-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Old Earth vs Young Earth Debate
sealchan
Well-Known Member
I thing that Jung's archetypes are likely the root metaphors uncovered by embodied cognition. They are collective to the extent that the root metaphors common to all languages are shared and grounded in our species common experience of the world. The creativity of dreams which is the ground of myth and story and poetry is all about metaphor.
All of our language(s) and the concepts have evolved out of a build up of mapped and creatively remapped sensory and intuitive cognition. So our scientific concepts also are rooted in our language. We see the world through language-colored glasses.
Also scientific laws are rational principles based on repeatable observation of an assumed closed system which can be practically achieved in certain areas of study. The systemic nature of reality prevents the possibility of a perfectly closed subsystem amenible to perfect control and predictability. The laws uncovered by science mature as they reveal how they define and contain each other in an inter-dependent web of relationship. This fundamental interdependency indicates the evolutionary nature of the cosmos at every level.
Jung tapped into this systemic quality of psyche through his psychic energy idea. The force of conditions and the instincts represent an energetic system on the level of human cognition that shares many metaphoric qualities with physical systems. This is because as differing layers of physical reality the cosmos and the psyche are both systemically bound, inter-dependent energetic systems. Their direct interconnection through the brain and human language merely re-expresses this mutual truth.
I have worked out a bit of the embodied root metaphor of depth perception and reasoned our that using two different ways of knowing (let's say science and faith) allows one to get a deeper view of ones reality than one could achieve with either way of knowing alone. It's like using your thinking AND feeling together although their separate perspectives are incongruous. Our brains do this with the sensory input from our two eyes and derive depth of field as a result.
The human race lives within a poem of it's own creation. That poem is the mediating Jesus of our collective effort to survive an amoral God-reality.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
I don´t quite agree in this. IMO Dreams are communication on several levels, but they all mean something - although it sometimes can be hard to interpret and put into the correct context.
When I speak of "vivid collective dreams and visions" i.e. on a "higher" level, this is again IMO a communication between an individ and the cosmic surroundings. This is why some persons can have so called "spiritual or religious revelations" which we all can have.
I would take this with a grain of salt. Some "scientific/cosmological laws" are not fully understood, which have resulted several theories of creation/formation. Some observations frequently contradicts the scientific predictability, so nothing is carved in stones.
Agreed. This is just what I was talking of above.
Agreed, and so do I in my studies of Mythology and Cosmology.
NOTE: I´m now leaving this thread. Thanks for now and see you around.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
Beyond the archetypes of natural human instinct, are deeper layers of archetypes connected to relationship. Even deeper down are layers of archetypes connected to meaning. The archetypes of relationship are based on how things relate to each other. This firmware is grounded on the basic family unit; mother, father, child, siblings, etc., and extrapolates in terms of how humans relate within culture; king, queen and subjects. It goes even beyond, in how we relate to the gods, earth and universe. Your intuitions come from this firmware. This firmware will lend intuitive elements for its development, driving the conscious mind toward the nutrient resources; data, needed for its continued growth. This is healthy.
The archetypes of meaning; symbolized by the wise old man, is based on the 2-D and/or 3-D logic that goes beyond the subjectivity associated with the archetypes of relationships. For example, PC language censor is connected to how we relate to each other. The goal is to structure language so we do not offend each other so we can relate in a more positive fashion. However, this is not relational in the sense that the range of censorship appears to be political and one sided. One can still offend the religious. This cherry picking of data can impact other firmware. The firmware of meaning looks for the larger rational and spatial commonality that goes beyond niche relationships.
In Christian tradition, Jesus tells us to relate to each other via love. Love is 3-D and creates spatial relationships that can extend beyond the immediate family to culture all the way to the human family. The Holy Spirit or the Spirit of truth is analogous to the firmware of meaning. Faith in the intuitions coming from these firmware seeds help lead us, so we can develop this firmware. However, it can cause one to come in conflict with niche thinking associated with the firmware of relationship; cultural specialty, since meaning is more universal. That time in history was a transition as the deepest level firmware becomes more collectively conscious. The old ways to relate become questioned.
The firmware are not static, but rather are a dynamic system.
Audie
Veteran Member
How did you find out about it
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
When I was much younger, just of out of college, starting my first job as an engineer, I became interested in broadening my thin liberal arts education, through self study. I read classical literature, learned about other religions, read self help books, as well as dabbled in the occult and mysticism. It was during this time, with the help of friends, I became self actualized.
