Research on Belief in God

Page 32 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
RetroActive said:
Any glue will due to form a herd. Religion, politics, economics, education, sports, fashion, hairstyles; people love pre-fab. identities. The more base the message the louder it resonates. It's all tribalism, there's something for everyone.:eek:

One of the most tragic ironies of modern times is Israel and the Zionist myth. This is taboo to talk about though so we need to be careful. Regardless the myth is completely falling apart and yet the most brutish rise to power and simply scream louder.

I can enjoy people as individuals (unfortunately they're few and far between) but herds scare me, they tend to stampede when the herd dogs start barking.
That's because society is by in large made up of conformists.

The Zionist myth has huge financial resources and the political support in America and Europe behind it, for this reason it has become taboo to discredit in any way without being accused of anti-Semitism. At some point, however, a rational and not ideologically driven distinction needs to be made, so that honest and politically useful discussions about the regional dilemma might lead to their fortuitous and much needed resolutions. Although since there is so much money, political power and ideology behind the mythology, I don't think there is much hope in starting to walk along that path. But what's needed first is objectivity, which is what has been tragically missing since all the unpleasant business began, for which no hope of fareness and justice can be achieved.
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,383
0
0
rhubroma said:
That's because society is by in large made up of conformists.

The Zionist myth has huge financial resources and the political support in America and Europe behind it, for this reason it has become taboo to discredit in any way without being accused of anti-Semitism. At some point, however, a rational and not ideologically driven distinction needs to be made, so that honest and politically useful discussions about the regional dilemma might lead to their fortuitous and much needed resolutions. Although since there is so much money, political power and ideology behind the mythology, I don't think there is much hope in starting to walk along that path. But what's needed first is objectivity, which is what has been tragically missing since all the unpleasant business began, for which no hope of fareness and justice can be achieved.
The more abstracted we become the more we're an existential threat to ourselves. It's amazing just how malleable our minds are. Here's something to think about: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html

I agree with you on Zionism. If I was an academic it would present an amazing case study. It really has all the elements of crazy unfolding before us.

The sun appears to come up, the sun appears to go down. In fact the earth is spinning and all life exists between two poles. People are still full of sh!t, in everyway - everyday. What's new?

More directly back on topic: The Story of God Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3_WFk59lzM

Fairly balanced.

Cesar's Messiah Jesus A Roman Invention
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM2KONcLKQU

People used to get their tongues ripped out and be burned at the stake for contemplating such things so that's some progress anyway. Poor Cathars.

ps, if post humanism succeeds and I'm still around I want my consciousness uploaded into a robotic pterodactyl. I just want to put that on the record.
 
Jan 20, 2013
897
0
0
rhubroma said:
Thus one can speak of the fascist mindset: which is characterized by obvious hubris that's accompanied with the intransigence of the sectarian, by those who have self-appointed themselves as more intelligent, more moral and more spiritual than anyone else and therefore well able to direct the affairs of everyone else, which aims at control over lives.
Nailed this one. As we are on a cycling forum, I could make a few sporting comparisons, but my posts have a habit of falling flat as failed attempts at humour :(

Echoes said:
Many Catholics have internalized all these horrors and are now saying "my religion is the Gospel and not the Church" (which is partly true), while it's rather high time they stroke back. Everything we've been taught, we need to forget and get back to square one. It's about time Catholics woke up. Chesterton already said he assumed all that the Church has done ... Of course the Church made mistakes, I'm a Lefebvrian, which means I disagree with the Church but usually the Church's true mistakes are the things that atheists believes are acceptable (e.g. Vatican II)
There was an interesting discussion on the radio recently from a Catholic theologian who was arguing that the Catholic religion made some theological errors, misinterpretations of scripture from it's foundations, and implying is what lead to the many abuses (errors) of the catholic church in recent years. Nothing to do with the 'church' or due to atheist interference, but misinterpretation of theology (see your comments in bold).
Unless you are asserting that atheism is a kind of religion and is prone to misinterpreting doctrine. Isn't this what the Nazis did? Or is this what you are saying?

I subscribe to the Charles Darwin school of atheism. Critique the tribes belief system by observing the natural world.

