can't you see this?

I do. I just also recognize a quality of consciousness capable of objectively comprehending it and distinguishing between the wheat and the tares.

The qualia that are attributed to wheat and/or tares are constructs on the very consciousness you wish to use to distinguish.

Purity is the power to contemplate defilement. - Simone Weil

There are degrees of experiential conscious purity that lead back to the source of pure consciousness.

There is consciousness and the objects of consciousness. Understanding 'pure consciousness' is a matter of realization.

Seeing you like to quote others, here's one for you.

The real world is beyond our thought and ideas; we see it through the net of our desires, divided into pleasure and pain, right and wrong, inner and outer. To see the universe as it is, you must step beyond the net. It is not so hard to do, for the net is full of holes. Sri Nisargadatta.

My cave is my cave., and yours yours. Each constructs his own. How we choose to populate it is personal.

A minority prefers leaving the cave rather than continually redecorating it.

And those really 'in the know' understand the cave does not exist - it is a construct on consciousness. An object.

It is your interpretation of "As above. so below" that is flawed. It is the illusion of duality. There is no "above' or "below". There is only One. It means "One Taste".

Now even the duality of yin and yang is a delusion. The only thing apparently that is not a delusion is Bernee's fantasy.

Not 'delusion' Nick - 'illusion'. My fantasies are certainly illusion. Transcend yin and yang to understand wholeness. My experience of 'One Taste' is a reality.

I refer to you warped use of the term - not the term itself.

When people deny for whatever reason the possibility of intelligence and consciousness greater than their own, there is no logical verification for this denial and just denies gradually acquiring necessary impartiality. You see this as warped. OK

What is warped are those that fill gaps in their understanding with fantasies of gods and higher consciousnesses.

As to intelligences greater than my own...I interact with many - some even on this forum.

[Nick_A]

Bernee.

It seems as though you've become infatuated with Ken Wilber and have created some sort of lopsided theory that glorifies imagination . When we get into cosmology and the chain of being, I prefer my sources. Of course you will think who could be naive enough to question this rage of the day, If you are interested, plow through this article for example for an intelligent explanation of certain deficiencies.

http://www.integralscience.org/wilber.html

The fact that Wilber’s four-quadrant model excludes the deeper subtle or transcendent levels of ontological reality is a very serious defect: Two quadrants of his four quadrant model omit the most significant levels of the great chain of being, and the model is not therefore a faithful integration of the great chain with the four modern value spheres, as he claims. Moreover, because these deeper levels of reality are excluded, his model purges nature and the cosmos of intrinsic depth and meaning. As Wilber himself writes, “Although consciousness and value and meaning are intrinsic to the depth of the Kosmos, they cannot be found in the cosmos. That is, they inhere in the Left Hand dimensions of the Kosmos, not in the Right Hand surfaces” (A Brief History of Everything, p. 245). This assertion is based on the assumption (contradicting the great chain of knowing/being) that the mind and soul can not take exteriors as their objects, that exteriors can only be known through bodily sensations alone. Of course, if we artificially restrict our knowledge of being to perception alone, we will only see the perceptual surfaces of objects. We are then blind to seeing any depth in the cosmos and we reduce the meaning of "exterior" to the physical alone, as Wilber has done.

Cosmology is rough stuff. It opens doors but only a relative few stop arguing long enough to comprehend it

Not at all - the soul is made up of objects that appear on the screen of consciousness. A soul consists of all thought, intellect, emotions, memories, hopes, dreams, aspirations, suffering, loves, joys, hates, sorrows, regrets, creativity, spite, knowledge, learning, understanding, empathy, sympathy, pity, greed, lust, desire, initiative, and instinct of each and every human.

Why is my apparent confusion 'dangerous'?

All what you've described are contents of consciousness, what appears on the screen. they are the result of our fallen ego that has allowed imagination to replace consciousness. It isn't the seed of the soul which begins with a quality of emotional awareness not of as earthly origin. To confuse them is to deny the beginning.

The qualia that are attributed to wheat and/or tares are constructs on the very consciousness you wish to use to distinguish.

Our being is composed of both qualities we are born with and those we acquire in life. the ones we are born with are the wheat and the acquired are the tares. If we don't distinguish them, the wheat is gradually lost.

The real world is beyond our thought and ideas; we see it through the net of our desires, divided into pleasure and pain, right and wrong, inner and outer. To see the universe as it is, you must step beyond the net. It is not so hard to do, for the net is full of holes. Sri Nisargadatta.

It is hard to do since our dependence on cave life for our meaning and survival inhibits the necessary aspiration.

Transcend yin and yang to understand wholeness.

How do you do that?

What is warped are those that fill gaps in their understanding with fantasies of gods and higher consciousnesses

Written like a true expert in modern day denial.

As to intelligences greater than my own...I interact with many - some even on this forum.

You refuse the humility to even conceive that in relation to higher conscious intelligence, you are as an ant is to you. Impossible you say!! Heh, heh, heh.

[bernee51]

Bernee.

