Human Paradox
The human paradox might correctly be said to be: Humans are the one member of the animal kingdom wherein many members consider themselves to be also a member of a supernatural kingdom.
I define a paradox here to mean a common sense view of reality that is a logical contradiction, which presents a problem that cannot be solved but only ameliorated in some way through the process of our comprehending its nature.
Because most, but not all, humans are possessed by this paradoxical world view we pay a heavy price due to our constant effort to preserve this “fantastic ambition rather than understanding its source and making corrections accordingly.
As a member of the animal kingdom we consume to live. We have an appetite and in feeding that appetite we often kill and consume other animals. We feel good after we consume and we will do whatever is necessary to continue to consume and to live. We have an absolute attraction to Eros, i.e. we have a consuming desire to do what is necessary to preserve our life.
Good is that which promotes our life and evil is that which threatens our life.
Eros drives us to a desire to live forever. Our brain has developed to the point at which we recognize that we will die but we are driven by the urge not to die.
“Man transcends death not only by continuing to feed his appetites, but especially by finding a meaning for his life, some kind of larger scheme into which he fits¦the “immortal self can take very spiritual forms, and spirituality is not a simple reflex of hunger and fear. It is an expression of the will to live, the burning desire of the creature to count, to make a difference on the planet because he has lived, has emerged from it, and has worked, suffered, and died.
Many humans express this common sense view of belonging to a supernatural world through their religious belief; however, even those who are not religious are often captives of the mind/body dichotomy that is so prevalent in Western philosophy.
I think that to deal effectively with this paradox we must become sophisticated enough to comprehend its source and to modify it at that point or not at all.
What do you think?
Quotes from “Escape from Evil by Ernest Becker
Human Paradox
Human Paradox
I believe the source of the idea of the ‘immortal self’ stems from the ‘personal experience’ of life. I am fairly sure that religion originally formed out of the need for an explanation for the experience of being alive.We stand now at a paradoxical time in humanity whereby we have lost sight of our very early ancestors’ perspective of life, transgressed technology, and reached a new level of human spirituality. Yet, one question still remains.
I was raised within a family that believed in spirit and afterlife. As a youngster, I believed likewise. However, my inquisitive spirit and desire for knowledge for how things work soon found anomalies.
For many years, I had no answers. However, in the last decade, I have found some clues to the answers.
In the last decade, I started coming to grips with particle physics. One thing is clear here. Particles do not like touching each other let alone possessing each other. For anything to exist, it has to be made of particles. If spirit bodies exist, they must be formed of particles. It is the basic rule of the universe. Therefore, it is impossible for a spirit body to possess a physical body.
I have seen arguments that spirit bodies exist in another dimension. It should be borne in mind that the dimensions exist alongside each other at all times. They are not mystical, they are always there imposed one upon the other. However, to all extents and purposes, the ‘unseen’ dimensions, such as time, depend on the dimensions of space and motion to exist. As I have often said, if four-dimensional beings existed, we would be able to see their three-dimensional aspects. Beyond the three-dimensional model, other-dimensional beings would have no substance. I do not, by the former statement, rule out beings that exist having dimensions that do not include the three spatial dimensions. But, they are unlikely. The dimensions tend to build up upon each other and are very interdependent. One of the things that infuriates me about M-theory is that I have yet to see anything that actually states what these 11 or 12 dimensions are.
So, if a spirit exists, it must have particles. You know, bosons, and mesons, and all that jazz. And two things can be said about particles. They all like to get together and party, but they don’t like to touch each other. In fact, if two particles get close to touching, there can be an almighty explosion. Thus, there’s no way my body can be possessed by a spirit body.
So having ruled out the idea that I am nothing more than what I am in the physical, I was left with one final problem. Here we go.
I have a couple of books on the subject of that kind of meditation that takes a person beyond the limits of their senses. I’ve tried this meditation, but I haven’t got the patience to go to the depths that these guys go to. Nonetheless, when these guys get to the limits of their senses, they find nothing. There are no bright, white lights, sonorous frequencies, et cetera. There is nothing.
That tells me that our experience of life is the sum of our sensory input and the computations of our brains. Fancy that. That means also that anything with a sense, be it nothing more than touch or the sensation of temperature, will have an experience of being alive.
That also means that when my senses are all dead, I will no longer experience anything. Full stop, dead.
Yet, I am left with one antagonising matter. Maybe it’s just me hanging on to the idea of immortality. I don’t know. I simply cannot wrap my head around this final matter.
I can completely get into the idea that we are nothing more than sparks of burnt tinder flying up through the air from a bonfire. Fine. But why should it be so personal? If it weren’t so personal, I wouldn’t be bothered by the idea that I will exist for a fraction of the lifetime of this universe thus making all my beliefs, thoughts and ideas an utter needless frovility.
Has anyone here ever read Stephen Baxter’s “Evolution?
Human Paradox
I have not read "Evolution", tell us something about it.
I think that our relgious drive is a result of our attempt for immortality.
I think that one substantial consequence of this mind/body dichotomy is that today we are left with a Sunday-school morality as our guide for adaptation of relationships in a high tech world.
I think that our relgious drive is a result of our attempt for immortality.
I think that one substantial consequence of this mind/body dichotomy is that today we are left with a Sunday-school morality as our guide for adaptation of relationships in a high tech world.
Human Paradox
In 'Evolution', Stephen Baxter presents a story based on research he conducted with the help of scientists. He traces evolution starting with the earliest mammal ancestor of our human species, through the present day (which has a nice twist to it because of our apparent intelligence), and onward to a possible future where humans have evolved into another creature altogether. The author does state that his story only depicts one possible future.
I agree in general with your thoughts about the role of religion being linked to immortality. One of nature's marvels, though, is the caterpillar/butterfly. I often wonder if the butterfly has any mnemonic sense of its life as a caterpillar. Though, it also dies eventually and does not become a caterpillar again.
Personally, I think religious organisations have been used purely to exert control over the bodies and minds of the masses.
I agree in general with your thoughts about the role of religion being linked to immortality. One of nature's marvels, though, is the caterpillar/butterfly. I often wonder if the butterfly has any mnemonic sense of its life as a caterpillar. Though, it also dies eventually and does not become a caterpillar again.
Personally, I think religious organisations have been used purely to exert control over the bodies and minds of the masses.
Human Paradox
Very interesting discussion you both have going here.
Yes, immortality is linked to religious belief systems but what has happened is that certain 'concepts' were carried into the religious arena and became distorted. I don't believe that the various ancient religions were trying so much to control the minds of people as much as they were trying to preserve the concepts, as polluted as they had already become as far back as 15,000 BC.
But to preserve information through time in the form of symbols these symbols would have to be thought of as sacred, something to be cherished and passed down to the next generation. These concepts in the form of symbols and digits is something that I have spent many years of my life investigating. We each live with these concepts on a fairly daily basis and are so surrounded by the symbols that we no longer see them and so inquiry as to their roots aren't generally sought.
Where the ancient echoes of immortality come into play is due to the concept of the 'Tree of Life'. Taking this one symbol as an example the ideas of reincarnation, spirit progression etc, came to be viewed literally instead of symbolically. Viewed in the right perspective this symbol belongs in the world of biology. With DNA carrying through the offspring an individual will live again and again and again with each new generation. And so the mystical concept of reincarnating into a new body is quite true, it has just distorted through time to become mystical.
It is my belief that at some far distant past, beyond the mists of forgotten time, much of what we know today, and perhaps more, was set down in the form of symbols to keep certain concepts from disappearing. All data will disintegrate with time be it paper, disks, stone, and anything else you can think off. What won't disintegrate are concepts set into the form of symbols and digits that would be passed down to the next generations.
I have only small clues as to why these concepts were placed into the form of symbols so very long ago. Geologists tell us that we have come through 4 ice-ages, ancient seers tell us that we have come through 4 earth cleansings. Quite the coincidence I'd say. Obviously some disaster was about to take place, or did take place, and small groups of survivors scattered over the planet wanted to make sure the knowledge did not die. Eventually after a few generations the knowledge started to be replaced by the symbols and the concepts slowly receded. Some of these symbols are numerical digits that came to be viewed as mystery or mystical numbers. There is nothing mystical about them. The numbers 3, 7, 9, simply explain our position in the solar system. We are the 3rd planet from the sun, the 7th coming in from the outside and at this time there are 9 in total.
I hope that I have explained this somewhat coherently. It had not been my intention to answer any threads as I was on my first coffee of the morning. And LOL, I need a few coffees in the morning to get me going.
Yes, immortality is linked to religious belief systems but what has happened is that certain 'concepts' were carried into the religious arena and became distorted. I don't believe that the various ancient religions were trying so much to control the minds of people as much as they were trying to preserve the concepts, as polluted as they had already become as far back as 15,000 BC.
But to preserve information through time in the form of symbols these symbols would have to be thought of as sacred, something to be cherished and passed down to the next generation. These concepts in the form of symbols and digits is something that I have spent many years of my life investigating. We each live with these concepts on a fairly daily basis and are so surrounded by the symbols that we no longer see them and so inquiry as to their roots aren't generally sought.