As to my thinking, we are all born into the world as atheists, that it is a natural state of being ( that is if it means no belief in god, religion or any kind of doctrine) the child will learn belief systems and rituals from it's tribe and we should hope will also learn to critique those beliefs and rituals (not alter the narrative to suite) him/herself !
 
aphronesis said:
Hmm, Hard to have this discussion when you're so entrenched in nominalism. To the extent that he ever was one, Lukacs was hardly a "Marxist" by the time of the text you cite. Other than the fact that he was well within the Stalinist geo-political orbit. But again, that's a very emaciated (and obsolete) definition of "Marxism."
Then I don't see where the problem is. You are probably more informed than me about Lukacs but I don't see why his evolution enters this discussion. By the way if he became Bergsonian, good on him. I love Bergson !


aphronesis said:
Interesting. To what end? Doesn't sound very religious. Are you defining God negatively?
Spot on! I've already said that I haven't had a real religious education (slightly religious let's say) and I used to be an atheist, as a teen. I'm using the vocabulary of my era. Secularism is a religious invention anyway. However I have to admit that if I am to read a book with huge Biblical terminology I'd get lost. I once read Bernanos' Great Cemeteries Under the Moon and I couldn't understand half of it. I should re-read perhaps but compared to some of the great communicators of the past, with great knowledge, like Henri Guillemin e.g., I feel like a kid !

aphronesis said:
(On that score: your categorization of Hitchens viz Iraq is wildly off the mark and irrelevant. Got any more useful examples?)
I've already given more examples. I'm francophone and I realize that the most die-hard Iraq War advocates in France are former Trotskyist, left-wingers and atheists. This fact should at least raise questions, shouldn't it?

aphronesis said:
You may find Rhub's post offensive, but to date your posts have been mostly on the sweeping attack and very few explanatory so that doesn't leave much out.
Don't reverse roles, please. Rhubroma and Eshnar started attacking with their arrogant Marxist stance: "Religion = Opiate of the People" "You fear death, you are weak and we are strong."

We all know this theory is the biggest crap Marx ever said. Not worth a penny.

horsinabout said:
Isn't this what the Nazis did? Or is this what you are saying?
What did the Nazis do? Don't tell me you also think they were Catholics. :confused:

Sure theologians misinterpreted the Scripture. Anyone can make mistakes. The most important thing is to keep in mind that there is a correct interpretation and many misinterpretation. It's very much modern to think that there are a wide variety of interpretations possible, each of them being worth the others (that is nominalism).

But it's not what I meant there. I was talking about some historical events involving the Church throughout history. Anti-Christian propaganda is constantly distorting facts.

I'll just take one example. the Galileo Case. For anti-Christians it's the typical case of a scientist being a martyr of science against an obscurantist Church that burnt him at stakes (while they know he died peacefully at home) because he found out that the Earth revolved around the Sun.

There's not a word of truth in that. The Church never had any veto against the heliocentric model. The geocentric model was made up by Aristotle and neither the Gospel nor the whole Bible ever mentioned it. The Church was very interested in the heliocentric model. Copernicus' work has never been threatened by the Church's censorship. Quite on the contrary, the Church encouraged him. Problem is, he found no evidence. Neither did Galileo, neither did Kepler. Only with Newton, was the model accepted and the experimental evidence came even afterwards (18th century).

But it's not because he had no evidence that Galileo was arrested, though he claimed he had evidence for it and seemed very proud and pretentious. The problem came when he gave his word to the Pope that he would publish his book in Rome and then published it in Florence, which the Pope did not appreciate. Then he also started interpreting the Scripture, which was not his job. He was a scientist and not a theologian. Finally the sentence was very mild (House arrest). Of course the true story seems much less romantic than the conspiracy theory that is accepted today but it still is the true story.

This is just one example of an anti-Christian myth that I can think of but there are hundreds and hundreds of other examples.
 
Jan 20, 2013
897
0
0
Echoes said:
What did the Nazis do? Don't tell me you also think they were Catholics. :confused:

Sure theologians misinterpreted the Scripture. Anyone can make mistakes. The most important thing is to keep in mind that there is a correct interpretation and many misinterpretation. It's very much modern to think that there are a wide variety of interpretations possible, each of them being worth the others (that is nominalism).
In bold. none of what you have written here is normal. It's just outrageous.

And i.ve a horrible feeling that responding to you is the equivalent to falling falling into a black hole.
 