It seems as though you've become infatuated with Ken Wilber and have created some sort of lopsided theory that glorifies imagination . When we get into cosmology and the chain of being, I prefer my sources. Of course you will think who could be naive enough to question this rage of the day, If you are interested, plow through this article for example for an intelligent explanation of certain deficiencies.

http://www.integralscience.org/wilber.html

The fact that Wilber’s four-quadrant model excludes the deeper subtle or transcendent levels of ontological reality is a very serious defect: Two quadrants of his four quadrant model omit the most significant levels of the great chain of being, and the model is not therefore a faithful integration of the great chain with the four modern value spheres, as he claims. Moreover, because these deeper levels of reality are excluded, his model purges nature and the cosmos of intrinsic depth and meaning. As Wilber himself writes, “Although consciousness and value and meaning are intrinsic to the depth of the Kosmos, they cannot be found in the cosmos. That is, they inhere in the Left Hand dimensions of the Kosmos, not in the Right Hand surfaces” (A Brief History of Everything, p. 245). This assertion is based on the assumption (contradicting the great chain of knowing/being) that the mind and soul can not take exteriors as their objects, that exteriors can only be known through bodily sensations alone. Of course, if we artificially restrict our knowledge of being to perception alone, we will only see the perceptual surfaces of objects. We are then blind to seeing any depth in the cosmos and we reduce the meaning of "exterior" to the physical alone, as Wilber has done.

Cosmology is rough stuff. It opens doors but only a relative few stop arguing long enough to comprehend it

Thanks Nick - I am well aware of the article, having read it some years ago. Tell me - did you just quote mine what you believe suits your argument or did you actually read the entire article.

More to the point - have you read any of Wilber?

In understanding Wilber's work I take his own advice which is essentially the same as that of the Buddha:

Believe nothing because a wise man said it.
Believe nothing because it is generally held.
Believe nothing because it is written.
Believe nothing because it is said to be divine.
Believe nothing because someone else believes it.
But believe only what you yourself judge to be true.

Wilber's work does indeed have its shortcomings but nowhere near as short as that of those who do not even approach the topic.

Not at all - the soul is made up of objects that appear on the screen of consciousness. A soul consists of all thought, intellect, emotions, memories, hopes, dreams, aspirations, suffering, loves, joys, hates, sorrows, regrets, creativity, spite, knowledge, learning, understanding, empathy, sympathy, pity, greed, lust, desire, initiative, and instinct of each and every human.

Why is my apparent confusion 'dangerous'?

All what you've described are contents of consciousness, what appears on the screen. they are the result of our fallen ego that has allowed imagination to replace consciousness.

I am full aware that I have described the contents of consciousness for that is where the soul resides - as a content of consciousness. The ego has not 'fallen', cannot 'fall' for the ego is an illusion - a content of consciousness. Imagination does not replace consciousness, it cannot. It can only reside in consciousness. Problems - which we all face - occur when imagination and ego are assumed to be consciousness.

It isn't the seed of the soul which begins with a quality of emotional awareness not of as earthly origin. To confuse them is to deny the beginning.

"Not of earthly origin" = a shadow on the wall of your cave.

To claim as such is to deny the "Self'. It is to a fall into the very trap you are warning others of - mistaking the transitory for the real.

The qualia that are attributed to wheat and/or tares are constructs on the very consciousness you wish to use to distinguish.

Our being is composed of both qualities we are born with and those we acquire in life. the ones we are born with are the wheat and the acquired are the tares. If we don't distinguish them, the wheat is gradually lost.

Both are illusory. We are born with a consciousness which is conditioned from before birth. This consciousness has the potential to evolve through many levels. Getting stuck (partly or completely) or 'evolving' is the 'wheat and the tares' - the illusions of individual self - toxic and non toxic - that affect the realization or not of conscious potential.

The real world is beyond our thought and ideas; we see it through the net of our desires, divided into pleasure and pain, right and wrong, inner and outer. To see the universe as it is, you must step beyond the net. It is not so hard to do, for the net is full of holes. Sri Nisargadatta.

It is hard to do since our dependence on cave life for our meaning and survival inhibits the necessary aspiration.

All it takes is a realization of the true nature of being to begin to collapse the cave. Stress and trauma as well as pleasure and attachment, however, are strong cement which seek to bind the walls. Seeking meaning in the only place it can be found aids in the process of realization.

Transcend yin and yang to understand wholeness.

How do you do that?

"Know thySelf"

As to intelligences greater than my own...I interact with many - some even on this forum.

You refuse the humility to even conceive that in relation to higher conscious intelligence, you are as an ant is to you. Impossible you say!! Heh, heh, heh.

I have no idea what this rant means...do you?

[Rathpig]

I have no idea what this rant means...do you?

I've been lurking along in some of these Nick_A threads, and it seems that a pattern of thinly veiled ad hominems serve as rebuttal in most of his replies. Philosophy is not really served by reading a few self-serving books then replying to every counter-argument with "denier", "ego", and questions of humility. Emotion is for weddings and funerals, yet this is some of the most "emo" philosophizing I have witnessed. I love the mystical theistic approach.

I'm sure this is something everyone has noticed, but I feel better about the issue now that I've aired my thoughts.


signed: Rathpig the Egoistic Denier