Where the ancient echoes of immortality come into play is due to the concept of the 'Tree of Life'. Taking this one symbol as an example the ideas of reincarnation, spirit progression etc, came to be viewed literally instead of symbolically. Viewed in the right perspective this symbol belongs in the world of biology. With DNA carrying through the offspring an individual will live again and again and again with each new generation. And so the mystical concept of reincarnating into a new body is quite true, it has just distorted through time to become mystical.
It is my belief that at some far distant past, beyond the mists of forgotten time, much of what we know today, and perhaps more, was set down in the form of symbols to keep certain concepts from disappearing. All data will disintegrate with time be it paper, disks, stone, and anything else you can think off. What won't disintegrate are concepts set into the form of symbols and digits that would be passed down to the next generations.
I have only small clues as to why these concepts were placed into the form of symbols so very long ago. Geologists tell us that we have come through 4 ice-ages, ancient seers tell us that we have come through 4 earth cleansings. Quite the coincidence I'd say. Obviously some disaster was about to take place, or did take place, and small groups of survivors scattered over the planet wanted to make sure the knowledge did not die. Eventually after a few generations the knowledge started to be replaced by the symbols and the concepts slowly receded. Some of these symbols are numerical digits that came to be viewed as mystery or mystical numbers. There is nothing mystical about them. The numbers 3, 7, 9, simply explain our position in the solar system. We are the 3rd planet from the sun, the 7th coming in from the outside and at this time there are 9 in total.
I hope that I have explained this somewhat coherently. It had not been my intention to answer any threads as I was on my first coffee of the morning. And LOL, I need a few coffees in the morning to get me going.
Human Paradox
Amber, that's quite an interesting post. These people that created the symbols must have been quite intellectually advanced compared to the average Joe around at the time. The implication in your post is that you are talking about a time a lot further beyond 15,000 years ago. I can, however, see how the concepts associated with the symbols you speak of would take on a different meaning to the general folk. A case of Chinese Whispers and a little help by those who would gain advantage from this distortion of the truth.
Your point about reincarnation through DNA. I take it you are applying the term 'reincarnation' loosely here.
Your point about reincarnation through DNA. I take it you are applying the term 'reincarnation' loosely here.
Human Paradox
OpenMind;1118250 wrote: Amber, that's quite an interesting post. These people that created the symbols must have been quite intellectually advanced compared to the average Joe around at the time. The implication in your post is that you are talking about a time a lot further beyond 15,000 years ago. I can, however, see how the concepts associated with the symbols you speak of would take on a different meaning to the general folk. A case of Chinese Whispers and a little help by those who would gain advantage from this distortion of the truth.
Your point about reincarnation through DNA. I take it you are applying the term 'reincarnation' loosely here.
I don't know what 'Chinese Whispers' are. But yes, OpenMind, as you are aware it was the priests/ess, shaman/ess etc,. that carried much of the knowledge and weight in a society. Often times these individuals would be leading the tribal chief, or in other societies the king, around by the nose. The desire for power and greed is not something new.
And yes I am referring to prior 15,000 BC. That is as far back as I could trace the symbols and at that time they had already become distorted to the point of being considered sacred. Until further excavations come to my attention bearing these symbols I can't go back into the past any further.
I believe that at one time mankind may have surpassed us in technology, or at least had the same enlightenment that we have today scientifically. For example they would have had to have telescopes strong enough to see Uranus, Neptune and Pluto since these cannot be seen clearly with the average naked eye.
And yes, of course, LOL, I am applying the term reincarnation loosely. I don't believe that we are a bunch of Russian Matryoshka dolls in that we carry a number of spirits within us (as some people imagine we do). No, the idea of literally being born again in another body was a twisted echo of the original concept.
I don't believe that originally any of the deformation of the concepts was done deliberately though. Consider for a moment and try to imagine a scene. Huge comets/astroids have hit the earth, the sky is darkened by dust from volcanoes that have erupted, shore lines wiped out from massive tidal waves, the earth ripped open from earthquakes caused by the impacts. Massive amounts of deaths have taken place along with that of wild life. For those survivors left the main objective is food and shelter and medications.
As a small example choose 6 of your close neighbors and yourself as a small group of survivors. Which one do you think would know how to make cloth and clothing, which one would know how to make soap since hygiene is imperative. There is no electricity so someone has to know how to make candles. It would help if someone knew how to make a generator but then you also have to know how to make a light bulb. Do you see where I'm going with this OpenMind? Survivors of a disaster don't get to choose the people that they will survive with, all would be chance. So it wouldn't take long for people to regress. All would be lost except for the symbols that would carry through the religious leaders who themselves would not know the true meaning anymore. But these would fight hard to keep everything intact because to them these symbols are sacred, passed down through the generations.
If you would like to read about the most recent fight to hold on to these symbols then please feel free to read through my pages here on FG (blog). They consist of selected paragraphs only but it will give you some idea of the fight to hold on to something that is no longer even a faded memory of the original.
Your point about reincarnation through DNA. I take it you are applying the term 'reincarnation' loosely here.
I don't know what 'Chinese Whispers' are. But yes, OpenMind, as you are aware it was the priests/ess, shaman/ess etc,. that carried much of the knowledge and weight in a society. Often times these individuals would be leading the tribal chief, or in other societies the king, around by the nose. The desire for power and greed is not something new.
And yes I am referring to prior 15,000 BC. That is as far back as I could trace the symbols and at that time they had already become distorted to the point of being considered sacred. Until further excavations come to my attention bearing these symbols I can't go back into the past any further.
I believe that at one time mankind may have surpassed us in technology, or at least had the same enlightenment that we have today scientifically. For example they would have had to have telescopes strong enough to see Uranus, Neptune and Pluto since these cannot be seen clearly with the average naked eye.
And yes, of course, LOL, I am applying the term reincarnation loosely. I don't believe that we are a bunch of Russian Matryoshka dolls in that we carry a number of spirits within us (as some people imagine we do). No, the idea of literally being born again in another body was a twisted echo of the original concept.
I don't believe that originally any of the deformation of the concepts was done deliberately though. Consider for a moment and try to imagine a scene. Huge comets/astroids have hit the earth, the sky is darkened by dust from volcanoes that have erupted, shore lines wiped out from massive tidal waves, the earth ripped open from earthquakes caused by the impacts. Massive amounts of deaths have taken place along with that of wild life. For those survivors left the main objective is food and shelter and medications.
As a small example choose 6 of your close neighbors and yourself as a small group of survivors. Which one do you think would know how to make cloth and clothing, which one would know how to make soap since hygiene is imperative. There is no electricity so someone has to know how to make candles. It would help if someone knew how to make a generator but then you also have to know how to make a light bulb. Do you see where I'm going with this OpenMind? Survivors of a disaster don't get to choose the people that they will survive with, all would be chance. So it wouldn't take long for people to regress. All would be lost except for the symbols that would carry through the religious leaders who themselves would not know the true meaning anymore. But these would fight hard to keep everything intact because to them these symbols are sacred, passed down through the generations.
If you would like to read about the most recent fight to hold on to these symbols then please feel free to read through my pages here on FG (blog). They consist of selected paragraphs only but it will give you some idea of the fight to hold on to something that is no longer even a faded memory of the original.
Human Paradox
So you are suggesting that there was an advanced civilisation on Earth before our own. That doesn't seem at all far-fetched to me. Perhaps some of the unexplained structures, etc. around this planet are their workmanship. Has there been any corroboration of the theory?
Regarding DNA. Apparently, it has been shown that society wide traumas are carried down through DNA. This shows that experiences have a subtle effect on future generations. The effect is diluted by each generation, of course.
Regarding DNA. Apparently, it has been shown that society wide traumas are carried down through DNA. This shows that experiences have a subtle effect on future generations. The effect is diluted by each generation, of course.
Human Paradox
OpenMind;1118297 wrote: So you are suggesting that there was an advanced civilisation on Earth before our own. That doesn't seem at all far-fetched to me. Perhaps some of the unexplained structures, etc. around this planet are their workmanship. Has there been any corroboration of the theory?
Regarding DNA. Apparently, it has been shown that society wide traumas are carried down through DNA. This shows that experiences have a subtle effect on future generations. The effect is diluted by each generation, of course.
If anyone has come to the same conclusion as myself it has not as of yet come to my attention. Many though are under the impression, or want to think, that Extraterrestrials have visited here and tried to teach humans. But to me, from what I have learned through my research, this does not appear to be the case. Everything points to a very human advanced civilization, well advanced anyway.
I totally agree with you on the aspect of DNA on succeeding generations. I would include certain talents and even what we would call professions in this.
Regarding DNA. Apparently, it has been shown that society wide traumas are carried down through DNA. This shows that experiences have a subtle effect on future generations. The effect is diluted by each generation, of course.
If anyone has come to the same conclusion as myself it has not as of yet come to my attention. Many though are under the impression, or want to think, that Extraterrestrials have visited here and tried to teach humans. But to me, from what I have learned through my research, this does not appear to be the case. Everything points to a very human advanced civilization, well advanced anyway.
