be happy my friend. God bless you

I always am. Or, at least, I'm always content. And She already has.

Ahlimay su eline laray. (Walk in peace, knowlege, and meaning)

It is interesting to me that if it is a diferent SECT of christianity it
is called a sect yet a different religion is called a cult.

Whereas to me being not a christian all of them are cults.

Except that it's not. Cults are limitted to small organizations.
Fledgeling religions. Some become full religions in their own rights.
Others simply fail. And others still are run by psychopaths.


The "Branch Davidians", for example. They were a cult. They were also
christian.

The "Heaven's Gate" cult was.... I'm not entirely sure. Probably
easiest to classify them as a form of scientology.


In theological nomenclature- even christianity was once a cult. And any
new "sect" of christianity will be considered a cult until it has lasted
for over 20 years and gathered over 1000 members.

Also, you can have "sects" in other religions. Judaism has over 30
major sects- most of which I'm unfamiliar with. Islam has at LEAST 40
sects, and maybe another 1000 cults, if you count certain terrorist
organizations. Buddhism has dozens of sects. Taoism has only a few.


Sorry, AB, you're just wrong on that accusation.

Wasn't an accusation. Was a simple statement.

Jeez man can I have my head back.

AB, you can have your head back. Here's a little levity, in keeping
with figures, as Poet got us started here.

Judaism is the forerunner of Christianity. It preceeds the Christianity
by thousands of years. Poet stated that there are at least 30 major
sects of Judaism. If you check some of the figures on line, there is an
estimated 230,000 sects of Christianity.

I agree with you AB, they're all cults to me too, but isn't it amazing
how difficult the religion became to decifer and agree on after Jesus?

I did not find it difficult to decipher he himself.

I found it dificult to decipher the overlays that have been placed upon
his message by the disciples, popes, bishops, evangilists etc...

AB, you are correct regarding the way that -some people- will choose
between the terms sect and cult to project their personal bias onto
group in question.

Fair enough. Some people abuse terms. I thought you didn't know the
difference, so I felt the need to "educate". Not that a "cult" is
necessarily a bad thing, anyways.

WARNING to the good solid posters of this topic:

I’d like to see this topic turn into a true debate, so in my most
imperfect way, here’s my 7 1/2 cents worth (I have such a hard time
keeping it to 2 cents only), which might help bring the debate back on
debating tracks (maybe).

This is a longer text than even I am used to writing. MAybe it's too
long, but PLEASE GIVE IT A CHANCE!
It is not meant, by any means, to be an answer to anything.

It does TRY however to explore and question some taboos in this thread
(most threads of other posts), however imperfectly, … and intends to
get this great question back to “DEBATING MODE!!!
(yes, I’m suggesting from my point of view, that a debate is not
happening here, and yet there might a debate waiting to happen)

What’s 7 minutes since you’re here anyway.
Read it, and reply!!! For fun sake's!


TO “PoetnArtist”,

While the question which is raised on this post remains fascinating:
“Are we superior?”, the debate or dialogue that could have ensued has
long been replaced by a sclerosis like ‘one-way-position’, adopted and
fought over by one, against the many.

Of course these forums are WIDE-OPEN. It is one of its greatest
quality, and probably its worse fault at the same time.

Debates are fundamentally designed to ‘exchange’ points of view. This
requires integrating in ones reply, the previous point or points made.

Unfortunately, most exchange either turn into “slam-bang-affirmations”,
or sterile ‘duals’ of righteous positions. That what happens with
every topic, where one, or the many parties involved no longer help
‘move’ the debate.

Debates, through intelligent exchange of ideas and concepts, were
designed to move beyond the ‘sclerosis’ of personal opinions, positions
or personal religious beliefs!!!

In that light, I’ll risk sharing with you, what IMO is being overlooked
in this particular discussion, and most other found in these numerous
posts.

While all we have to offer, is our personal point of view,
… the personal perspective by itself, is of absolutely NO INTEREST,
… unless it is genuinely and authentically ‘OPEN’ to others’ points of
view!!!

That’s a paradox, but then again, for human beings, life itself is
first and foremost a paradox.


TO OTHER POSTERS,

Here’s one look at this condition of paradox we live in:

We are humans, and we tend to overlook, or simply ignore some
fundamental facts and realities about what it is to be HUMAN!!! No
wonder we get dizzy with confusion and misunderstanding over a single
word like ‘SUPERIOR’ !!!

One of those realities, as observed by many of us, is that WE, humans,
are probably nothing other than “meaning making machines” from an
ontological standpoint.