Aug 2, 2012
5,971
1
0
too whit

ChrisE said:
The fact that this stupid thread exists proves there is no god.
so where did your whit , charm and good looks come from?

I have not read all the thread but it seems to me that few approach the real essence of the question

considering religious tachings ( rules of man ) rather than the spirit that creates and fosters all life

Mark L
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
ChrisE said:
The fact that this stupid thread exists proves there is no god.
....gee thanks for waking me up there eh....was having the weirdest dream....it kinda would flit into focus and be phase coherent and make this very strange and crystal clear sense and so on and so forth....and then suddenly not so much clarity, or sense, crystalline or otherwise....dreams can sometimes be real messed up I find....

...that being said it was also a very interesting dream, especially toward the end....thanks to all the players....now where is my coffee?....reality is barking and needs tending...

Cheers
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,383
0
0
blutto said:
....gee thanks for waking me up there eh....was having the weirdest dream....it kinda would flit into focus and phase and make this very strange and crystal clear sense and so on and so forth....and then suddenly not so much clarity, or sense, crystalline or otherwise....dreams can sometimes be real messed up I find....

...that being said it was also a very interesting dream, especially toward the end....thanks to all the players....now where is my coffee?....reality is barking and needs tending...

Cheers
Dreams are like that. It's said that if one identifies with the seer of the dream and not the dream...who's the seer of the dream?
 
Jan 20, 2013
897
0
0
Jan 27, 2013
1,383
0
0
blutto said:
...its complexicated...and kinda allegorical...that much is clear....

Cheers
It's going to get more complexicated as times are changing. The old testament was written for the age of Aries (thus Moses freaking out about the golden calf - the age of Taurus had ended) and the new testament was written for the age of Pisces (thus all the fish references).

“Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house where he entereth in.” Luke 22:10.

Here comes Aquarius, we'll need a new religion. The king is dead, long live the king. Should be fun to watch. :eek:
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
ebandit said:
so where did your whit , charm and good looks come from?

I have not read all the thread but it seems to me that few approach the real essence of the question

considering religious tachings ( rules of man ) rather than the spirit that creates and fosters all life

Mark L
I'm fairly confident that my DNA and genes were the result of my parents screwing many years ago. The rest of my attributes I got from watching Beavis and Butthead.
 
ChrisE said:
I'm fairly confident that my DNA and genes were the result of my parents screwing many years ago. The rest of my attributes I got from watching Beavis and Butthead.
We are apes modified by a rather insignificant DNA percentage. We come from a beginning that's called the Big Bang and an evolution that science has been able to delineate with ever greater precision. We are going nowhere, in the sense that there is no prescribed destiny in our future, which thus remains unpredictable, uncertain, undetermined and at the level of individuals has its only configuration, as Baudelaire reminds us, in what we built with our labors. We are what we have done. And what we did, given the circumstances, was what we were able to do. As Schopenhauer wrote: "The stage director of I, is behind the scenes."
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,383
0
0
rhubroma said:
We are apes modified by a rather insignificant DNA percentage. We come from a beginning that's called the Big Bang and an evolution that science has been able to delineate with ever greater precision. We are going nowhere, in the sense that there is no prescribed destiny in our future, which thus remains unpredictable, uncertain, undetermined and at the level of individuals has its only configuration, as Baudelaire reminds us, in what we built with our labors. We are what we have done. And what we did, given the circumstances, was what we were able to do. As Schopenhauer wrote: "The stage director of I, is behind the scenes."
Thankfully, as we progress out of the dark ages, this arrogant, mundane dogmatism is giving way to a more interesting understanding. Ever so slowly things change.
 
RetroActive said:
Thankfully, as we progress out of the dark ages, this arrogant, mundane dogmatism is giving way to a more interesting understanding. Ever so slowly things change.
I'm not sure if what you call arrogant, mundane dogmatism, refers to science or not, which seems to me to simply be conclusions based on all the evidence. In this sense change has already come in leaps and bounds recently, when set against the old religious dogmas of the past, which endured for ages though were based on nothing other than the most tenuous superstitions.
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,383
0
0
rhubroma said:
I'm not sure if what you call arrogant, mundane dogmatism, refers to science or not, which seems to me to simply be conclusions based on all the evidence. In this sense change has already come in leaps and bounds recently, when set against the old religious dogmas of the past, which endured for ages though were based on nothing other than the most tenuous superstitions.
Your confirmation bias is showing. If you want to talk progress then understanding has to change with new evidence. Genetics don't control biology, the big bang is well into epicycles and religions are far more interesting than you are giving them credit for.