I totally agree with you on the aspect of DNA on succeeding generations. I would include certain talents and even what we would call professions in this.
Human Paradox
Amber Sun;1118377 wrote: If anyone has come to the same conclusion as myself it has not as of yet come to my attention. Many though are under the impression, or want to think, that Extraterrestrials have visited here and tried to teach humans. But to me, from what I have learned through my research, this does not appear to be the case. Everything points to a very human advanced civilization, well advanced anyway.
I totally agree with you on the aspect of DNA on succeeding generations. I would include certain talents and even what we would call professions in this.
Also on the subject of DNA. Current research has shown that the human race today has its roots in Africa. So far, I have not seen anything to show otherwise but the research continues around the globe. This is interesting as it would show that there were very few survivors from a previous advanced civilisation. Alternatively, it is possible that while there may have been advanced civilisations before ours, we may not necessarily be related to them.
I totally agree with you on the aspect of DNA on succeeding generations. I would include certain talents and even what we would call professions in this.
Also on the subject of DNA. Current research has shown that the human race today has its roots in Africa. So far, I have not seen anything to show otherwise but the research continues around the globe. This is interesting as it would show that there were very few survivors from a previous advanced civilisation. Alternatively, it is possible that while there may have been advanced civilisations before ours, we may not necessarily be related to them.
Human Paradox
OpenMind;1118832 wrote: Also on the subject of DNA. Current research has shown that the human race today has its roots in Africa. So far, I have not seen anything to show otherwise but the research continues around the globe. This is interesting as it would show that there were very few survivors from a previous advanced civilisation. Alternatively, it is possible that while there may have been advanced civilisations before ours, we may not necessarily be related to them.
Well hun, I'm not an authority on DNA. I took an elective course while in university but that doesn't qualify me as a 'know it all', LOL. I want to say though that I don't believe all that I see, read and hear, I tend to want to use my own reasoning on matters. In the case you are mentioning I have a very hard time believing that all DNA has it's roots in Africa. An African generally has black kinky hair, I don't see any resemblance to the blond straight-haired Scandinavian. An African does not have the slanty eyes of a an oriental. What I see when I scan all peoples in my mind is 3 very distinct groups. Yes, when testing DNA all people from where-ever will have pretty much the same DNA, in fact our human DNA is almost identical to apes.
But DNA has a way of coming up with 'throw backs' as you are aware. Keeping in mind that the alleles on the gene locus will be either dominant or recessive, frequently a recessive allele will take over sometimes generations later, and the off-spring will have the inheritance from an ancestor. Since people tend to mate with their own kind (other than the 'rape case' Oscar posted about this morning) the recessive allele can be bred out altogether. But this can take many, many generations to accomplish. However something to keep in mind OpenMind, (do you have a real name? Mine is Rachel), is slavery. Slavery was real big business throughout history. And where there are men and women it goes without saying that there will also be babies. So this can account for the similarity in the sampling taken for a gene pool. The last I heard geneticists were still looking for a 'pure' gene pool on this planet and hadn't been able to locate one.
At what time in history, before what ice-age exactly, the scientific knowledge was in-coded into symbols is something that I don't know. We are told that at one time all continents were one that has been named Pangea. Obviously something happened that split this one land mass up so that they started floating away from each other. Subsequent shifting of the plates would have caused further upheavals with a further shattering of land masses. Since that time there has been 4 ice-ages or earth cleansings.
If you are referring to an extra-terrestrial race on this planet prior to ours I would have to have some sort of material on the subject that I can't punch a bunch of holes in, and so far there is nothing. If you have something on hand I will certainly look at it. I will concede, however, to the point that we may be the ETs everyone is looking for but still we would be related to them as their descendants wouldn't we?
Well hun, I'm not an authority on DNA. I took an elective course while in university but that doesn't qualify me as a 'know it all', LOL. I want to say though that I don't believe all that I see, read and hear, I tend to want to use my own reasoning on matters. In the case you are mentioning I have a very hard time believing that all DNA has it's roots in Africa. An African generally has black kinky hair, I don't see any resemblance to the blond straight-haired Scandinavian. An African does not have the slanty eyes of a an oriental. What I see when I scan all peoples in my mind is 3 very distinct groups. Yes, when testing DNA all people from where-ever will have pretty much the same DNA, in fact our human DNA is almost identical to apes.
But DNA has a way of coming up with 'throw backs' as you are aware. Keeping in mind that the alleles on the gene locus will be either dominant or recessive, frequently a recessive allele will take over sometimes generations later, and the off-spring will have the inheritance from an ancestor. Since people tend to mate with their own kind (other than the 'rape case' Oscar posted about this morning) the recessive allele can be bred out altogether. But this can take many, many generations to accomplish. However something to keep in mind OpenMind, (do you have a real name? Mine is Rachel), is slavery. Slavery was real big business throughout history. And where there are men and women it goes without saying that there will also be babies. So this can account for the similarity in the sampling taken for a gene pool. The last I heard geneticists were still looking for a 'pure' gene pool on this planet and hadn't been able to locate one.
At what time in history, before what ice-age exactly, the scientific knowledge was in-coded into symbols is something that I don't know. We are told that at one time all continents were one that has been named Pangea. Obviously something happened that split this one land mass up so that they started floating away from each other. Subsequent shifting of the plates would have caused further upheavals with a further shattering of land masses. Since that time there has been 4 ice-ages or earth cleansings.
If you are referring to an extra-terrestrial race on this planet prior to ours I would have to have some sort of material on the subject that I can't punch a bunch of holes in, and so far there is nothing. If you have something on hand I will certainly look at it. I will concede, however, to the point that we may be the ETs everyone is looking for but still we would be related to them as their descendants wouldn't we?
Human Paradox
I'm not suggesting that ETs come into the picture at all although I've a book that presents an argument for this. It contains a very rich argument and I haven't been able to read all the way through it yet.
Pangea, as I recall, split from one mass over a period of millions of years. It's just the natural cycle of the planet.
As for everyone coming from Africa, remember that we are going back a very long way to the beginnings of our present society and we are very adaptable. I would suggest "The Seven Daughters of Eve" by Bryan Sykes, 2001. He pioneered the science and the research into the origins and movements of the human race. As I stated, the research is still ongoing and the conclusions are still the same. As books go, it's quite an eye-opener.
Pangea, as I recall, split from one mass over a period of millions of years. It's just the natural cycle of the planet.
As for everyone coming from Africa, remember that we are going back a very long way to the beginnings of our present society and we are very adaptable. I would suggest "The Seven Daughters of Eve" by Bryan Sykes, 2001. He pioneered the science and the research into the origins and movements of the human race. As I stated, the research is still ongoing and the conclusions are still the same. As books go, it's quite an eye-opener.
Human Paradox
OpenMind;1118911 wrote: I'm not suggesting that ETs come into the picture at all although I've a book that presents an argument for this. It contains a very rich argument and I haven't been able to read all the way through it yet.
Pangea, as I recall, split from one mass over a period of millions of years. It's just the natural cycle of the planet.
As for everyone coming from Africa, remember that we are going back a very long way to the beginnings of our present society and we are very adaptable. I would suggest "The Seven Daughters of Eve" by Bryan Sykes, 2001. He pioneered the science and the research into the origins and movements of the human race. As I stated, the research is still ongoing and the conclusions are still the same. As books go, it's quite an eye-opener.
Pangea, as I recall, split from one mass over a period of millions of years. It's just the natural cycle of the planet.
True, but it isn't going to split without something occurring as I had stated.
Thanks for the book title, I'll see if our library has it in stock. It is however relatively easy to trace DNA. They can do this by searching the mitochondria cells in females. But once again I point to the inter-breeding and the slavery factor.
I'm not suggesting that ETs come into the picture at all
From your other post -Alternatively, it is possible that while there may have been advanced civilisations before ours, we may not necessarily be related to them.
Then in what way would we not be related to them? I'm not understanding what you are saying here.
Pangea, as I recall, split from one mass over a period of millions of years. It's just the natural cycle of the planet.
As for everyone coming from Africa, remember that we are going back a very long way to the beginnings of our present society and we are very adaptable. I would suggest "The Seven Daughters of Eve" by Bryan Sykes, 2001. He pioneered the science and the research into the origins and movements of the human race. As I stated, the research is still ongoing and the conclusions are still the same. As books go, it's quite an eye-opener.
Pangea, as I recall, split from one mass over a period of millions of years. It's just the natural cycle of the planet.
True, but it isn't going to split without something occurring as I had stated.
Thanks for the book title, I'll see if our library has it in stock. It is however relatively easy to trace DNA. They can do this by searching the mitochondria cells in females. But once again I point to the inter-breeding and the slavery factor.
I'm not suggesting that ETs come into the picture at all
From your other post -Alternatively, it is possible that while there may have been advanced civilisations before ours, we may not necessarily be related to them.
Then in what way would we not be related to them? I'm not understanding what you are saying here.
