Comparative Religion: Godmen

gue_barium

angelica wrote:

"To sense that behind anything that can be experienced, there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religous man". ~ Albert Einstein


It's clear that Einstein speaks to what our minds cannot grasp and that we know through the beauty and sublimity we experience indirectly. He refers to it as behind anything that can be experienced.

I think he just speaks. How could he speak to what "our minds cannot grasp?" How would we understand it?

What he really means is that the mystery of the unknown has religious significance to him.

Ahnimus

"I think and think for months and years. Ninety-nine times, the conclusion is false. The hundredth time I am right."

"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts"

"Knowledge of what is, does not open the door directly to what should be."

I always see a mass confusion between what is and what ought to be on this forum.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

"Considered logically this concept is not identical with the totality of sense impressions referred to; but it is an arbitrary creation of the human (or animal) mind."

Do you realize that he's talking about when considered with logic or logically-- it is an arbitrary creation of the human mind? This is what I said earlier in this thread about our signifiers and the human ego.

Holistic truths can only be comprehended holistically, beyond logic, as a whole.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Do you realize that he's talking about when considered with logic or logically-- it is an arbitrary creation of the human mind? This is what I said earlier in this thread about our signifiers and the human ego.

Holistic truths can only be comprehended holistically, beyond logic, as a whole.

That sounds like confabulation Angelica. If you suffer from one major illness, it's confabulation.

gue_barium

angelica wrote:

Do you realize that he's talking about when considered with logic or logically-- it is an arbitrary creation of the human mind? This is what I said earlier in this thread about our signifiers and the human ego.

Holistic truths can only be comprehended holistically, beyond logic, as a whole.

But, is he talking about God or religion? Or something else altogether? That quote doesn't say what concept he's talking about.

Ahnimus

Let's get to the bottom of your nihilism here Angelica...

You would say that promescuity is promescuity, and a prairie vole is a prairie vole and neither can be understood by the sum of their parts.

Yet, recent research has shown that promescuity in prairie voles is inversely caused by the density of vasopressin and oxytocin receptors in specific regions of the frontal cortex.

If everyone shared your approach of not researching, but imagining and viewing everything 'holisitcally' then there would be no progress. The promiscuous behavior of prairie voles is directly regulated by the low density of receptors for these peptides. If Einstein truly is saying that this cannot explain the behavior, than he was a fool. Rather, I think you are confabulating his statements, to support your preconceived views of reality, which you've obtained through subjecting yourself to fanciful speculation and ignoring the simple truths that refute them.

gue_barium

Ahnimus wrote:

Let's get to the bottom of your nihilism here Angelica...

You would say that promescuity is promescuity, and a prairie vole is a prairie vole and neither can be understood by the sum of their parts.

Yet, recent research has shown that promescuity in prairie voles is inversely caused by the density of vasopressin and oxytocin receptors in specific regions of the frontal cortex.

If everyone shared your approach of not researching, but imagining and viewing everything 'holisitcally' then there would be no progress. The promiscuous behavior of prairie voles is directly regulated by the low density of receptors for these peptides. If Einstein truly is saying that this cannot explain the behavior, than he was a fool. Rather, I think you are confabulating his statements, to support your preconceived views of reality, which you've obtained through subjecting yourself to fanciful speculation and ignoring the simple truths that refute them.

I take offense to that statement.
















I once dated a prairie vole.

Ahnimus

gue_barium wrote:

I once dated a prairie vole.

Nothing wrong with that. This research applies to humans as well, as demonstrated by Paul J. Zak.

He even developed an Oxytocin nasal-spray. What I'd like to get is Oxytocin incense for those romantic evenings

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Let's get to the bottom of your nihilism here Angelica...

You would say that promescuity is promescuity, and a prairie vole is a prairie vole and neither can be understood by the sum of their parts.

Yet, recent research has shown that promescuity in prairie voles is inversely caused by the density of vasopressin and oxytocin receptors in specific regions of the frontal cortex.

If everyone shared your approach of not researching, but imagining and viewing everything 'holisitcally' then there would be no progress. The promiscuous behavior of prairie voles is directly regulated by the low density of receptors for these peptides. If Einstein truly is saying that this cannot explain the behavior, than he was a fool. Rather, I think you are confabulating his statements, to support your preconceived views of reality, which you've obtained through subjecting yourself to fanciful speculation and ignoring the simple truths that refute them.

Your labels, presuppositions, assumptions, rhetorical questions and numerous false premises are about your imagination.

angelica

gue_barium wrote:

But, is he talking about God or religion? Or something else altogether? That quote doesn't say what concept he's talking about.

"Considered logically this concept is not identical with the totality of sense impressions referred to; but it is an arbitrary creation of the human (or animal) mind."