Oh well, every dying paradigm requires defenders of the faith.:cool:
 
RetroActive said:
Your confirmation bias is showing. If you want to talk progress then understanding has to change with new evidence. Genetics don't control biology, the big bang is well into epicycles and religions are far more interesting than you are giving them credit for.

Oh well, every dying paradigm requires defenders of the faith.:cool:
Look, what are you accusing me of? That I don't advocate updating current theory when new evidence is presented? Of course this is not the case.

Religions are as interesting as mythology, though in today's world they are no longer valid ways of explaining things. They may offer insight to the mysterious ways of nature and human conditions, as does philosophy, but they can no longer be held as demonstrations of anything, let alone proof.

At the same time I recognize the limits of science, so there's nothing dogmatic in my point of view. However, one must recognize that science offers at least the possibility of demonstrating that which sheer conjecture cannot.

Whereas I don't think the paradigm is dying, if anything it will be strenghthened precisely because progress will be based upon the understanding of new evidence.
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,383
0
0
rhubroma said:
Look, what are you accusing me of? That I don't advocate updating current theory when new evidence is presented? Of course this is not the case.

Religions are as interesting as mythology, though in today's world they are no longer valid ways of explaining things. They may offer insight to the mysterious ways of nature and human conditions, as does philosophy, but they can no longer be held as demonstrations of anything, let alone proof.

At the same time I recognize the limits of science, so there's nothing dogmatic in my point of view. However, one must recognize that science offers at least the possibility of demonstrating that which sheer conjecture cannot.

Whereas I don't think the paradigm is dying, if anything it will be strenghthened precisely because progress will be based upon the understanding of new evidence.
I'm objecting to oversimplification and cut and dry, inaccurate premises.

I think it's all interesting. I would suggest that the clunky mechanistic paradigm is, if not dying, being superceeded by much more subtlety. There's some sort of full circle happening in many fields that points much more to interaction/relationship than absolute objectivity. Epigenetics is but one example...

Based on "The Turning Point" by physicist Frijof Capra, who also wrote "The Tao of Physics".;)
Mindwalk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8s0He0560g

What We Still Don't Know: "Are We Real?" .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyH2D4-tzfM

btw, my neighbor who had to slaughter all her pigs early as their bones were degenerated and their backs all broke after being fed GMO feed may have some misgivings about the precision of this science.
 
RetroActive said:
I'm objecting to oversimplification and cut and dry, inaccurate premises.
Nobody is oversimplifying, but given the context brevity is required. At any rate there have been books written about the subject and without clamorous evidence to the contrary, the general outline of the scientific model will not be overturned.

Though if you think that esoteric philosophizing will offer better explanations then all I can say is best of luck.
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,383
0
0
rhubroma said:
Nobody is oversimplifying, but given the context brevity is required. At any rate there have been books written about the subject and without clamorous evidence to the contrary, the general outline of the scientific model will not be overturned.

Though if you think that esoteric philosophizing will offer better explanations then all I can say is best of luck.
...and many of those people writing those books are drawing parallels between esoteric philosophizing of the past and what science is discovering now. I'll leave it up to you to make the concrete distinctions.

I know one difference worth noting: the ancient esoteric ideal was for the individual to transform themselves through observing nature while today we're bent on transforming the world around us to suit ourselves.

The irony of it all is that civilisation is, in effect, a by-product of this self evolving ideal.:) As is science.

The scientific method has, in many cases, been abandoned for theoretical maths models that may or may not be pure fantasy. Dark matter being one example, a necessary epicycle of that ancient contemplation made modern as the big bang.
 
RetroActive said:
...and many of those people writing those books are drawing parallels between esoteric philosophizing of the past and what science is discovering now. I'll leave it up to you to make the concrete distinctions.

I know one difference worth noting: the ancient esoteric ideal was for the individual to transform themselves through observing nature while today we're bent on transforming the world around us to suit ourselves.

The irony of it all is that civilisation is, in effect, a by-product of this self evolving ideal.:) As is science.