Human Paradox
Amber Sun;1118937 wrote: Pangea, as I recall, split from one mass over a period of millions of years. It's just the natural cycle of the planet.
True, but it isn't going to split without something occurring as I had stated.
The land mass is constantly moving and changing shape. the splitting of the land mass is a natural phenomenon. The Earth's mantle sits on a very hot and volatile liquid. Thus, the land mass, which is thin compared to the rest of the planet, is being constantly reshaped due to the pressures involved. Nothing had to occur to make Pangea split other than this natural cycle over millions of years.
Thanks for the book title, I'll see if our library has it in stock. It is however relatively easy to trace DNA. They can do this by searching the mitochondria cells in females. But once again I point to the inter-breeding and the slavery factor.
Bryan Sykes pioneered the use of mitochondrial DNA to trace our human ancestry and to even show how the different races moved around the globe. He accounts for the differences between human groups in the book. See pages 276/7 for our African ancestry.
I'm not suggesting that ETs come into the picture at all
From your other post -Alternatively, it is possible that while there may have been advanced civilisations before ours, we may not necessarily be related to them.
Then in what way would we not be related to them? I'm not understanding what you are saying here.
It is possible that we evolved from more primitive mammals and not from remnants of the last civilised society. Traces of homo sapiens sapiens do not go back as far as homo erectus or neanderthalis. We should not presume that the last advanced civilisation survived.
True, but it isn't going to split without something occurring as I had stated.
The land mass is constantly moving and changing shape. the splitting of the land mass is a natural phenomenon. The Earth's mantle sits on a very hot and volatile liquid. Thus, the land mass, which is thin compared to the rest of the planet, is being constantly reshaped due to the pressures involved. Nothing had to occur to make Pangea split other than this natural cycle over millions of years.
Thanks for the book title, I'll see if our library has it in stock. It is however relatively easy to trace DNA. They can do this by searching the mitochondria cells in females. But once again I point to the inter-breeding and the slavery factor.
Bryan Sykes pioneered the use of mitochondrial DNA to trace our human ancestry and to even show how the different races moved around the globe. He accounts for the differences between human groups in the book. See pages 276/7 for our African ancestry.
I'm not suggesting that ETs come into the picture at all
From your other post -Alternatively, it is possible that while there may have been advanced civilisations before ours, we may not necessarily be related to them.
Then in what way would we not be related to them? I'm not understanding what you are saying here.
It is possible that we evolved from more primitive mammals and not from remnants of the last civilised society. Traces of homo sapiens sapiens do not go back as far as homo erectus or neanderthalis. We should not presume that the last advanced civilisation survived.
Human Paradox
OpenMind;1118971 wrote: It is possible that we evolved from more primitive mammals and not from remnants of the last civilised society. Traces of homo sapiens sapiens do not go back as far as homo erectus or neanderthalis. We should not presume that the last advanced civilisation survived.
Lol hun, I dropped out of anthropology in the first session when I got a 'D'. Are you trying to tell me that they have scrapped 'Lucy' as an ancient ancestor?
As far as traces not being discovered OM, (OpenMind), that doesn't mean that they don't exist, it just means that they haven't been found.
Where would the last civilized society have come from? Are you suggesting that 2 lines diverged from a common root or that one shot in from somewhere else? If so from where?
What mammal did you have in mind? I don't want any links or titles of books, I want you to explain your thoughts on it. In-depth please.
Lol hun, I dropped out of anthropology in the first session when I got a 'D'. Are you trying to tell me that they have scrapped 'Lucy' as an ancient ancestor?
As far as traces not being discovered OM, (OpenMind), that doesn't mean that they don't exist, it just means that they haven't been found.
Where would the last civilized society have come from? Are you suggesting that 2 lines diverged from a common root or that one shot in from somewhere else? If so from where?
What mammal did you have in mind? I don't want any links or titles of books, I want you to explain your thoughts on it. In-depth please.
Human Paradox
coberst;1117723 wrote: Human Paradox
The human paradox might correctly be said to be: Humans are the one member of the animal kingdom wherein many members consider themselves to be also a member of a supernatural kingdom.
What do you think?
Quotes from “Escape from Evil by Ernest Becker
Well coberst you tell us what these animals think about "a supernatural kingdom" and then I will tell ya what I think........
PS: If you think they don't think about "a supernatural kingdom" Too..........WHY not? Could they not be better tuned with nature than you or I?
The human paradox might correctly be said to be: Humans are the one member of the animal kingdom wherein many members consider themselves to be also a member of a supernatural kingdom.
What do you think?
Quotes from “Escape from Evil by Ernest Becker
Well coberst you tell us what these animals think about "a supernatural kingdom" and then I will tell ya what I think........
PS: If you think they don't think about "a supernatural kingdom" Too..........WHY not? Could they not be better tuned with nature than you or I?
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Human Paradox
??? Didn't I hear somewhere that mitochodrial DNA is much less varied in humans than most other species of similar complexity and that that this had been traced to a catastrophic event about 32,000 years ago which almost wiped us out as a species - asteroid strike, I think, with dust blotting out the sun and a multi-year winter. I think the scientists found a similar geological footprint to the one they found associated with the extinction of the dinosaurs. I don't remember exactly how few the species was reduced to, but as a species we are descended - all of us - from a global breeding population of less than a thousand and it might have been ??? just one????
There are a few finds in Britain which pre-date the last Ice Age.
The Red Lady of Paviland:
The Red Lady of Paviland has always been a little coy about her age - but it appears she may be 4,000 years older than previously thought.
Scientists say more accurate tests date the earliest human burial found in the UK to just over 29,000 years ago.
When discovered in a cave on Gower in the 1820s the bones were thought to be around 18,000 years old, but were later redated to between 25,000 and 26,000.
Researchers said it casts a new light on human presence in western Europe.
The team from Oxford University and the British Museum said new dating techniques provided more accurate results.
The skeleton of the Red Lady - actually a young male - was discovered at Goat's Hole Cave at Paviland on Gower in 1823 by William Buckland, then a geology professor at Oxford University.
It owes its name to the red ochre covering the bones.
Dr Thomas Higham of Oxford University said he and his colleague Dr Roger Jacobi of the British Museum had now done further tests and were "confident" of the new results.
The remains were found along with a number of artefacts including ivory wands, bracelets and periwinkle shells.
The cave skeleton was found by William Buckland
"The remains and artefacts were previously difficult to date accurately," said Dr Higham.
"Many of the bones were treated with preservations in the 19th Century and some of this contamination is often difficult to remove."
He said their analysis was the bones were "just over" 29,000 years old.
It would mean The Red Lady lived in an age when the climate was much warmer than it would have been 4,000 years later.
Dr Higham added: "The data that we have got now is making a lot more sense."
He said it was important for "our understanding of the presence and behaviour of humans in this part of the world at this time".
He also said it "might" suggest that the custom of burying people with artefacts originated in western Europe rather than eastern Europe as had previously been thought.
"This raises new questions about the way in which these people spread and lived on the continent," he added. (taken from BBC website)
If he is correct, that means just 3,000 years after the catastrophe, people were back as far west as Wales - and if they were there, they probably reached Ireland too. Just in time for the next Ice Age!
Anyway, we know that the skeleton was covered in red ochre and placed in the cave with artifacts and that gives us ceremony associated with death 5,000 years before the last Ice Age. That is a fairly sophisticated society we're talking about, just 3,000 years after the world was reduced to ruin!
As far as I can see, no traces of Homo Sapiens have been discovered earlier than 195,000 ago and the earliest known example of human art is a lump of haematite from a South African cave dated 77,000 years ago that has a definite pattern of cross-hatching incised on it.
So we have 45,000 years for civilisation to become fairly sophisticated socially and culturally, before humanity was pushed to the brink most recently - 32,000 years ago - and came back to a high enough level of sophistication and plenty to bury its dead with ritual and artifacts.It seems likely to me that the few traumatised post-strike survivors would have looked back on the pre-strike era as a time of high civilisation - because in comparison to their current situation, it was!
ps: I am trying to find the 32,000 year old event I am referring to. No luck so far.
There are a few finds in Britain which pre-date the last Ice Age.
The Red Lady of Paviland:
The Red Lady of Paviland has always been a little coy about her age - but it appears she may be 4,000 years older than previously thought.
Scientists say more accurate tests date the earliest human burial found in the UK to just over 29,000 years ago.
When discovered in a cave on Gower in the 1820s the bones were thought to be around 18,000 years old, but were later redated to between 25,000 and 26,000.
Researchers said it casts a new light on human presence in western Europe.
The team from Oxford University and the British Museum said new dating techniques provided more accurate results.
The skeleton of the Red Lady - actually a young male - was discovered at Goat's Hole Cave at Paviland on Gower in 1823 by William Buckland, then a geology professor at Oxford University.
It owes its name to the red ochre covering the bones.
Dr Thomas Higham of Oxford University said he and his colleague Dr Roger Jacobi of the British Museum had now done further tests and were "confident" of the new results.