One day, doing some specialty Yoga and meditation exercises, some very strange affects started to occur. If I took the strange affects in the context of happening outside me; spiritual world, It was very unsettling since I had no control. As a scientist, I decided to think of this strange data as something that was happening inside me, which was being projected outward, like a movie. This POV was less scary, since an inner source seemed easier for me to control.
To investigate this premise, I started to read deeper psychology books, and settled on Jung, since his thesis seemed the best way to approach this. His thesis was more about what comes after self actualization, tha other orientations. Spirituality is about collective beliefs and experiences and the collective unconscious is about human commonality.
While reading the collective works of Jung, I decided to expand on his thesis by conducting unconscious mind experiments on myself. The goal was to experience the archetypes or firmware, first hand, to make sure it was real and not just theory. I had become an expert in collective human symbolism and felt I could isolate and analyze. It was from these experiments that I gained lots of first hand data, which confirmed the firmware, and allows me a platform to see how they worked. My research also paralleled my readings of Jung, with times, where I would dream of symbolism I never seen and read about it the next day in a book ai never read.
This was pioneering work in psychology, since it was not common for the researcher to be both the scientist and the experiment. Psychology research is usually not done in the first person. It is usually done in the third person. I had to learn, in the field, how to induce affects, while also learn how to remain objective at the same time, which was not always easy. There are two centers of consciousness. Over time, I developed an interactive rapport with the unconscious mind center, which is the source of my creativity. I can hook up to the various firmware and ride the wave.
At various points in the research, I underwent a type of rebirth; software update, where the direction would change. One such update, caused my memory of the past to become unconscious. The memory was not erased, but it was not easy to access. My ingenuity and my personality were retained. I knew language, but I could not remember much more from my past except as an intuition. I could interact in real time, but the same recall was not there. I had to reinvent myself, via an internal creative process, using the rapport with the unconscious. It became necessary to moor myself back to reality, by having to reinvent science.
I would theorize the beginning of the universe. This would then need to set the potential for the next step. This sequence would follow a spiral of thinking, until it brought me to the present. A few months later it would begin again, improving on what I had created. It took many years of evolving bizarre theory, before I interfaced myself to contemporary science, through online science forums. This helped bring my working science memory back. But a change had been made inside me, allowing me to know the past and present, while being able to think way outside the box.
So many of the foundation premise of contemporary science are based on the firmware of relationship; group think and convention. The firmware of meaning allows me to find conceptual problems and inconsistencies, which when I speak of them, creates conflict with science politics. Science politics is the protective muscle behind science relationship. I am sort of a wanderer, since eventually conceptual inconsistency and politics do not agree. I jump around so I can stay ahead of politics.
dimmesdale
Member
Not an argument. It is an attack.
It is written as history. Genealogies, for example are historical claims. In Luke three, both Noah and Adam depicted as historical. It goes from Adam to God. Adam depicted as the son of God. No animal intermediaries. No animal lineage in Scripture. Those are the facts. Critics are entitled to their opinions, (ignorance, dishonesty, superstition) not their facts. They have multiple compiled accounts for the existence of Adam. Including Jesus who carries a lot of weight with Christians. If you do have a problem with that historical claim then what about the current claim about a human/ape common ancestor mystery nonhuman creature? Do tell, where is all the empirical evidence for that?
What? Guess Plato and Aristotle does not make the cut.
Audie
Veteran Member
Whatevs, guy, you want to believe faity tales, it is your
prob. You are clearly beyond the reach of any actual
debate. Good luck, and plesse dont vote.
dimmesdale
Member
Well you did not answer anything. How hard is that? Do u think you would pass in a classroom with that kind of hand wave which does not address not one thing? No you would not. Do u, for example, know the difference between a personal attack and a logic argument? I am just trying to keep in on the issues here and avoid the hitting below the belt. And i will vote.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The Lord of the Rings is loaded with genealogies and history. Yet you can see that is a work of fiction. Just because something is written as if it were not fiction does not mean that it is historical. There are many tales in the Bible that we know not to be true. Luckily for you that does not mean that the whole Bible is fictional (though the magic parts almost certainly are).
Audie
Veteran Member
the book of mormon was also written as history.