SUPERIOR is a WORD!!! Like several 10’s of millions of words from the 6
800 known languages in the world. Superior is nothing other than a
single word, ‘made-up’ by a certain number of humans to address ‘HUMAN
nature’ issues.
… And just like every other word, a ‘particular bunch’ of humans, over
the past millions of years, gave it a particular meaning (only humans
give, and believe in meaning, NO GOD, NO ANIMAL, NO SPIRIT, just
humans).

Humans made-up the word ‘superior’ as they did the words ‘god’, and
spirit, etc., AND ‘invented’ ALL MEANING. What<S more is that humans
have done so strictly FROM, AND FOR the human perspective: AN OBSERVER
OBSERVING HIMSELF!!!

… And amongst all those words and meaning (‘LANGUAGING’: inherited,
unconscious, as well as limited and conscious words and meaning),
there will NEVER BE unanimous agreement for the same meaning.
If there is agreement between a smaller sampling of humans of a same
‘bunch’, those might not agree on the context, or application of the
meaning. That’s the design of meaning:
… SOMEONE within a ‘bunch of humans’,
… SAYS: ‘… this is ‘THIS’!!! to his bunch of humans,
… and in time, a critical mass of consensual humans within the bunch,
will make that particular ‘THIS’, the ‘THIS’ THEY chose.
When Galileo ‘said’ the particular ‘THIS’: “… that the earth revolved
around the sun”, it took hundreds of years before consensus built up
among a particular bunch, for it to be so. And it is STILL NOT SO for
a whole bunch.

We, human beings, can’t live without meaning. It defines the world
around us, and more importantly, it defines each one of us in
particular, and also defines ‘US’ as a whole.
That is the only thing WE can observe so far, that might make us
different from other Primates:
WE SEEM TO NEED TO BE “AWARE” of the fact THAT WE EXIST!!! That’s all.

What distinguishes us from anything else that WE have figured so far,
is this pain in the neck that we need to remind ourselves of our own
existence, rather than just exist. Our words and meaning, all of it,
all of human ‘languaging’ (spoken and non-spoken), will never be the
‘truth’.

It will simply serve, if we make the effort, to help
… EACH ONE OF US DISTINGUISH WHAT WE ARE NOT, AND WHAT IS NOT, … FROM
WHAT WE ARE, AND WHAT IS,
… FOR WHICH WE WILL NEVER HAVE ANY IDEA!!!!

All this meaning is at the very best a fair REPRESENTATION or
INTERPRETATION of what ‘feels true’, very far from what ‘might’ be
true, since the representation or interpretation are always separated
from whatever the real thing might be.

So what is this separation thing!!!

Well I suggest we explore some, on the side of the human condition, the
evolution of their brain, and more particularly, this evolutionary
ACCIDENT called the neo-cortex.

Bear with me…

Cortex: from Latin, meaning ‘crust’, ‘bark’ or ‘peel’, an envelope
sitting on top or around something.
The ‘something’ that the cortex is crust for, is the ‘primitive’ or
emotional brain we share with all primates: intelligence of all body
functions, home of this inherited intuitive and intemporal knowledge
(DNA as part of it), master of the instinctive ‘FIGHT OR FLIGHT’
survival system.

But here is the ‘rub’ so to speak: there is no direct physical
connection within the human system, between the two ‘brains’:
primitive/emotional and neo-cortex (reasoning, logic, thinking thoughts,
meaning analysis, etc.).
The neo-cortex has the ability to rationalize, OBSERVE and ANALYSE (some
will argue ‘think’), what it observes, the primitive brain simply does
its thing of keeping one of us alive, without our involvement.
It is been argued in many neuro/bio-medical, psychiatric and
philosophical circles of late (past century), that the only factors and
information the neo-cortex observes and analyses, are the
‘after-the-fact’, ‘what happened’ results of the ‘primitive’ or
emotional brain, which works without any involvement from the
Neo-cortex, and from which it is totally disconnected.

We are thus observing ourselves, as if disconnected from ourselves, not
realizing that this is the case. That is a fact of being human, which
only very few make the effort of being aware or responsible for.
Another observed fact!

Life before neo-cortex was presumably simple. Fight-flight-survive-or
die!!! NO THOUGHT, NO MEANING, JUST INSTINCT. Pure emotional and
instinctive primate biological intelligence stuff. No need for
‘SELF-DEFINITION’ or ‘SELF-CONTEXTUALIZATION’!!! JUST INSTINCT!!!

Since NEO-CORTEX, we have developed this …
… LIMITED consciousness: giving us the illusion of full consciousness,
… IMPERFECT ability to think: giving us the illusion that we can think
all things, and … INCOHERENT obsession at finding and giving meaning to
everything: giving us the illusion that we can understand everything.