The remains were found along with a number of artefacts including ivory wands, bracelets and periwinkle shells.
The cave skeleton was found by William Buckland
"The remains and artefacts were previously difficult to date accurately," said Dr Higham.
"Many of the bones were treated with preservations in the 19th Century and some of this contamination is often difficult to remove."
He said their analysis was the bones were "just over" 29,000 years old.
It would mean The Red Lady lived in an age when the climate was much warmer than it would have been 4,000 years later.
Dr Higham added: "The data that we have got now is making a lot more sense."
He said it was important for "our understanding of the presence and behaviour of humans in this part of the world at this time".
He also said it "might" suggest that the custom of burying people with artefacts originated in western Europe rather than eastern Europe as had previously been thought.
"This raises new questions about the way in which these people spread and lived on the continent," he added. (taken from BBC website)
If he is correct, that means just 3,000 years after the catastrophe, people were back as far west as Wales - and if they were there, they probably reached Ireland too. Just in time for the next Ice Age!
Anyway, we know that the skeleton was covered in red ochre and placed in the cave with artifacts and that gives us ceremony associated with death 5,000 years before the last Ice Age. That is a fairly sophisticated society we're talking about, just 3,000 years after the world was reduced to ruin!
As far as I can see, no traces of Homo Sapiens have been discovered earlier than 195,000 ago and the earliest known example of human art is a lump of haematite from a South African cave dated 77,000 years ago that has a definite pattern of cross-hatching incised on it.
So we have 45,000 years for civilisation to become fairly sophisticated socially and culturally, before humanity was pushed to the brink most recently - 32,000 years ago - and came back to a high enough level of sophistication and plenty to bury its dead with ritual and artifacts.It seems likely to me that the few traumatised post-strike survivors would have looked back on the pre-strike era as a time of high civilisation - because in comparison to their current situation, it was!
ps: I am trying to find the 32,000 year old event I am referring to. No luck so far.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Human Paradox
Clodhopper;1119274 wrote: ??? Didn't I hear somewhere that mitochodrial DNA is much less varied in humans than most other species of similar complexity and that that this had been traced to a catastrophic event about 32,000 years ago which almost wiped us out as a species - asteroid strike, I think, with dust blotting out the sun and a multi-year winter. I think the scientists found a similar geological footprint to the one they found associated with the extinction of the dinosaurs. I don't remember exactly how few the species was reduced to, but as a species we are descended - all of us - from a global breeding population of less than a thousand and it might have been ??? just one????
There are a few finds in Britain which pre-date the last Ice Age.
The Red Lady of Paviland:
(taken from BBC website)
If he is correct, that means just 3,000 years after the catastrophe, people were back as far west as Wales - and if they were there, they probably reached Ireland too. Just in time for the next Ice Age!
Anyway, we know that the skeleton was covered in red ochre and placed in the cave with artifacts and that gives us ceremony associated with death 5,000 years before the last Ice Age. That is a fairly sophisticated society we're talking about, just 3,000 years after the world was reduced to ruin!
As far as I can see, no traces of Homo Sapiens have been discovered earlier than 195,000 ago and the earliest known example of human art is a lump of haematite from a South African cave dated 77,000 years ago that has a definite pattern of cross-hatching incised on it.
So we have 45,000 years for civilisation to become fairly sophisticated socially and culturally, before humanity was pushed to the brink most recently - 32,000 years ago - and came back to a high enough level of sophistication and plenty to bury its dead with ritual and artifacts.It seems likely to me that the few traumatised post-strike survivors would have looked back on the pre-strike era as a time of high civilisation - because in comparison to their current situation, it was!
ps: I am trying to find the 32,000 year old event I am referring to. No luck so far.
This is all very interesting ClodHopper. I hope you manage to find the information (
ps: I am trying to find the 32,000 year old event I am referring to. No luck so far.)
I have never been fortunate enough to find any 2 geologists that agree on time periods of how long each ice-age lasted and the length of time between them. As an example they have agreed that the last ice-age 'technically' ended 10,000 years ago even though there are still remnants of it left, such as the Alberta ice flats, other than that the differences vary widely.
It doesn't appear to take humans very long to reach a fairly decent technological level. Just think of what life is supposed to have been like 200 years ago as compared to now. Had it not been for the 'dark-ages' and the heavy hand of Christianity holding everything back who knows what technology we might have. Can you even imagine where our technology will be 200 years from now? I recently watched a documentary on TV. They showed a city that was 'abandoned' and showed what it would look like a 100 years later when it was all rusted and grown over with greenery. In 300 years time the city would be all but lost to the naked eye.
However it appears that although civilizations come and go the ancient knowledge in the form of symbols has remained. Although distorted, (grossly distorted in some cases), at times intentionally and at other times unintentionally, humans must at some time or another face what the symbols represent and do away with the distortions. Those individuals who hold to the belief that they are immortal and omniscient will have the hardest time of it. But humanity cannot progress to an enlightened level until these belief systems are done away with (such as karma) and learn to behave ethically without the psychological promise or threat of an 'after-life'.
There are a few finds in Britain which pre-date the last Ice Age.
The Red Lady of Paviland:
(taken from BBC website)
If he is correct, that means just 3,000 years after the catastrophe, people were back as far west as Wales - and if they were there, they probably reached Ireland too. Just in time for the next Ice Age!
Anyway, we know that the skeleton was covered in red ochre and placed in the cave with artifacts and that gives us ceremony associated with death 5,000 years before the last Ice Age. That is a fairly sophisticated society we're talking about, just 3,000 years after the world was reduced to ruin!
As far as I can see, no traces of Homo Sapiens have been discovered earlier than 195,000 ago and the earliest known example of human art is a lump of haematite from a South African cave dated 77,000 years ago that has a definite pattern of cross-hatching incised on it.
So we have 45,000 years for civilisation to become fairly sophisticated socially and culturally, before humanity was pushed to the brink most recently - 32,000 years ago - and came back to a high enough level of sophistication and plenty to bury its dead with ritual and artifacts.It seems likely to me that the few traumatised post-strike survivors would have looked back on the pre-strike era as a time of high civilisation - because in comparison to their current situation, it was!
ps: I am trying to find the 32,000 year old event I am referring to. No luck so far.
This is all very interesting ClodHopper. I hope you manage to find the information (
ps: I am trying to find the 32,000 year old event I am referring to. No luck so far.)
I have never been fortunate enough to find any 2 geologists that agree on time periods of how long each ice-age lasted and the length of time between them. As an example they have agreed that the last ice-age 'technically' ended 10,000 years ago even though there are still remnants of it left, such as the Alberta ice flats, other than that the differences vary widely.
It doesn't appear to take humans very long to reach a fairly decent technological level. Just think of what life is supposed to have been like 200 years ago as compared to now. Had it not been for the 'dark-ages' and the heavy hand of Christianity holding everything back who knows what technology we might have. Can you even imagine where our technology will be 200 years from now? I recently watched a documentary on TV. They showed a city that was 'abandoned' and showed what it would look like a 100 years later when it was all rusted and grown over with greenery. In 300 years time the city would be all but lost to the naked eye.
However it appears that although civilizations come and go the ancient knowledge in the form of symbols has remained. Although distorted, (grossly distorted in some cases), at times intentionally and at other times unintentionally, humans must at some time or another face what the symbols represent and do away with the distortions. Those individuals who hold to the belief that they are immortal and omniscient will have the hardest time of it. But humanity cannot progress to an enlightened level until these belief systems are done away with (such as karma) and learn to behave ethically without the psychological promise or threat of an 'after-life'.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Human Paradox
:mad:This is bugging me. Was it an upsurge in volcanism I'm thinking of???
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Human Paradox
Rachel, I forgot to answer your question in post #11. My name is Roger. Most people here just call me OM. Sorry about that. It wasn't a snub, I just clear forgot but remembered while I was at work today.
Lol hun, I dropped out of anthropology in the first session when I got a 'D'. Are you trying to tell me that they have scrapped 'Lucy' as an ancient ancestor?
As far as traces not being discovered OM, (OpenMind), that doesn't mean that they don't exist, it just means that they haven't been found.
Where would the last civilized society have come from? Are you suggesting that 2 lines diverged from a common root or that one shot in from somewhere else? If so from where?
What mammal did you have in mind? I don't want any links or titles of books, I want you to explain your thoughts on it. In-depth please.
As things stand at the moment, we have been traced back to seven women all of whom appear to have a common ancestor. The research is incomplete at the moment, however, so I have to keep an open mind on this.
I cannot make any guesses about the origins of a previous civilised society or even why they ceased to exist. We have nothing at all to go on. Neither do we have much to tell us exactly how we evolved. Since we are mammals, however, it is reasonable to assume that we evolved from mammals.
Lol hun, I dropped out of anthropology in the first session when I got a 'D'. Are you trying to tell me that they have scrapped 'Lucy' as an ancient ancestor?
As far as traces not being discovered OM, (OpenMind), that doesn't mean that they don't exist, it just means that they haven't been found.