He says that logical consideration is not identical with the totality of sense impressions referred to".

What is referred to are the totality of sense impressions. And he's saying logical consideration is an arbitrary creation of the human mind rather than equal to the sense impressions referred to.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Your labels, presuppositions, assumptions, rhetorical questions and numerous false premises are about your imagination.

No, they are evident in your behaviour.

Where have I heard that before?

I honestly have no clue what the hell you are talking about when you talk about holonomics. I've read about it and it still sounds just as stupid.

Einstein said "Gravity can not explain falling in love"

That is correct, but biochemistry does explain it. You have to realize that these statements are foolish. You say that a system cannot be understood unless looked at holistically, but I argue that you are no closer to understanding these systems than an emu.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

If everyone shared your approach of not researching, but imagining and viewing everything 'holisitcally' then there would be no progress.

That I've integrated the 13 years of hard study I have done on all levels sounds like something you are not familiar with or understanding of. Just like you cannot fathom the gap between the totality of sense impressions with the arbitrary nature of logic alone. This is why integration is important. You can certainly dispute that if you like.

PaperPlates

Today's overused word is "nihilism".

Say it with me class.

"nihilism"


Use it in a sentence class.


"Ryan used the word nihilism 75 billion times in this thread."

Good job class.

angelica

PaperPlates wrote:

Today's overused word is "nihilism".

Say it with me class.

"nihilism"


Use it in a sentence class.


"Ryan used the word nihilism 75 billion times in this thread."

Good job class.

Thanks for your wisdom, PP.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

"Considered logically this concept is not identical with the totality of sense impressions referred to; but it is an arbitrary creation of the human (or animal) mind."

He says that logical consideration is not identical with the totality of sense impressions referred to".

What is referred to are the totality of sense impressions. And he's saying logical consideration is an arbitrary creation of the human mind rather than equal to the sense impressions referred to.

No, Einstein was more linguistically articulate than that. His statement would read "Logical Consideration is not identical with the totality of sense impressions referred to" if your interpretation were true. That is not what he said.

Now, concerning logic, you seem to have logically come to the conclusion that logic is fallible, and I ask how you can refute the method by way of the method? Alogic cannot be expressed as you've implied by ignoring my challenges. Certainly you are not using alogic to refute logic, you are relying on logic, which demonstrates that logic is not as fallible as you wish it to be. Let's not confuse your difficulty with logic with the nature of logic.

PaperPlates

angelica wrote:

Thanks for your wisdom, PP.

I do believe it was predetermined that I share that.






Sorry, that was all rather nihilistic of me.

Ahnimus wrote:

No, Einstein was more linguistically articulate than that. His statement would read "Logical Consideration is not identical with the totality of sense impressions referred to" if your interpretation were true. That is not what he said.

Now, concerning logic, you seem to have logically come to the conclusion that logic is fallible, and I ask how you can refute the method by way of the method? Alogic cannot be expressed as you've implied by ignoring my challenges. Certainly you are not using alogic to refute logic, you are relying on logic, which demonstrates that logic is not as fallible as you wish it to be. Let's not confuse your difficulty with logic with the nature of logic.

Are you sure you're not related to this guy??

http://www.etek.chalmers.se/~e5tomase/spock.jpg

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

That I've integrated the 13 years of hard study I have done on all levels sounds like something you are not familiar with or understanding of. Just like you cannot fathom the gap between the totality of sense impressions with the arbitrary nature of logic alone. This is why integration is important. You can certainly dispute that if you like.

Many people devote their lives to studying falsehoods. Just look at the Catholic Church.

Ahnimus

PaperPlates wrote:

Today's overused word is "nihilism".

Say it with me class.

"nihilism"


Use it in a sentence class.


"Ryan used the word nihilism 75 billion times in this thread."

Good job class.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard the word "holistic".

One more quote for Angelica here that likes to embellish all her ideas.

"If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor." - Albert Einstein

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

No, Einstein was more linguistically articulate than that. His statement would read "Logical Consideration is not identical with the totality of sense impressions referred to" if your interpretation were true. That is not what he said.

His words and his articulate nature speak very clearly for him. People can interpret for themselves.

I find it interesting that you are not sharing your impression of what it means, though.........;)

gue_barium

angelica wrote:

"Considered logically this concept is not identical with the totality of sense impressions referred to; but it is an arbitrary creation of the human (or animal) mind."

He says that logical consideration is not identical with the totality of sense impressions referred to".

What is referred to are the totality of sense impressions. And he's saying logical consideration is an arbitrary creation of the human mind rather than equal to the sense impressions referred to.

He is referring to a concept that is not shown in the quote. Unless you can show me the words surrounding the quote, there's no logical way I can conclude that quote means much of anything at all.