It made everything much more complicated, and confused. For the most
part, we do not take into consideration (realize as we observe) that
we are only and always watching or observing ourselves!!!
Magret gave it to us with his famous painting:

“… the picture of the pipe, IS NOT THE PIPE!!!”

All humans have is a picture (interpretation, observation) of reality,
yet, it confuses it for reality itself all the time!

Through this erroneous ‘separate’ and individual dimension (man-made
illusion), erroneously giving ‘one’ this personal perspective, made-up
of closed-up opinions and beliefs, one creates the superstition that he
or she is in direct contact with what is ‘real’.

Nothing could be further from the truth!!! Don’t know what the truth
is, but most of us can tell where there lies are in selective areas
(instances where we are open minded).
Very simple, when we look at a tree, we really think it is a tree. We
never stop and think (unless we’re doing some meditative or
philosophical exercise): “… tree is a word man invented to relate to a
picture (eye view) man sees.”
Now, to the universe, “UNIVERSE” as we define it, DOES NOT EXIST,
much less our concept of a tree in the universe !!!

What is true, is that we don’t know what a tree is, outside of our
interpretation of tree (the word we invented and ‘mostly’ agree with in
western and eastern civilizations).

So, among other things, this imperfect neo-cortex whose job it is to
obsessively make sense (rationalize) of the world (universe creation),
never stops finding and crystallizing the ultimate answer and
understanding (false) to it all, in order to provide humans an illusion
of control over its environment, and ENSURE (falsely) their SURVIVAL!!!

HUM!!! Doesn’t sound so complicated! We’re right back to the most
‘common’ of primitive sensation in primates, to which WE gave
word/meaning: FEAR AROUND SURVIVING,

Obviously N-C has never been able to rationalize this FEAR concept:
FEAR OF EXTINCTION, the only fear. But, imperfect and incoherent as
it is, N-C’s job is to rationalize , and when it can’t, it still
must obsess at providing the illusion of rational understanding. The
alternative is insanity. And it provides illusions NON-STOP!

Shortcut answers have always been an acceptable form of rationalization
for the large majority of human beings: being in the illusion of the
“KNOW”, is much simpler and reassuring (even though falsely so), than
purposely staying in the question and the MYSTERY (AWE) of life (not
knowing)!!!

And YES, however incoherent,
… false rationalization, through all kinds of man-made words and
concepts, does calm (trick) and quiet the FEAR through effective
PLACEBOs in the form of a word: ‘superiority’ (special, unique chosen,
individuality, beliefs, God, dogma, personal knowledge, etc.)!!!

With these inventions of the neo-cortex, false application of ‘superior’
to humans vs other elements and organisms of the universe, humans
figure, even if they were to self-destruct (totally irresponsible
through life), that they would end-up with ‘God’ (man made concept if
there is one) for eternity, because of humans magical SUPERIORITY!!!

Survival assured, no need to fear!!! That is the only ‘raison d’etre’
of that word in a philosophical or religious debate.

Since we are still here, the neo-cortex was obviously an evolutionary
move which contributed in adapting and helping our ancestors survive, …
so far!!!

But it certainly did not make us superior. SUPERIOR IS STILL JUST A
WORD!!! With its particular ‘MAN-MADE self-referential and FEAR
INSPIRED’ meaning.

... BUT WHAT A MEANING when humans apply it to themselves!!!

If all meaning is man made! And therefore strictly self referential,
strictly designed for self referential human beings.

Maybe superior is just what it is: a simple word with a mathematical
conception, playing as a filter or categorizer. It is useful for
simple things which refer to quality, strength, or size, all things
that are ‘MEASURABLE’. Still subjective, but useful.

As in ’18 carat gold’ is of superior quality, when compared to ’14
carat gold’.
Still a subjective judgement, but there appears to be a well installed
‘consensus’,
… in instances where ‘something’ like gold holds MORE of the
‘subjectively desirable’ substance (gold itself),
… it is agreed: that which holds more, is of ‘SUPERIOR’ GRADE OR
VALUE than that which holds less.

Without CONSENSUS, from subjective, and measure conscious
‘human-meaning-making-PRIMATES’ (referential-referee), you have no
SUPERIORITY. Animals do not share our neo-cortex meaning making
machine, neither do plants, minerals or any other component of the
Universe as we know it.
No meaning?!?!?! No possibility for consensus (sharing the meaning),
our words don’t apply, much less our meaning.