I fyou were actually interested in the fossil history of
humans you'd not ask about it here, nor would you go
to some creosite for their fakery.
dimmesdale
Member
Never read it. It does not invalidate the historical claims of the ancients. Take Moses for example. These are some of the sources. They are all facts attesting to the physical existence of Moses. You can have your opinion, not your facts. Quote
Fossils do not come with lineage attached. They are evidence of bones, remains. That is it. Everything else is ginned up after the fact. They are spinning a story. It is voodoo not science. Certainly not exacting types which get us to the moon. So when you throw around words like science, then the distinction needs to be made and not conflated to add credence to mystery stories.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
When I see this sort of thing from creationists, I always go to one issue that maybe you can address.....how do you account for the fact that the vast majority of paleontologists across the world have a view of the data and their profession that is 180 degrees from yours? If you really believe the above, do you also believe paleontologists are really bad at their jobs? Are they just dumb? Are they part of the longest-running and largest conspiracy in the history of science? Are they under some sort of magic spell?
dimmesdale
Member
Bandwagon appeals unscientific. The longest running conspiracy is probably bleeding people as a medical treatment. That was also bandwagon appeals and went on for hundreds of yrs. If you wisk to converse then can the insults. If you can't do that then eventually you will be on ignore. That is all.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You do not appear to understand what the term "lineages" means. All that you have are a list of Jewish scholars that believed the Moses myth. Modern biblical scholars do not think that Moses was a real person. And since you like Wikipedia you should be aware that they know that Moses is a fictional character. For example their story on the Exodus should be enlightening to you:
"The Exodus is the founding myth of the Israelites."
' Historicity[edit]
The consensus of modern scholars is that the Bible does not give an accurate account of the origins of Israel.[34] There is no indication that the Israelites ever lived in Ancient Egypt, and the Sinai Peninsula shows almost no sign of any occupation for the entire 2nd millennium BCE (even Kadesh-Barnea, where the Israelites are said to have spent 38 years, was uninhabited prior to the establishment of the Israelite monarchy).[35] In contrast to the absence of evidence for the Egyptian captivity and wilderness wanderings, there are ample signs of Israel's evolution within Canaan from native Canaanite roots.[9] While a few scholars discuss the historicity, or at least plausibility, of the Exodus story, the majority of archaeologists have abandoned it, in the phrase used by archaeologist William Dever, as "a fruitless pursuit". '
The Exodus - Wikipedia
In other words the Moses Exodus story, the basic reason for his life, never happened.
Audie
Veteran Member
Does not matter if you read it, and I said nothing about
"invalidating". Just telling you the obvious,
that things written AS history may not be.
I believe the commies are noted for history that is
not exactly historical.
Your notion of what biology / evolution is about is
so primitive and distorted that there is little I could
say to you, it would be like starting at first
grade with an unwilling student.
That you say things like "ginning', "spinning" and
"voodoo" show most plainly that you dont know
enough to do anything but indulge in name calling.
So never mind, to talk to you about it is pointless.
Last edited:
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
No, you misunderstand. I did not argue for the validity of anything, let alone do so by appealing to any sort of majority view. I simply inquired about how you account for the consensus viewpoint among paleontologists.
There was no insult in my post. Again, I am simply inquiring as to how you account for the consensus view among paleontologists. Let's try again....
You posted "Fossils do not come with lineage attached. They are evidence of bones, remains. That is it. Everything else is ginned up after the fact. They are spinning a story. It is voodoo not science."
When you say "everything else is ginned up after the fact", are you accusing paleontologists of deliberate fraud?
When you say "they are spinning a story", are you accusing paleontologists of intentionally lying to the public?
When you say "it is voodoo not science", are you saying paleontologists are so bad at their profession that they don't realize how their work is "voodoo" and not even science?
Actually, no it isn't. it is a statement of fact concerning the current scientific consensus. There is no debate about whether or not the earth is billions of years old in the scientific community. It is a settled area of knowledge.
There is plenty of evidence, both paleontological and genetic showing the divergence of human ancestors from other primates.
And you are correct, neither Plato nor Aristotle's ideas would be accepted as modern science. They were philosophers at a time when knowledge about the world was very, very limited. In fact, the mistakes that Aristotle made were a big part of the reason the scientific revolution didn't happen earlier.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Wrong. This is not "bandwagon appeals". The reason that there is so much agreement is that the findings are repeatable. They only support the theory of evolution.
And it is almost ironic how the most ignorant of posters here are the quickest to put people on ignore. But then I guess that goes a long way towards explaining their ignorance.
Unreliable witnesses are not reliable as witnesses. So, they thought these accounts were historical. Did they have any real basis for thinking so, or was it just the traditions they grew up with?