The scientific method has, in many cases, been abandoned for theoretical maths models that may or may not be pure fantasy. Dark matter being one example, a necessary epicycle of that ancient contemplation made modern as the big bang.

Well, now we have finally come full circle. To create solid and stable convictions in the minds of the masses, there must be something which appeals to the eye; a popular science, sustained only on theoretical math models, will never be anything but feeble and vacillating. In other words science, in the absence of philosophy, art and culture, is a lame cripple that limps and is ultimately doomed to a wheelchair to all those but the specialists.

I previously said that we come from a beginning that's called the Big Bang and an evolution that science has been able to delineate with ever greater precision, etc. This so called the Big Bang is really a scientific catch phrase, which recognizes that just as the universe is in progressive expansion, so it began in a state of infinite contraction, absolute concentration of mass, energy, form and the formless that unexpectedly was thrown around in an immense explosion. Out of this total chaos the mass condensed into stars, which filled the void with the galaxies, which, in turn, begot satellites called planets that encircled stars in a complex and multitude array of solar systems, including ours with planet earth, which under the sway of evolution gave way to an efflorescence of life, including yours and my own.

Now what science has theorized and developed mathematical models to prove, the ancient Greeks in their fertile imaginations, posited, effectively, in an alternative mythology: the world is created out of Chaos. A tale like no other, that moves ever further backwards in time, searching for the beginning, the beginning of time which never was. In that distant age there lived, as there had always lived, a god named Chaos. He was alone, and around him there was nothing but utter emptiness. In those times there was neither sun, nor light, nor earth, nor sky. There was nothing but the formless void and thick darkness stretching to infinity. Untold centuries rolled by like this until, at last, Chaos grew tired of being alone and so, reaching out over the entire void decided to bring the goddess Earth into being. She was lovely beyond description; filled with strength and life, she grew and spread and enfolded huge expanses with her embrace. On her our world was created. Then Chaos created fearsome Tartarus and black Night, and straight after that the lovely and radiant Day.

I can think of no better, nor more elegant, metaphor for the Big Bang than this.

Much later we see Pythagoras elucidating his tetractys, a diagram showing how X is the sum of I, II, III, IIII, which the Neoplatonists attached enormous significance to this simple fact, having to do with geometric projection and the mapping of space and correspondences between man's earthly works and the cosmos: about which Pythagoras, Euclid, Ptolemy, Zoroaster, and Plato interpreted as a harmonious complex of concentric spheres and other "perfect" shapes and values, moved by number-based music. Art, especially the arts of poetry, architecture, sculpture and painting reflect cosmic perfection by imitating nature's number-structure.

In light of such myth and esoteric thinking the image of Vitruvian man immediately comes to mind, which is not only concerned with geometric figures, especially the circle and the square, but with the power these shapes have to generate others - shapes that were miniatures of the "parent" form. This concept of the generation of one form by another had a curious aspect: the male human body, in line with suggestions made by Vitruvius, was seen as the generator of squares and circles. In Leonardo's interpretation of Vitruvius, for example, the circle was the "mother" of the man, since his umbilicus is at the center of the circle mapped through the man's outstretched arms, slightly raised, and legs planted apart. Alternatively, when the man puts his feet together and extends his arms at right angles to his body, the gesture generates a square centered on the man's penis. Thus the man born of the circle (cosmos) "fathers" the square (earth). One imitation of Leonardo's Vitruvian man, by the Milanese theorist Cesare Cesarino, even shows the figure with an erection. The square is thus shown at the very moment of "conception."



Now under the sway of Italian civic humanism and ancient Greek geometry, XVI century architects devised building plans to interface such Neoplatonic thought, with Euclidian-Pythagorean postulates and Vitruvian design to render the very conception of a building laden with symbolic intentions: micro and macrocosm, earth and cosmos, human and divine. Thus it was with Bamante's plan for New St. Peter's Basilica at the Vatican, who was influenced by the basic Leonardsque arrangement of a Vitruvian inspired centrally planned church. Yet Bramante was interested in generating and multiplying shapes. Looked at in more detail his general scheme consists of a Greek cross with four equilateral branches or arms, within which are symmetrically clustered chapels and miniature Greek crosses that, together, make up the basic cube of the church's body. The arms of these smaller crosses consist of further miniatures. And their corners, in turn, are filled in with yet smaller chapels and niches. the principle is that of Chinese boxes - or, for that matter, fractals. So we can speak of a single macrochapel formed by the main circular dome, four sets of what I will call maxichaples, sixteen minichapels, and thirty-two microchapels. The two later groups, however, the minis and the micros, consist of half-domes rather than complete ones. Also, the minis and the macros that face toward the central piers are broken through to provide access to the macrochapel. Each new "generation" of chapels is thus precisely four times the frequency of its predecessor.