It may define the world for us (a particular bunch of us at a time). It
may determine to a limited degree our interactions with that world,
based on choices we make, BUT OUR HUMAN MEANING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH
THE WORLD, OR THE UNIVERSE, OR THE ‘CREATION’ AS SUCH: none of it is
given by human meaning!!! It allows humans to imperfectly interact with
the world, BUT IT DOESN’T GIVE THE WORLD!!!

We may turn out to be nothing other than imperfect witnesses at best (by
evolutionary default), and that does not even imply that there is a
purpose to those limited witnesses we are!!!

This concept of superiority might simply serve to help humans invent
themselves as separate witnesses, and thus ‘separate’ themselves from
reality. This separation from reality: nothing other than denial of
‘what’s so’, is the result of a well functioning neo-cortex, providing
the illusion of ‘feeling’, or the illusion of ‘KNOWING’ that survival
is controlled!!!

Without superiority, we’re left with ‘MYSTERY’, ‘UNKNOWN’, ‘QUESTION’,
‘HUMILITY’, ‘TOGETHER’, ‘ALL’. None of those concepts provide control
over the BIG survival question.
And yet, all of those ‘questioning’ concepts , are much more powerful
‘living’ concepts IMO, than this ‘absurd’ obsession to feel superior,
strictly out of our primitive sense of fear from our ‘fight or flight’
instinct.

Jules Lachelier, a highly respected an influential early century
philosopher, distinguished it best, about human thinking in the world,
and about the world (universe-creation) :

“… Humans are in a World,
… out of a thought which cannot be thought (self-referential neo-cortex
with no direct contact to the original thought or reality),
… yet is suspended to a THOUGHT which THINKS ITSELF (sensation and
observation of the original and disconnected thought from the primitive
or emotional brain)”.

I brough it up earlier, and I’ll bring it up again, HUMILITY, …
more than this SUPERIORITY COMPLEX or RELIGIOUS DOGMA or SIMPLE BELIEFS
to avoid and deny observing reality as it occurs to us (free of our
superfluous fear inspired interpretations) ,
… is what the human race lacks MOST (that includes me!!!).

We can tell what isn’t. But we cannot tell what is. That is our
imperfect nature, … and will argue for fun, that it is good that way.

Ok. So that was a lot of interpretation of human nature. But that's the
crux, it's only "human" nature. Which is vague at best. But, however
blurred the human line is, it falls -the vast majority of times- above
the much cleaner "animal" line.


Even your own points on the cortex could be used for that statement.
Call us "animals plus", if you like, but we still have that "plus".

Well, well, well,

'Slam-bang' for 'Slam-bang'

From what supreme authority do you establish the 'ABOVE' or the 'PLUS'
you quickly 'FIRE BACK WITH'!!!

With all due respect, I have an amicable suggestion for you
'poetnartist':

'slow down on the reading, and pace-up the reflection' (open thinking,
no preconceived position), it might help in having you join this
debate.

And, yet, you make the "slam bang" conclusion with my statement. I'm
sorry I didn't include pages of information with my conclusions, but
they're not necessary.


Nothing in your post had anything directly to do with our "superiority"
or not, anyways.

Poet,
and you are crediting yourself for having that plus?
It has evolved through nature, a jump of genes, whatever,
it's still natural though.
But if you are not able to use it properly it's worthless.

I came with the "plus" based on the fact that our brains do all the
functions of other animal species, and yet come complete with a higher
series of functions.


What's better? A computer built in the 80s that's merely a word
processor hooked to a monitor with the total memory space of a low-grade
CD?

Or a modern computer that, in the same space, has internet access, a
printer, decent sound cards, a scanner, a place to play with your MP3s,
and enough memory space to hold the complete library of congress?


The low-grade machine might serve everything you'd need (although you
don't need much in that case). But the modern one, by virtue of more
capabilities and superior abilities, is the better machine.

And I agree- our brains very well could be "purely natural". I have no
proof to the contrary. But you don't have any proof it is, either. It's
certainly a powerful tool for us humans, regardless.


Like I said, on the pragmatic level, we win. Pragmatism means "ignore
spiritual or personal value and look merely at functionability."

But you still need to know how to use it. If you start with the ultra
modern machine without knowing the function of the antiquated one you
are fairly fast at a loss. You have to start on basics to get at the
top, no?

On that, I agree fully. Some human beings aren't much better than
animals. Hell, some are WORSE than animals. When a human being commits a
horrible act of violence or cruelty, he KNOWS it's wrong. Animals can be
bad, no doubt, but only humans have the capacity for evil.


Which is, of course, a take on conciousness and planning. Only human
beings can reject a tangibly better solution for intangible reasons.

Oh. And my first computer already had windows. You don't have to
*start* with antiquated machinery to learn the modern. But if you master
the modern, you automatically master the antique.