Where would the last civilized society have come from? Are you suggesting that 2 lines diverged from a common root or that one shot in from somewhere else? If so from where?
What mammal did you have in mind? I don't want any links or titles of books, I want you to explain your thoughts on it. In-depth please.
As things stand at the moment, we have been traced back to seven women all of whom appear to have a common ancestor. The research is incomplete at the moment, however, so I have to keep an open mind on this.
I cannot make any guesses about the origins of a previous civilised society or even why they ceased to exist. We have nothing at all to go on. Neither do we have much to tell us exactly how we evolved. Since we are mammals, however, it is reasonable to assume that we evolved from mammals.
Human Paradox
OpenMind;1119620 wrote: Rachel, I forgot to answer your question in post #11. My name is Roger. Most people here just call me OM. Sorry about that. It wasn't a snub, I just clear forgot but remembered while I was at work today.
As things stand at the moment, we have been traced back to seven women all of whom appear to have a common ancestor. The research is incomplete at the moment, however, so I have to keep an open mind on this.
I cannot make any guesses about the origins of a previous civilised society or even why they ceased to exist. We have nothing at all to go on. Neither do we have much to tell us exactly how we evolved. Since we are mammals, however, it is reasonable to assume that we evolved from mammals.
Hi there, I'm so glad you're back, I thought perhaps you had abandoned our conversation that I'm finding so interesting. And LOL, hun, I will call you whatever it is you choose. It was not my intention to pry or 'blow a cover' in any way. Just let me know what it is you prefer to be called and I will comply.
I'm hoping that coberst (the thread starter) isn't too unhappy with the turn that this thread has taken. As in all conversations one thing tends to lead to another and gets way off track. But I notice that he hasn't posted anymore so perhaps he has just abandoned this little thread to whoever has interest in it.
As to your post hun 'Neither do we have much to tell us exactly how we evolved.' you are quite right. I actually have a real problem with evolution, but then LOL, I also have a real problem with creationism. You see what is constantly coming to the fore and messing me up is the symbol/concept of the 'Divine Child". As you are aware there have been a multitude of Divine Children because it isn't any one person but instead is a concept much like the tree of life that we discussed earlier. Mithra, Zarathushtra, Attis, Dionysus, are just a few of the Divine Children that history records. So how and where did this concept stem from? All the other constant religious symbols that have carried down through history have their basis in the various sciences, but I can't find a place for the Divine child concept. It's probably right in front of me but I guess it's like not seeing the forest for the trees. Is it only certain genetic lines that are considered Divine children or does this concept stand for all of humanity? I know that the 'gods/esses' of old were shamans and priestess/es etc and these were all called Divine Children, so does it have to do with special talents/gifts that these people somehow inherited? It is quite easy to track all these individuals by the symbols and rituals that accompany them and their 'track record' so to speak. But who named them Divine and why? If it is true that we evolved from mammals then how does the divine child concept come into play?
LOL, hun, I've started rambling and I ask that you overlook this. Sometimes when I'm writing/typing it's like I get lost in my own thoughts trying to puzzle something out. I tend to forget that the other person may not be all that interested.
As things stand at the moment, we have been traced back to seven women all of whom appear to have a common ancestor. The research is incomplete at the moment, however, so I have to keep an open mind on this.
I cannot make any guesses about the origins of a previous civilised society or even why they ceased to exist. We have nothing at all to go on. Neither do we have much to tell us exactly how we evolved. Since we are mammals, however, it is reasonable to assume that we evolved from mammals.
Hi there, I'm so glad you're back, I thought perhaps you had abandoned our conversation that I'm finding so interesting. And LOL, hun, I will call you whatever it is you choose. It was not my intention to pry or 'blow a cover' in any way. Just let me know what it is you prefer to be called and I will comply.
I'm hoping that coberst (the thread starter) isn't too unhappy with the turn that this thread has taken. As in all conversations one thing tends to lead to another and gets way off track. But I notice that he hasn't posted anymore so perhaps he has just abandoned this little thread to whoever has interest in it.
As to your post hun 'Neither do we have much to tell us exactly how we evolved.' you are quite right. I actually have a real problem with evolution, but then LOL, I also have a real problem with creationism. You see what is constantly coming to the fore and messing me up is the symbol/concept of the 'Divine Child". As you are aware there have been a multitude of Divine Children because it isn't any one person but instead is a concept much like the tree of life that we discussed earlier. Mithra, Zarathushtra, Attis, Dionysus, are just a few of the Divine Children that history records. So how and where did this concept stem from? All the other constant religious symbols that have carried down through history have their basis in the various sciences, but I can't find a place for the Divine child concept. It's probably right in front of me but I guess it's like not seeing the forest for the trees. Is it only certain genetic lines that are considered Divine children or does this concept stand for all of humanity? I know that the 'gods/esses' of old were shamans and priestess/es etc and these were all called Divine Children, so does it have to do with special talents/gifts that these people somehow inherited? It is quite easy to track all these individuals by the symbols and rituals that accompany them and their 'track record' so to speak. But who named them Divine and why? If it is true that we evolved from mammals then how does the divine child concept come into play?
LOL, hun, I've started rambling and I ask that you overlook this. Sometimes when I'm writing/typing it's like I get lost in my own thoughts trying to puzzle something out. I tend to forget that the other person may not be all that interested.
Human Paradox
Clodhopper;1119567 wrote: :mad:This is bugging me. Was it an upsurge in volcanism I'm thinking of???
Oh LOL, sorry Clodhopper, I truly don't know what it is that your thinking of. There have been many active volcanoes throughout history and many have caused great amounts of damage. But please scan your mind and somewhere in the recesses the information is filed away. I've often had to search the dusty files in my mind looking for needed information. LOL, generally I locate it while I'm asleep.
Oh LOL, sorry Clodhopper, I truly don't know what it is that your thinking of. There have been many active volcanoes throughout history and many have caused great amounts of damage. But please scan your mind and somewhere in the recesses the information is filed away. I've often had to search the dusty files in my mind looking for needed information. LOL, generally I locate it while I'm asleep.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Human Paradox
Oh LOL, sorry Clodhopper, I truly don't know what it is that your thinking of
Dear Amber Sun: It is always good to have one's assumptions tested - it is how the false information gets weeded. If I've managed to misremember bits of something into something else then I need to know it as soon as possible!
Oh, and coberst, if you are still reading, this is the spirit within which I comment on your articles.
Dear Amber Sun: It is always good to have one's assumptions tested - it is how the false information gets weeded. If I've managed to misremember bits of something into something else then I need to know it as soon as possible!
Oh, and coberst, if you are still reading, this is the spirit within which I comment on your articles.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Human Paradox
Amber Sun;1119696 wrote: Hi there, I'm so glad you're back, I thought perhaps you had abandoned our conversation that I'm finding so interesting. And LOL, hun, I will call you whatever it is you choose. It was not my intention to pry or 'blow a cover' in any way. Just let me know what it is you prefer to be called and I will comply.
I'm hoping that coberst (the thread starter) isn't too unhappy with the turn that this thread has taken. As in all conversations one thing tends to lead to another and gets way off track. But I notice that he hasn't posted anymore so perhaps he has just abandoned this little thread to whoever has interest in it.
As to your post hun 'Neither do we have much to tell us exactly how we evolved.' you are quite right. I actually have a real problem with evolution, but then LOL, I also have a real problem with creationism. You see what is constantly coming to the fore and messing me up is the symbol/concept of the 'Divine Child". As you are aware there have been a multitude of Divine Children because it isn't any one person but instead is a concept much like the tree of life that we discussed earlier. Mithra, Zarathushtra, Attis, Dionysus, are just a few of the Divine Children that history records. So how and where did this concept stem from? All the other constant religious symbols that have carried down through history have their basis in the various sciences, but I can't find a place for the Divine child concept. It's probably right in front of me but I guess it's like not seeing the forest for the trees. Is it only certain genetic lines that are considered Divine children or does this concept stand for all of humanity? I know that the 'gods/esses' of old were shamans and priestess/es etc and these were all called Divine Children, so does it have to do with special talents/gifts that these people somehow inherited? It is quite easy to track all these individuals by the symbols and rituals that accompany them and their 'track record' so to speak. But who named them Divine and why? If it is true that we evolved from mammals then how does the divine child concept come into play?
LOL, hun, I've started rambling and I ask that you overlook this. Sometimes when I'm writing/typing it's like I get lost in my own thoughts trying to puzzle something out. I tend to forget that the other person may not be all that interested.
You know more about 'divine children' than I do. I'm only aware of one and that is Jesus. Thus, I can't really help you with the divine child concept. As far as religion is concerned, my only interest would be in how and why it developed. It's not a subject I have probed very much. My own beliefs don't fit into any religion that I know of.
I still have a lot of studying that I want to do but very little precious time to do this in at the moment.
It might be well worth your while starting your own thread on this subject. You could use it to pull together the results of your research and perhaps get some more contributions from others here that may know more about it. As you are posting your thoughts on Coberst's thread, these other members may not be aware of what you have written and asked here.
Oh, and Amber. Call me whatever you like. I have no preference as such.:-6
I'm hoping that coberst (the thread starter) isn't too unhappy with the turn that this thread has taken. As in all conversations one thing tends to lead to another and gets way off track. But I notice that he hasn't posted anymore so perhaps he has just abandoned this little thread to whoever has interest in it.
As to your post hun 'Neither do we have much to tell us exactly how we evolved.' you are quite right. I actually have a real problem with evolution, but then LOL, I also have a real problem with creationism. You see what is constantly coming to the fore and messing me up is the symbol/concept of the 'Divine Child". As you are aware there have been a multitude of Divine Children because it isn't any one person but instead is a concept much like the tree of life that we discussed earlier. Mithra, Zarathushtra, Attis, Dionysus, are just a few of the Divine Children that history records. So how and where did this concept stem from? All the other constant religious symbols that have carried down through history have their basis in the various sciences, but I can't find a place for the Divine child concept. It's probably right in front of me but I guess it's like not seeing the forest for the trees. Is it only certain genetic lines that are considered Divine children or does this concept stand for all of humanity? I know that the 'gods/esses' of old were shamans and priestess/es etc and these were all called Divine Children, so does it have to do with special talents/gifts that these people somehow inherited? It is quite easy to track all these individuals by the symbols and rituals that accompany them and their 'track record' so to speak. But who named them Divine and why? If it is true that we evolved from mammals then how does the divine child concept come into play?
LOL, hun, I've started rambling and I ask that you overlook this. Sometimes when I'm writing/typing it's like I get lost in my own thoughts trying to puzzle something out. I tend to forget that the other person may not be all that interested.
You know more about 'divine children' than I do. I'm only aware of one and that is Jesus. Thus, I can't really help you with the divine child concept. As far as religion is concerned, my only interest would be in how and why it developed. It's not a subject I have probed very much. My own beliefs don't fit into any religion that I know of.
I still have a lot of studying that I want to do but very little precious time to do this in at the moment.
It might be well worth your while starting your own thread on this subject. You could use it to pull together the results of your research and perhaps get some more contributions from others here that may know more about it. As you are posting your thoughts on Coberst's thread, these other members may not be aware of what you have written and asked here.
Oh, and Amber. Call me whatever you like. I have no preference as such.:-6
Human Paradox
OpenMind;1120392 wrote: You know more about 'divine children' than I do. I'm only aware of one and that is Jesus. Thus, I can't really help you with the divine child concept. As far as religion is concerned, my only interest would be in how and why it developed. It's not a subject I have probed very much. My own beliefs don't fit into any religion that I know of.
I still have a lot of studying that I want to do but very little precious time to do this in at the moment.
It might be well worth your while starting your own thread on this subject. You could use it to pull together the results of your research and perhaps get some more contributions from others here that may know more about it. As you are posting your thoughts on Coberst's thread, these other members may not be aware of what you have written and asked here.
Oh, and Amber. Call me whatever you like. I have no preference as such.:-6
Hi hun, honestly Roger I don't see the sense in starting my own thread on the subject. I have been to all kinds of rooms on the net and haven't been fortunate enough to find anyone who has the same kind of knowledge I have and interest enough to go further with it. I know that they must be out there somewhere but for the most part I end up puzzling it out alone. I have been through Pagan rooms but their interest is in flying broomsticks and spells. I have been in various religious room such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity etc., but thier interest is in recruitment and holding firm against any logic and reason. Actually hun I've learned how to end a thread real quick by just posting something logical and trying to make people think. I found that people want to believe only that which reinforces their current belief system. The idea of researching their belief system for validity is far removed from their minds.
OM, I'd really like to read what it is that you do believe in. You state that it doesn't appear to conform to any standard. If you don't want to discuss it publicly then you must know that you can email me privately. Perhaps what you believe will fill in a 'gap' for me. I have found answers in some of the strangest places and beliefs systems. I don't usually scrap anything I learn, just file it away in my memory cells and when something else comes up I see if it correlates with any files I already have. True, honest research is like trying to unravel 5 balls of wool in which 4 are white and one is red and two kittens have made a real mess of them. I follow the red white but don't cut away at the white. Throwing away the pieces is like throwing away a library. Now that is sacrilege.
I still have a lot of studying that I want to do but very little precious time to do this in at the moment.
It might be well worth your while starting your own thread on this subject. You could use it to pull together the results of your research and perhaps get some more contributions from others here that may know more about it. As you are posting your thoughts on Coberst's thread, these other members may not be aware of what you have written and asked here.
Oh, and Amber. Call me whatever you like. I have no preference as such.:-6
Hi hun, honestly Roger I don't see the sense in starting my own thread on the subject. I have been to all kinds of rooms on the net and haven't been fortunate enough to find anyone who has the same kind of knowledge I have and interest enough to go further with it. I know that they must be out there somewhere but for the most part I end up puzzling it out alone. I have been through Pagan rooms but their interest is in flying broomsticks and spells. I have been in various religious room such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity etc., but thier interest is in recruitment and holding firm against any logic and reason. Actually hun I've learned how to end a thread real quick by just posting something logical and trying to make people think. I found that people want to believe only that which reinforces their current belief system. The idea of researching their belief system for validity is far removed from their minds.
OM, I'd really like to read what it is that you do believe in. You state that it doesn't appear to conform to any standard. If you don't want to discuss it publicly then you must know that you can email me privately. Perhaps what you believe will fill in a 'gap' for me. I have found answers in some of the strangest places and beliefs systems. I don't usually scrap anything I learn, just file it away in my memory cells and when something else comes up I see if it correlates with any files I already have. True, honest research is like trying to unravel 5 balls of wool in which 4 are white and one is red and two kittens have made a real mess of them. I follow the red white but don't cut away at the white. Throwing away the pieces is like throwing away a library. Now that is sacrilege.
Human Paradox
Clodhopper;1120057 wrote: Dear Amber Sun: It is always good to have one's assumptions tested - it is how the false information gets weeded. If I've managed to misremember bits of something into something else then I need to know it as soon as possible!
Oh, and coberst, if you are still reading, this is the spirit within which I comment on your articles.
I totally agree with you Cd, memory can sometimes prove to be elusive. If you find the info though I sure would like you to share it with me.
Oh, and coberst, if you are still reading, this is the spirit within which I comment on your articles.
I totally agree with you Cd, memory can sometimes prove to be elusive. If you find the info though I sure would like you to share it with me.
Human Paradox
Amber Sun;1120579 wrote: Hi hun, honestly Roger I don't see the sense in starting my own thread on the subject. I have been to all kinds of rooms on the net and haven't been fortunate enough to find anyone who has the same kind of knowledge I have and interest enough to go further with it. I know that they must be out there somewhere but for the most part I end up puzzling it out alone. I have been through Pagan rooms but their interest is in flying broomsticks and spells. I have been in various religious room such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity etc., but thier interest is in recruitment and holding firm against any logic and reason. Actually hun I've learned how to end a thread real quick by just posting something logical and trying to make people think. I found that people want to believe only that which reinforces their current belief system. The idea of researching their belief system for validity is far removed from their minds.
OM, I'd really like to read what it is that you do believe in. You state that it doesn't appear to conform to any standard. If you don't want to discuss it publicly then you must know that you can email me privately. Perhaps what you believe will fill in a 'gap' for me. I have found answers in some of the strangest places and beliefs systems. I don't usually scrap anything I learn, just file it away in my memory cells and when something else comes up I see if it correlates with any files I already have. True, honest research is like trying to unravel 5 balls of wool in which 4 are white and one is red and two kittens have made a real mess of them. I follow the red white but don't cut away at the white. Throwing away the pieces is like throwing away a library. Now that is sacrilege.
You might be surprised. While we do have those that you have encountered in other forums, here we also have a lot of people who are open to discuss pretty much anything. It's worth a try. While anyone's allowed to contribute to a thread, 'flaming' another member is disallowed and if anyone does get up your nose, you can put them on 'ignore' so you don't even see their posts. If it doesn't work, then at least you've tried. But, if you like, we could discuss all this in private as you suggested. The private messaging system here is quite useful but we can use emails if you prefer. I don't mind which.
With regard to telling you what I believe. I will reserve Saturday evening for this so I've got time to think about what I'm writing down if you don't mind. It's not something that I've actually set down in black and white. I want to make sure it makes as much sense to me as it hopefully will do to you.
OM, I'd really like to read what it is that you do believe in. You state that it doesn't appear to conform to any standard. If you don't want to discuss it publicly then you must know that you can email me privately. Perhaps what you believe will fill in a 'gap' for me. I have found answers in some of the strangest places and beliefs systems. I don't usually scrap anything I learn, just file it away in my memory cells and when something else comes up I see if it correlates with any files I already have. True, honest research is like trying to unravel 5 balls of wool in which 4 are white and one is red and two kittens have made a real mess of them. I follow the red white but don't cut away at the white. Throwing away the pieces is like throwing away a library. Now that is sacrilege.
You might be surprised. While we do have those that you have encountered in other forums, here we also have a lot of people who are open to discuss pretty much anything. It's worth a try. While anyone's allowed to contribute to a thread, 'flaming' another member is disallowed and if anyone does get up your nose, you can put them on 'ignore' so you don't even see their posts. If it doesn't work, then at least you've tried. But, if you like, we could discuss all this in private as you suggested. The private messaging system here is quite useful but we can use emails if you prefer. I don't mind which.
With regard to telling you what I believe. I will reserve Saturday evening for this so I've got time to think about what I'm writing down if you don't mind. It's not something that I've actually set down in black and white. I want to make sure it makes as much sense to me as it hopefully will do to you.
Human Paradox
OpenMind;1120675 wrote: You might be surprised. While we do have those that you have encountered in other forums, here we also have a lot of people who are open to discuss pretty much anything. It's worth a try. While anyone's allowed to contribute to a thread, 'flaming' another member is disallowed and if anyone does get up your nose, you can put them on 'ignore' so you don't even see their posts. If it doesn't work, then at least you've tried. But, if you like, we could discuss all this in private as you suggested. The private messaging system here is quite useful but we can use emails if you prefer. I don't mind which.
With regard to telling you what I believe. I will reserve Saturday evening for this so I've got time to think about what I'm writing down if you don't mind. It's not something that I've actually set down in black and white. I want to make sure it makes as much sense to me as it hopefully will do to you.
I haven't been in this forum long enough for people to get to know me Roger. If I were to start a thread on what I know I would be gathering hostility and distrust from many quarters. I had scanned many of the threads when I first came in, as is my usual course of action. I had seen nothing to have me believe that my knowledge would be accepted easily. And in truth hun, I'm tired of the fight to enlighten those who refuse to be enlightened. I generally just direct people to my page in whatever forum I happen to be in. If they show interest then that is one more person to help enlighten others.
Saturday evening is fine hun, I'll consider it a date, LOL. Being serious OM I consider you to be an intelligent person. As such I believe that whatever beliefs you have would be grounded in reason and logic. Contrary to popular belief reason and logic is not limited to science. Science when not based on observation is a theory. A theory is no more than a guess that is not substantiated by fact. An example is the string theory. I tend to trust an inquiring mind that isn't easily led down every and any path. Since you state that your belief is not a standard one then you can rest assured that it will be given in-depth consideration.
Do you want me to send you my email first or do you want to send me yours? I will comply with whatever you feel most comfortable with.
With regard to telling you what I believe. I will reserve Saturday evening for this so I've got time to think about what I'm writing down if you don't mind. It's not something that I've actually set down in black and white. I want to make sure it makes as much sense to me as it hopefully will do to you.
I haven't been in this forum long enough for people to get to know me Roger. If I were to start a thread on what I know I would be gathering hostility and distrust from many quarters. I had scanned many of the threads when I first came in, as is my usual course of action. I had seen nothing to have me believe that my knowledge would be accepted easily. And in truth hun, I'm tired of the fight to enlighten those who refuse to be enlightened. I generally just direct people to my page in whatever forum I happen to be in. If they show interest then that is one more person to help enlighten others.
Saturday evening is fine hun, I'll consider it a date, LOL. Being serious OM I consider you to be an intelligent person. As such I believe that whatever beliefs you have would be grounded in reason and logic. Contrary to popular belief reason and logic is not limited to science. Science when not based on observation is a theory. A theory is no more than a guess that is not substantiated by fact. An example is the string theory. I tend to trust an inquiring mind that isn't easily led down every and any path. Since you state that your belief is not a standard one then you can rest assured that it will be given in-depth consideration.
Do you want me to send you my email first or do you want to send me yours? I will comply with whatever you feel most comfortable with.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Human Paradox
Logic and reason say when we die that is it. Any idea of an afterlife is a theory lacking any sort of conclusive proof that would be scientifically acceptable.
The only route to belief in an afterlife at that point is Faith, or direct personal contact with God.
Personally, I just about manage Hope.
ps: I can't find the mitochondrial bottleneck at 32,000 year BPE I was thinking of. Looks like I have misremembered it.
The only route to belief in an afterlife at that point is Faith, or direct personal contact with God.
Personally, I just about manage Hope.
ps: I can't find the mitochondrial bottleneck at 32,000 year BPE I was thinking of. Looks like I have misremembered it.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Human Paradox
Clodhopper;1121196 wrote: Logic and reason say when we die that is it. Any idea of an afterlife is a theory lacking any sort of conclusive proof that would be scientifically acceptable.
The only route to belief in an afterlife at that point is Faith, or direct personal contact with God.
Personally, I just about manage Hope.
ps: I can't find the mitochondrial bottleneck at 32,000 year BPE I was thinking of. Looks like I have misremembered it.
You may not have 'misremembered' it Cd but it depends on where you got the info from. I never take information of off the net, anyone can say anything. I know a young man who is a whiz with computers who was over with my daughter one day Since I get most of my information from the library I thought that perhaps over the winter it might be easier to get it off the net. I mentioned Wikipedia and he looked at me at just about burst out laughing. He told me that he wanted to 'enlighten' me on something and proceeded to go into the site - altered information and then left the site. I thought that was a terrible thing to do and said so. "What if people want the info and now it's wrong"? He told me the same thing I just told you "anyone can say anything on the net". I was to view the Internet as a 'game'. Soooooo, guess who goes to the library if she wants factual information and cross-references it with other books to make sure it is right, LOL? And you know Cd the young man was right. I have seen so much misinformation and just plain down-right garble that this is how I view it now, as a game of sorts. If I find someone serious who wants to talk and exchange views then I am happy. So it may be that if you happened to see it on the net then you may not find it again.
I have found also that few geologists and scientists actually agree with each other. It appears that there is just as much varying opinions within the disciplines as there are in the various religions. At one point I wrote a manuscript with more than 40 references. That was truly a job and a half. I don't know how many hours I spent cross-referencing to make sure that what I put down was correct. Had some publisher been brave enough and greedy enough to publish it I would have had to check it again for accuracy. As it was the Di Vince Code put a damper on things and with my book the Muslims would have been caught up in it also so no one wanted to touch it. Factual truths can sometimes be a real hot subject to handle.
Well, I want my second cup of coffee for this morning so I can wake up a little. Talk later and don't worry about the volcano incident.
The only route to belief in an afterlife at that point is Faith, or direct personal contact with God.
Personally, I just about manage Hope.
ps: I can't find the mitochondrial bottleneck at 32,000 year BPE I was thinking of. Looks like I have misremembered it.
You may not have 'misremembered' it Cd but it depends on where you got the info from. I never take information of off the net, anyone can say anything. I know a young man who is a whiz with computers who was over with my daughter one day Since I get most of my information from the library I thought that perhaps over the winter it might be easier to get it off the net. I mentioned Wikipedia and he looked at me at just about burst out laughing. He told me that he wanted to 'enlighten' me on something and proceeded to go into the site - altered information and then left the site. I thought that was a terrible thing to do and said so. "What if people want the info and now it's wrong"? He told me the same thing I just told you "anyone can say anything on the net". I was to view the Internet as a 'game'. Soooooo, guess who goes to the library if she wants factual information and cross-references it with other books to make sure it is right, LOL? And you know Cd the young man was right. I have seen so much misinformation and just plain down-right garble that this is how I view it now, as a game of sorts. If I find someone serious who wants to talk and exchange views then I am happy. So it may be that if you happened to see it on the net then you may not find it again.
I have found also that few geologists and scientists actually agree with each other. It appears that there is just as much varying opinions within the disciplines as there are in the various religions. At one point I wrote a manuscript with more than 40 references. That was truly a job and a half. I don't know how many hours I spent cross-referencing to make sure that what I put down was correct. Had some publisher been brave enough and greedy enough to publish it I would have had to check it again for accuracy. As it was the Di Vince Code put a damper on things and with my book the Muslims would have been caught up in it also so no one wanted to touch it. Factual truths can sometimes be a real hot subject to handle.
Well, I want my second cup of coffee for this morning so I can wake up a little. Talk later and don't worry about the volcano incident.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Human Paradox
Yep. Agree with every word. My house is full of books. I think what I recall was a tv documentary. The subject will no doubt turn up again somewhereif it had any truth to it.
laughs. Anyone can say anything on the net....I have a good degree in an Arts subject and a postgrad diploma in a soft science. I'm not saying this to boast (many have more and better!) but just as background to the statement that I'm usually pretty good at spotting the whiffy stuff.
eep!
Augh! All those qualifications didn't stop me burning the lunch I was reheating!
laughs. Anyone can say anything on the net....I have a good degree in an Arts subject and a postgrad diploma in a soft science. I'm not saying this to boast (many have more and better!) but just as background to the statement that I'm usually pretty good at spotting the whiffy stuff.
eep!
Augh! All those qualifications didn't stop me burning the lunch I was reheating!
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Human Paradox
The Internet is a good way of getting ideas but every source and piece of information needs verifying. The same applies to any source of information when it comes down to it.