I don’t know how or if such esoteric schemes can lend themselves over to science today, however they are useful in helping us appreciate the flights of the mind that, over the centuries, had been the very driving forces that eventually gave rise to scientific empirical thought. Collectively and cross-culturally then, in a temporal continuum, they represent a kind of prisca scientifica (primordial science), which has been of great contribution to civilization and human development.
 
RetroActive said:
Thankfully, as we progress out of the dark ages, this arrogant, mundane dogmatism is giving way to a more interesting understanding. Ever so slowly things change.
There is no such thing as Progress and there were no such things as Dark Ages. These really are illusions !
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,383
0
0
rhubroma said:
Well, now we have finally come full circle. To create solid and stable convictions in the minds of the masses, there must be something which appeals to the eye; a popular science, sustained only on theoretical math models, will never be anything but feeble and vacillating. In other words science, in the absence of philosophy, art and culture, is a lame cripple that limps and is ultimately doomed to a wheelchair to all those but the specialists.

I previously said that we come from a beginning that's called the Big Bang and an evolution that science has been able to delineate with ever greater precision, etc. This so called the Big Bang is really a scientific catch phrase, which recognizes that just as the universe is in progressive expansion, so it began in a state of infinite contraction, absolute concentration of mass, energy, form and the formless that unexpectedly was thrown around in an immense explosion. Out of this total chaos the mass condensed into stars, which filled the void with the galaxies, which, in turn, begot satellites called planets that encircled stars in a complex and multitude array of solar systems, including ours with planet earth, which under the sway of evolution gave way to an efflorescence of life, including yours and my own.

Now what science has theorized and developed mathematical models to prove, the ancient Greeks in their fertile imaginations, posited, effectively, in an alternative mythology: the world is created out of Chaos. A tale like no other, that moves ever further backwards in time, searching for the beginning, the beginning of time which never was. In that distant age there lived, as there had always lived, a god named Chaos. He was alone, and around him there was nothing but utter emptiness. In those times there was neither sun, nor light, nor earth, nor sky. There was nothing but the formless void and thick darkness stretching to infinity. Untold centuries rolled by like this until, at last, Chaos grew tired of being alone and so, reaching out over the entire void decided to bring the goddess Earth into being. She was lovely beyond description; filled with strength and life, she grew and spread and enfolded huge expanses with her embrace. On her our world was created. Then Chaos created fearsome Tartarus and black Night, and straight after that the lovely and radiant Day.

I can think of no better, nor more elegant, metaphor for the Big Bang than this.

Much later we see Pythagoras elucidating his tetractys, a diagram showing how X is the sum of I, II, III, IIII, which the Neoplatonists attached enormous significance to this simple fact, having to do with geometric projection and the mapping of space and correspondences between man's earthly works and the cosmos: about which Pythagoras, Euclid, Ptolemy, Zoroaster, and Plato interpreted as a harmonious complex of concentric spheres and other "perfect" shapes and values, moved by number-based music. Art, especially the arts of poetry, architecture, sculpture and painting reflect cosmic perfection by imitating nature's number-structure.

In light of such myth and esoteric thinking the image of Vitruvian man immediately comes to mind, which is not only concerned with geometric figures, especially the circle and the square, but with the power these shapes have to generate others - shapes that were miniatures of the "parent" form. This concept of the generation of one form by another had a curious aspect: the male human body, in line with suggestions made by Vitruvius, was seen as the generator of squares and circles. In Leonardo's interpretation of Vitruvius, for example, the circle was the "mother" of the man, since his umbilicus is at the center of the circle mapped through the man's outstretched arms, slightly raised, and legs planted apart. Alternatively, when the man puts his feet together and extends his arms at right angles to his body, the gesture generates a square centered on the man's penis. Thus the man born of the circle (cosmos) "fathers" the square (earth). One imitation of Leonardo's Vitruvian man, by the Milanese theorist Cesare Cesarino, even shows the figure with an erection. The square is thus shown at the very moment of "conception."



Now under the sway of Italian civic humanism and ancient Greek geometry, XVI century architects devised building plans to interface such Neoplatonic thought, with Euclidian-Pythagorean postulates and Vitruvian design to render the very conception of a building laden with symbolic intentions: micro and macrocosm, earth and cosmos, human and divine. Thus it was with Bamante's plan for New St. Peter's Basilica at the Vatican, who was influenced by the basic Leonardsque arrangement of a Vitruvian inspired centrally planned church. Yet Bramante was interested in generating and multiplying shapes. Looked at in more detail his general scheme consists of a Greek cross with four equilateral branches or arms, within which are symmetrically clustered chapels and miniature Greek crosses that, together, make up the basic cube of the church's body. The arms of these smaller crosses consist of further miniatures. And their corners, in turn, are filled in with yet smaller chapels and niches. the principle is that of Chinese boxes - or, for that matter, fractals. So we can speak of a single macrochapel formed by the main circular dome, four sets of what I will call maxichaples, sixteen minichapels, and thirty-two microchapels. The two later groups, however, the minis and the micros, consist of half-domes rather than complete ones. Also, the minis and the macros that face toward the central piers are broken through to provide access to the macrochapel. Each new "generation" of chapels is thus precisely four times the frequency of its predecessor.



I don’t know how or if such esoteric schemes can lend themselves over to science today, however they are useful in helping us appreciate the flights of the mind that, over the centuries, had been the very driving forces that eventually gave rise to scientific empirical thought. Collectively and cross-culturally then, in a temporal continuum, they represent a kind of prisca scientifica (primordial science), which has been of great contribution to civilization and human development.
Good post.
To the bolded:
1) Red shift is taking a beating. As are a number of other assumptions of the big bang theory. Taking a paradox that showed the limitations of thinking and making it material science may not work out so well.

2)The Tetractys isn't as simple as it appears, these folks drew enormous meaning out of this simplicity. Each number had meaning as one unfolded into two (duality) and two requires three (relationship), etc. A whole complex or relationships unfolds. Entire books have been written on the meaning of number. There's a vast depth there, something I would have appreciated in my schooling.

3) Harmony, oh harmony. This ideal I would probaly place at the center of the difference of intention between modernity and the ancients. We've lost something here. The ancients were a mess in many ways but this ideal was incorporated in all their major works, particularly in architechture. Man in the middle attempting to harmonize himself.

4) As it currently stands we're sandwiched between two paradoxes; the big bang macro and the quantum micro. We're flopping around in the middle with no clear intention other than more and more still. I really think the average person might benefit by having a better orientation than reality T.V. and all you can eat buffets. I certainly appreciate the orientation that history, and the depth of perspective that created it has. The ancients didn't think like us at all, they gave depth and meaning, vast interconnected relationships to what we're taught as mundane and seperate.

What's cool is that a good deal of the info. is still around and clearer understandings are bubbling up all the time. If, for example, Schwaller de Lubicz's work is ever recognised then a great deal of Egyptology will have to be rewritten. Gobekli Tepe has seriously messed with the minds of anthropology and archeology as many textbooks are now obsolete, theories turned on their heads. Interesting times.

In other words science, in the absence of philosophy, art and culture, is a lame cripple that limps and is ultimately doomed to a wheelchair to all those but the specialists.

You said it. I think science is cool and I think ancient esoteric philosophizing is cool and I think it's cool that one is, in many ways, coming back around to the other. This word integrity keeps popping up eveywhere.:) Rigidity and dogma aren't very useful in religion or science. Here we are, still stuck in the middle, in mud but not of mud searching for this elusive thing called truth. I don't think completely trashing the place is worth it but what do I know. I'm simply trying to know myself and it ain't easy.

ps, if anyone is interested in trying to understand ancient texts I'd suggest Manly P. Hall.
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,383
0
0
You know, I'm just thinking about all the people I know that have more. More money, more house, more cars etc. and then fly around the world looking at things without really having the first clue about what they're seeing. Burning the place up checking off a list and perhaps appreciating some superficial facts about where they've been. It's a funny 'ole world. Oh well, it's beyond me.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY