We keep referring to the term paradigm in Spirituality .. yet I sometimes wonder if we really know what the term actually means?

So here's an opportunity to share what we think we know.

Perhaps we may ALL learn something new.

As I said in the topic next door ..

Given our differing backgrounds .. it will be interesting to spill/brainstorm our thoughts/opinions/grievances regarding the concept.

Hi Lisa,
I find more of a spirtual connection from anything other than religion.
Just seeing the sun rise or set over the ocean or viewing
the stars, planets, galaxys & nebulas through a telescope.
Being close to a mountain & viewing the majesty of
the sheer size & beautiful ice & snow covered peaks.
Science can even be a spiritual connection for me.
Reading about the wonders of nature & seeing documentaries.
Life is about whatever inspires you to think beyond the day to day problems.

To this  extent I don't see a contradiction in Nail's thinking
if he thinks as I do?

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 8^th, 2011 at 5:40pm:

We keep referring to the term paradigm in Spirituality .. yet I sometimes wonder if we really know what the term actually means? So here's an opportunity to share what we think we know. Perhaps we may ALL learn something new.

why does spirituality have to be associated with some old book full of ancient scribblings and bronzed aged myths ??

it doesn't, d*cko! *you* are not *your body*... get it? you live in Asia, don't you. So get real and check out the most ancient civilisation right in your own country and in India, China,and the rest.  There's a lot more to it than Labor and Liberal, you blokes.
Chakra, Judaism, Hindi, Islam...*you* are *not* your *body*. Meditate on it...change your diet....listen to the Hari Krishna...etc...stop being so bloody English.

shampain socialist wrote on Feb 9^th, 2011 at 3:52am:

*you* are not *your body*... *you* are *not* your *body*.

Not only but also.

Some interesting posts in here this morning lol :)

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 8^th, 2011 at 5:40pm:

We keep referring to the term paradigm in Spirituality .. yet I sometimes wonder if we really know what the term actually means? So here's an opportunity to share what we think we know. Perhaps we may ALL learn something new.

The term paradigm itself refers to a set of specific practices, concepts, or frameworks in which people use to view things. However, this does not mean that all paradigms are equal or correct.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 10^th, 2011 at 5:19pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 8th, 2011 at 5:40pm: We keep referring to the term paradigm in Spirituality .. yet I sometimes wonder if we really know what the term actually means? So here's an opportunity to share what we think we know. Perhaps we may ALL learn something new. The term paradigm itself refers to a set of specific practices, concepts, or frameworks in which people use to view things. However, this does not mean that all paradigms are equal or correct.

If you want a postmodernist spin on it, they are all equal and none are more correct. Rorty, for example, sees it all as great narratives but as history has shown the great narratives seem to come and go. Science, accordingly, is in no privileged position. It has had its own narratives come and go and there's no reason to believe that won't continue to happen.

Of course, there are scientists who would deny that and assert that we are making steady progress toward THE  TRUTH.

Some great responses there.

Are there any specific paradigms that we've come across at all??

W Edwards Deming used to write of a paradigm shift.  For many years people were running companies with Quality Control inspectors with the belief that they could fix problems with quality. Deming came up with a paradigm shift and explained that quality can not be inspected in. You have to look at improving the process instead. Instead of the old view that quality costs money, he came up with the counter paradigm that quality saved money.

It could mean a whole new way of looking at something. For example, instead of gravity being regarded as a property of masses attracting each other , it is instead seen as a result of masses causing distortion of space time so that they continue to move in a straight line along the now distorted space-time.  Different paradigms.

Or there was the case of the learned philosophy Professor Jones who was being driven to a guest lecture by a taxi driver with whom he struck up a conversation. He was very impressed by the natural talent and intuition of the taxi driver, so when he got to the class, he said - I'd like you to take the  class in my place.  So unknown to the students who had never seen the great man in person, the taxi driver managed to deliver the lecture on morality and ethics, while the lecturer posed as the taxi driver. He was holding his own extremely well until it was time to open the floor to questions.

A hand went up in the left of the front row.
- yes ?
- Tell me Professor Jones, in your opinion, is the epistemological view of the universe still valid in an increasingly existentialist world?

The driver paused for a moment considering the question. Then he answered -

-  That is an extremely elementary question
- so elementary in fact that I will let my driver answer it."

To be able to see different paradigms, I think it's essential to look at the different concepts.
It's pretty hard to weigh the advantages or disadvantages of different concepts when only looking at one.

In regards to religion, I don't think that many people even bother to consider that there may be alternative, more correct concepts out there; they know what they know, and what they know is right and correct. Therefore, they think themselves as being spiritual..or "the spiritual".

As was put forward in a different thread, a link to Pt.1 of "Zeitgeist the movie", displays a very different concept to the origins of mainstream religion and the initial purpose than most mild Christians would even consider.
So, if it is not considered, then there is only one paradigm and the word "paradigm" itself becomes irrelevant and non-existent in this instance.

I would definitely like to discuss this concept, or paradigm-shift in regards to religion, but since it cannot be discussed objectively with the religious, there is little use of even mentioning the existence of a different paradigm.

IMO, spirituality concerns revelations, and Christianity is a false revelation. In other words, it's a lie. They bore false witness.

What spiritual paradigm are you contemplating, Amadd? And why do you think it's closer to the real deal than Christianity?

Axle wrote on Feb 12^th, 2011 at 12:13am:

What spiritual paradigm are you contemplating, Ammad? And why do you think it's closer to the real deal than Christianity?

It depends on your personal definition of "spiritual" I suppose.
I align it very closely with the word "revelation", which to me means "revealing something".
I'm sure that Einstein, Edison, Pythagoras, Newton, etc.. would have felt very spiritual with their personal revelations which will resonate throughout history.

IMO, Christianity is anti-spiritual in that it not only didn't it reveal any truths, it covered them and hindered progress.

Personally, I don't believe everything put forward in "Zeitgeist the movie", but Pt.1 is pretty close to the mark IMO.

You can look at the "movie" as you would "When Harry met Sally" and glean what revelations may seem right. There's no objective to make it a new religion as some have, it's just about questioning some long standing paradigms IMO.

"All the world is a stage". Shakespeare told his story, as did, has and will so many others. It's up to you to decifer what is real and what is not.i

From what you've said, you seem to be almost stating a Platonic conception of truth- a world of forms which stands above and outside our world, which is a poor imitation.

How can you know what I've said when you haven't bothered to look?

The movie or what you said about Einstein, Newton and Pythagoras etc? Maybe I read too much into your comment. These guys looked behind what's visible to the eye to discern the underlying truths of our cosmos and basically that's what Plato was about.

Plato thought that reality lay beyond the appearances of things we see. He actually thought that there was another realm occupied by transcendant truths which could be apprehended by the mind.

I'm not concerned with philosophies atm, I'm talking about paradigms.

Obviously you'd prefer not to look at different concepts and instead place labels as you see fit.
That would agree with your current mindset I'm sure.

I think, "How 'bout we just forget it?"
You ain't goin' nowhere with this subject.

Oh two negatives..sorry Lisa..

"You ain't going anywhere with this subject.

I was just on my way out when I caught your last post, Amadd. I was just trying to get a handle on where you were going but I got it wrong, sorry. No, go right ahead what concepts do you want to look at when it comes to spirituality? You did say that you had different concepts to Christianity. You hinted at it by talking about revealed truths.

The floor is all yours. I'll be back later today , I guess, to see what you have in mind.

The different concept to Christianity is revealed within what the ancients were trying to share with us all through stories.
To understand the value of stories, you must first understand that most people were once essentially illiterate, ie: they couldn't read or write, so knowledge was shared through personal teachings or storytelling.

I cannot explain the link from storytelling to religion in a few short paragraphs, but I think that Pt 1 of "Zeitgeist the movie" does a very job of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNf-P_5u_Hw

For the rest of Pt.1, you'll have to click for yourself.

So basically, the figure of "Jesus Christ" is just a raping of conceptually factual stories in an attempt to make him out to be a "real" person, when in fact he was never intended to be seen as "real". He is just an allegorical character placed in a story in order to explain factual events .. whatever name he is given.

The truth is that Jesus Christ never existed as a real person..and nobody but nobody can prove me wrong there.
Jesus Christ is the same as any other "Sun God" that has ever existed. The purpose of which is to explain the movement of the planets through allegorical stories for the betterment of those who sow and harvest...who of course were essentially illiterate.
Those people needed to rely on stories that they could relate to to tell them when to sow and when to harvest.
There is really nothing "magical" within biblical stories. The written word may have lessened the value of stories to an extent over the years, but it didn't by any means lessen the propensity for fiction.i

It's fashionable to beat up Christianity and Islam these days.  I guess the two religions deserve it in a way by being so exclusive.  

If you want people to have totally "rational" beliefs, I think you're collectively deluded. It's just a fundamental thing about being human. Humans like to have their "comfort blanket". Apart from that, we all think in what I'd term idiomatic thought patterns. Our highly idiomatic speech patterns reflect an underlying idiomatic mind pattern.

Even if we pushed these religions out the door, another mental idiom would spring up in their place.

Think of the most serious scientific researchers imaginable - those paragons of rational thought. I worked in a research lab many moons ago. A lay person might think that these people would be somehow very rational and logical.  That's very far from the truth.  We'll never lose our humanity. One research paper I was assisting with  concerned certain long chain carboxylic acids and enzymes and their role in the breakdown of certain pharmaceutic grade products. We were using liquid chromatography to determine a way of separating them and working out the relative proportions of each. Instead of using the technical terms, within our group, the prof used the names Archie (arachidonic acid) Lucy (Linoleic acid) and Charlie Brown (stuffed if I can remember that one). Incidentally the related arachidic acid is found in peanut oil.

We all have a need to think illogically at times. We have a sense of humour. Many of us cling to religions too. It's all a part of being human.

Quote:

It's fashionable to beat up Christianity and Islam these days.  I guess the two religions deserve it in a way by being so exclusive.

Moreso, I'd say that they deserve it for being full of sh!t.

Would I expect worshippers of sun-gods to be entirely rational? Of course not.
The sun will still rise and it will still set regardless of homages.
The celebrations did however, mark important periods within the yearly cycle which naturally lessened in importance with the advent of a more literary "paradigm".
..and who hasn't, throughout history, controlled or attempted to control the written word?


Quote:

Even if we pushed these religions out the door, another mental idiom would spring up in their place.

To an extent I agree, but only to the extent that we see such new idioms being subscribed to today.
The "magical" aspect of Christianity would not get a look in if it was an unheard of concept which was put forward for widespread belief in this day and age. The moral aspect however, most definitely would.

Personally, I believe in our Christian laws and I believe in most of what I've read from the bible regarding morality.
Not believing that a man walked on water, performed miracles and rose into the sky in no way means that I also consider the moral teachings of the bible to be fantasy. Likewise, it doesn't mean that I think that it's wrong to pray or to have an idealistic or somewhat unattainable image such as Jesus Christ to work towards.
In that regard, it doesn't even matter if Jesus Christ was a real person or not, however, to many Christians, such a thought is seen as an attempt to tear down the entire religion. Obviously, it is they themsleves who would throw out the baby with the bathwater if it were proven to them that Jesus Christ was never a real person.

Axle wrote on Feb 10^th, 2011 at 6:33pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 10th, 2011 at 5:19pm: Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 8th, 2011 at 5:40pm: We keep referring to the term paradigm in Spirituality .. yet I sometimes wonder if we really know what the term actually means? So here's an opportunity to share what we think we know. Perhaps we may ALL learn something new. The term paradigm itself refers to a set of specific practices, concepts, or frameworks in which people use to view things. However, this does not mean that all paradigms are equal or correct. If you want a postmodernist spin on it, they are all equal and none are more correct. Rorty, for example, sees it all as great narratives but as history has shown the great narratives seem to come and go. Science, accordingly, is in no privileged position. It has had its own narratives come and go and there's no reason to believe that won't continue to happen. Of course, there are scientists who would deny that and assert that we are making steady progress toward THE  TRUTH.

Yeah, I don't agree with the postmodern deconstructionist's view. Generally, their view is that everything is a social construction. But this paradigm wipes out possible biological, genetic, or hereditary influences. The postmodernists try to sever thousands of years of evolutionary biology through cunning semantics. It's easy to expose the fallacy in their paradigm. A very simple example is babies crying as soon as they are born. The baby obviously wasn't taught to cry by "society", rather, it's obvious that we are born with certain instincts even before any socialisation occurs. This goes for other instincts as well, like sex, happiness, anger, and hunger.
There was an interesting fiasco a little while back called the Sokal affiar. Sokal exposed the lack of intellectual rigor in the postmodernist's view by writing a hoax article and then submitting it to one of their journals. Sokal, a physicist, wrote a parody claiming science is all a social construction. The postmodernists lapped it up. It showed that the postmodernists never actually engage in the scientific methodologies themselves, they believe they can just stand back and label it accordingly to their prejudiced beliefs.

Quote:

Muso wrote Humans like to have their "comfort blanket".

With this one sentence you've illuminated an all too human tendency. It would be an interesting experiement, presuming it is at all possible, to see how many people's Weltanschauung are constructed mainly from trying to numb pain, whether that be from their past or in order to avoid possible future pain, mental or physical.

I would immediately hypothesizes right now that the Abrahamic religions have grown, and are currently sustained, from severe mental anguish.

I really gotta say Lisa, I find it hilarious that you deleted my comment about not having enough balls to look at the different paradigms concerning Christianity.
It was actually directed to Axle who previously requested my take on differernt concepts regarding Christianity.

So is it that "balls" was such an obscene word? Oh gee whiz, golly jeepers..maybe I should have said "kahunas".

What you actually expressed there Lisa, was the paradigm that you follow and your refusal to compare concepts. It's all too common place, so don't worry too much about it.
Even Muso chimed in with a "fashionable beating up of mainstream religion" comment.

No, the only thing that is being beat up is the will to look for truth.
If something obviously counters your beliefs, then you'll stick your head in the sand. That's not very courageous.
But please consider all of those throughout history who were forced to tow the line of opposing paradigms.
They deserve to be heard don't they?
I'm really starting to wonder where you get off thinking that you even have a spritual bone in your body Lisa...besides your left winged agnostic hubby that is...that's a joke OK?  :D

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 12:54pm:

Quote: Muso wrote Humans like to have their "comfort blanket". With this one sentence you've illuminated an all too human tendency. It would be an interesting experiement, presuming it is at all possible, to see how many people's Weltanschauung are constructed mainly from trying to numb pain, whether that be from their past or in order to avoid possible future pain, mental or physical. I would immediately hypothesizes right now that the Abrahamic religions have grown, and are currently sustained, from severe mental anguish.

You probably hit the nail on the head around 50% of the time, but there are a few things missing from that paradigm.  I'd add stability in life - in other words a feeling of belonging to the social structure that is packaged with the more traditional religions, and a need to conform or self identify with a particular group in society.  As I said before, culture and religion are irrevocably intertwined.

Mainstream religion is more comfortable about tackling the more human aspects of our existence such as social belonging/ cohesion etc. Science leaves us cold in that respect.

In some cases it comes from a genuine desire to question the nature of our existence. I think that that's the seed that Abrahamic religions initially came from. The hardships of life and the disruption that came about with the first phases of  synoecism (early tendencies towards urbanisation), are probably what perpetuated it.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 12:54pm:

It would be an interesting experiement, presuming it is at all possible, to see how many people's Weltanschauung are constructed mainly from trying to numb pain, whether that be from their past or in order to avoid possible future pain, mental or physical.

Isn't that the genesis of all neuroses (Obsessive pain avoidance)?

Quote:

Isn't that the genesis of all neuroses (Obsessive pain avoidance)?

Without the threat of a smack on the wrist from God (ie: burning in hell for all eternity), how many Christians do you suppose would bother doing the right thing?
It's lucky for them that the bible seems to have left open dozens of exploitable loopholes.

Quote:

Yeah, I don't agree with the postmodern deconstructionist's view. Generally, their view is that everything is a social construction. But this paradigm wipes out possible biological, genetic, or hereditary influences. The postmodernists try to sever thousands of years of evolutionary biology through cunning semantics. It's easy to expose the fallacy in their paradigm. A very simple example is babies crying as soon as they are born. The baby obviously wasn't taught to cry by "society", rather, it's obvious that we are born with certain instincts even before any socialisation occurs. This goes for other instincts as well, like sex, happiness, anger, and hunger. There was an interesting fiasco a little while back called the Sokal affiar. Sokal exposed the lack of intellectual rigor in the postmodernist's view by writing a hoax article and then submitting it to one of their journals. Sokal, a physicist, wrote a parody claiming science is all a social construction. The postmodernists lapped it up. It showed that the postmodernists never actually engage in the scientific methodologies themselves, they believe they can just stand back and label it accordingly to their prejudiced beliefs

.


Q.What do you get when you cross a postmodernist with the mafia?

A. An offer you can't understand.


I don't think a postmodernist would ignore the biological side of humanity. What they do take exception to is biological reductivism. And I would agree with them there. We've had plenty of stories in the press identifying genes for this and that behaviour only to have them retracted later. The scientists involved recognise the  complex interplay between genes and their environment. We also have a new field emerging in epigenetics which concerns the transmission of environmental effects in the genome via genetic switches.

I'm not sure that instinct should be used with respect to humans. When we look at instinctual behaviour I have in mind things like beavers' dam building, nesting and migratory behaviours of birds. Humans, on the contrary, have a great deal of flexibility in their behaviour. You might have in mind innate predispositions but these are very much shaped by parents, peers and society.

So, ok, postmodernist magazine fell over themselves with Sokal's hoax but such hoaxes aren't absent in the natural sciences either.

http://listverse.com/2008/04/09/top-10-scientific-frauds-and-hoaxes/

Quote:

So basically, the figure of "Jesus Christ" is just a raping of conceptually factual stories in an attempt to make him out to be a "real" person, when in fact he was never intended to be seen as "real". He is just an allegorical character placed in a story in order to explain factual events .. whatever name he is given

You're running with an opinion expressed in a movie. However, there are other opinions which confirm the existence of Jesus but state that he was mythologised after his death. And , then of course, there are most theologians who subscribe to his existence and diety.

Here from Wiki:

"The majority of scholars who study Early Christianity believe that the Gospels do contain some reliable information about Jesus,[7][8][9] agreeing that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Quote:

You're running with an opinion expressed in a movie. However, there are other opinions which confirm the existence of Jesus but state that he was mythologised after his death. And , then of course, there are most theologians who subscribe to his existence and diety.

Opinion without factual backing doesn't "confirm" anything.

I've seen it all, read it all. There is no reliable evidence that Jesus Christ ever existed.

The interesting thing is that the "belief" in Jesus Christ did seem to bring a about an entirely different paradigm to that which previously existed. For better or worse, who knows?

Amadd wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 5:13pm:

Quote: You're running with an opinion expressed in a movie. However, there are other opinions which confirm the existence of Jesus but state that he was mythologised after his death. And , then of course, there are most theologians who subscribe to his existence and diety. Opinion without factual backing doesn't "confirm" anything. I've seen it all, read it all. There is no reliable evidence that Jesus Christ ever existed. The interesting thing is that the "belief" in Jesus Christ did seem to bring a about an entirely different paradigm to that which previously existed. For better or worse, who knows?

Opinion doesn't that's true but I assume the majority of Gospel scholars are agreeing on the basis of evidence.

However, that's a side issue for the purposes of this thread. This thread was born of another thread in which it was suggested that religion was a paradigm. The whole argument of paradigm was born in the debates in the history and philosophy of science. It referred to use of solved practical problems together with the theories, practices and instrumentation, as the authoritative basis for future research. Religion falls outside of this debate and if the term is applied to it or competing religions then it's only done so analogously.

I suppose you could say that for people religion solves the problem of how to conduct oneself through life and how to relate to your fellow man. Each relgion has its own practices- rituals and observances, and I suppose they have their own instrumentation- the crosses, idols,  incense burners etc. And as to theories, I suppose they tell us what divinities there are and what roles they play. They also explain our fate in terms of rewards and punishments in relation to the things we do and think. All dovetailing into the overarching problem of our conduct.

Whether religions are successful with that problem, I suppose is the grist for debate. Maybe I've missed the mark or I'm partially correct and religions are out to solve other problems as well like social cohesion or maintaining the status quo.

Axle wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 1:17pm:

Quote: Yeah, I don't agree with the postmodern deconstructionist's view. Generally, their view is that everything is a social construction. But this paradigm wipes out possible biological, genetic, or hereditary influences. The postmodernists try to sever thousands of years of evolutionary biology through cunning semantics. It's easy to expose the fallacy in their paradigm. A very simple example is babies crying as soon as they are born. The baby obviously wasn't taught to cry by "society", rather, it's obvious that we are born with certain instincts even before any socialisation occurs. This goes for other instincts as well, like sex, happiness, anger, and hunger. There was an interesting fiasco a little while back called the Sokal affiar. Sokal exposed the lack of intellectual rigor in the postmodernist's view by writing a hoax article and then submitting it to one of their journals. Sokal, a physicist, wrote a parody claiming science is all a social construction. The postmodernists lapped it up. It showed that the postmodernists never actually engage in the scientific methodologies themselves, they believe they can just stand back and label it accordingly to their prejudiced beliefs . Q.What do you get when you cross a postmodernist with the mafia? A. An offer you can't understand. I don't think a postmodernist would ignore the biological side of humanity. What they do take exception to is biological reductivism. And I would agree with them there. We've had plenty of stories in the press identifying genes for this and that behaviour only to have them retracted later. The scientists involved recognise the  complex interplay between genes and their environment. We also have a new field emerging in epigenetics which concerns the transmission of environmental effects in the genome via genetic switches. I'm not sure that instinct should be used with respect to humans. When we look at instinctual behaviour I have in mind things like beavers' dam building, nesting and migratory behaviours of birds. Humans, on the contrary, have a great deal of flexibility in their behaviour. You might have in mind innate predispositions but these are very much shaped by parents, peers and society. So, ok, postmodernist magazine fell over themselves with Sokal's hoax but such hoaxes aren't absent in the natural sciences either. http://listverse.com/2008/04/09/top-10-scientific-frauds-and-hoaxes/

I am unaware of any of the poststructralists (postmodernists) who take into account any biological influence. I could be wrong. If you can name any I'll stand corrected.
Foucault and Derrida, two of the biggest names, steer clear of biology. For Foucault everything is discourses based on power, for Derrida everything is "style".
I just believe a better paradigm would take into account both social consctruction and biological influences.

My own hypothesis on the absence of biology in the social sciences today is because of what the Nazis did. Any hint today of biological determinism seems to be equated with carting people off to gas chambers. I think we ought to be more grown up than this.

muso wrote on Feb 14^th, 2011 at 8:17am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 13th, 2011 at 12:54pm: Quote: Muso wrote Humans like to have their "comfort blanket". With this one sentence you've illuminated an all too human tendency. It would be an interesting experiement, presuming it is at all possible, to see how many people's Weltanschauung are constructed mainly from trying to numb pain, whether that be from their past or in order to avoid possible future pain, mental or physical. I would immediately hypothesizes right now that the Abrahamic religions have grown, and are currently sustained, from severe mental anguish. You probably hit the nail on the head around 50% of the time, but there are a few things missing from that paradigm.  I'd add stability in life - in other words a feeling of belonging to the social structure that is packaged with the more traditional religions, and a need to conform or self identify with a particular group in society.  As I said before, culture and religion are irrevocably intertwined. Mainstream religion is more comfortable about tackling the more human aspects of our existence such as social belonging/ cohesion etc. Science leaves us cold in that respect. In some cases it comes from a genuine desire to question the nature of our existence. I think that that's the seed that Abrahamic religions initially came from. The hardships of life and the disruption that came about with the first phases of  synoecism (early tendencies towards urbanisation), are probably what perpetuated it.

I am not sure what your position is, you state two things here, 1. that religion emerges from wanting to belong to a group, 2. that it emerges from questioning our existence.
Not that the two are incompatible.
I still think wanting to belong to a group does emerge from some kind of mental pain - isolation, anxiety, angst. This is probably developed very early in childhood from the dependency of the child upon its parents.
Questioning the nature of our existence can also be prompted by mental pain of some description.
Not that we can probably ever do away with developing our worldview based on pain avoidance. It's just fascinating to see how some people really try and cover it over with unbelievable fairy tales.

muso wrote on Feb 12^th, 2011 at 6:46am:

It's fashionable to beat up Christianity and Islam these days.  I guess the two religions deserve it in a way by being so exclusive.   If you want people to have totally "rational" beliefs, I think you're collectively deluded. It's just a fundamental thing about being human. Humans like to have their "comfort blanket". Apart from that, we all think in what I'd term idiomatic thought patterns. Our highly idiomatic speech patterns reflect an underlying idiomatic mind pattern. Even if we pushed these religions out the door, another mental idiom would spring up in their place. Think of the most serious scientific researchers imaginable - those paragons of rational thought. I worked in a research lab many moons ago. A lay person might think that these people would be somehow very rational and logical.  That's very far from the truth.  We'll never lose our humanity. One research paper I was assisting with  concerned certain long chain carboxylic acids and enzymes and their role in the breakdown of certain pharmaceutic grade products. We were using liquid chromatography to determine a way of separating them and working out the relative proportions of each. Instead of using the technical terms, within our group, the prof used the names Archie (arachidonic acid) Lucy (Linoleic acid) and Charlie Brown (stuffed if I can remember that one). Incidentally the related arachidic acid is found in peanut oil. We all have a need to think illogically at times. We have a sense of humour. Many of us cling to religions too. It's all a part of being human.

Everything that has ever and will ever happen, is pre-determined, is part of the great plan and therefore choice and freedom of thought, are just an illusion.

There is no god, chaos is the only universal rule and our choices will determine the future of humanity.

Which is more difficult to believe?
Which is more unpalatable?
===============
What converts the illogogical, to the logical?

Information, which was not originally known.

Quote:

Opinion doesn't that's true but I assume the majority of Gospel scholars are agreeing on the basis of evidence.

You know what they say about the word "assume"?
It doesn't take too much research to realise that we have no facts pertaining to the existence of one "Jesus Christ".


Quote:

Q: What converts the illogical, to the logical? A: Information which was previously unknown

Hope you don't mind me changing that quote a little perceptions, the meaning hasn't changed I hope.

"Economic growth cannot continue infinitely within a finite world" seems a logical statement to me, however, with the existence of God, physics can be transcended.
Let's all chant together "We can transcend physics". It may just work.......not!i

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 16^th, 2011 at 7:06pm:

I am not sure what your position is, you state two things here, 1. that religion emerges from wanting to belong to a group, 2. that it emerges from questioning our existence. Not that the two are incompatible. I still think wanting to belong to a group does emerge from some kind of mental pain - isolation, anxiety, angst. This is probably developed very early in childhood from the dependency of the child upon its parents. Questioning the nature of our existence can also be prompted by mental pain of some description. Not that we can probably ever do away with developing our worldview based on pain avoidance. It's just fascinating to see how some people really try and cover it over with unbelievable fairy tales.

I just think that it's a gross simplification to throw all social and altruistic behaviour into the basket of pain avoidance.

OK, maybe it's some kind of philosophical paradigm, but as far as I'm concerned, pain avoidance is a kind of conditioned response to pain.  I'd like to think that rational thought trumps pain avoidance in most cases. I used to avoid going to the dentist when I was younger because of pain avoidance.  I now make the rational decision to go to the dentist because I know that it will avoid all kinds of complications in the future. (not just pain/ angst).

I tend to do things because they interest and amuse me - not because of pain avoidance. I don't find pain avoidance to be a useful paradigm. In fact it's a very negative paradigm. Er - what's the polite philosophical term for bullshit?

I think people explore religions for various reasons. In extreme cases it's certainly through a desire to survive with all limbs intact and produce a family. In other cases it's through a natural curiousity, or because the food is good (especially Hindu), or in some cases  because a friend or potential sex partner belongs to that group.

We take actions on the basis of our life experiences. I'm not a religious person in the normal sense of the word. You could describe me as as a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist or an Atheist depending on the context, and I wouldn't object although I don't self identify with any of these.   Religion is much more of a cultural interest for me.  Freedom of religion is probably more important to me than religion itself.  

..and as if my previous post required quantifying, which it didn't, here's a statement taken from one of PN's article posts:


Quote:

The very same week, Minnesota Republican lawmaker Mike Beard insists that we should burn fossil fuels freely, because God will provide infinite natural resources, forever.

and more..


Quote:

But one man who’s not buying it is Republican Minnesota state rep Mike Beard. “We are not going to run out of anything,” Beard recently said, arguing to resume coal mining in Minnesota. “God is not capricious. He’s given us a creation that is dynamically stable.” ...Rep. Mike Beard told MinnPost “It is the height of hubris to think we could [destroy the earth].”

It's all well and good to have a personal belief in some magical entity, but not if they become a danger to anybody else.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1276908003/230#230

What I find amazing is that nothing this person has stated is Biblical based/supported.

muso wrote on Feb 18^th, 2011 at 9:33am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 16th, 2011 at 7:06pm: I am not sure what your position is, you state two things here, 1. that religion emerges from wanting to belong to a group, 2. that it emerges from questioning our existence. Not that the two are incompatible. I still think wanting to belong to a group does emerge from some kind of mental pain - isolation, anxiety, angst. This is probably developed very early in childhood from the dependency of the child upon its parents. Questioning the nature of our existence can also be prompted by mental pain of some description. Not that we can probably ever do away with developing our worldview based on pain avoidance. It's just fascinating to see how some people really try and cover it over with unbelievable fairy tales. I just think that it's a gross simplification to throw all social and altruistic behaviour into the basket of pain avoidance. OK, maybe it's some kind of philosophical paradigm, but as far as I'm concerned, pain avoidance is a kind of conditioned response to pain.  I'd like to think that rational thought trumps pain avoidance in most cases. I used to avoid going to the dentist when I was younger because of pain avoidance.  I now make the rational decision to go to the dentist because I know that it will avoid all kinds of complications in the future. (not just pain/ angst).

My original experiement wanted to look at how far people construct their worldviews from pain avoidance, not that they were totally constructed out of them.
There is a reasonable point there in regards to the dentist where pain is unavoidable.


Quote:

Muso wrote I tend to do things because they interest and amuse me - not because of pain avoidance. I don't find pain avoidance to be a useful paradigm. In fact it's a very negative paradigm. Er - what's the polite philosophical term for bullshit?

One could construe "interest" and "amuse" as something to ward off boredom or some kind of angst. There's always a moving away from something when moving toward something.

Much of the populace, especially the younger generation, live a hedonistic lifestlye. Hedonism is the maximization of pleasure and the limiting of pain. There's some interesting food for thought there.


Quote:

Muso wrote I think people explore religions for various reasons. In extreme cases it's certainly through a desire to survive with all limbs intact and produce a family. In other cases it's through a natural curiousity, or because the food is good (especially Hindu), or in some cases  because a friend or potential sex partner belongs to that group.

They aren't the proper reasons for joining a religion. If people join it for food or sex then the message of the religion itself is unimportant to them.
Buddhism has pain cessation at its root. I have a lot of respect for Buddhism because of the pragmatic view it takes on dealing with pain, whereas Christianity and Islam seem to think if we just accept God or one of their prophets all will be good. That's silly.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 19^th, 2011 at 4:58pm:

They aren't the proper reasons for joining a religion. If people join it for food or sex then the message of the religion itself is unimportant to them.

What are the proper reasons for joining a religion? Please tell me so that I can avoid them. While you're at it, tell me the proper reasons for living. I think I'd like to avoid those too.


Quote:

Buddhism has pain cessation at its root. I have a lot of respect for Buddhism because of the pragmatic view it takes on dealing with pain, whereas Christianity and Islam seem to think if we just accept God or one of their prophets all will be good. That's silly.

I have a great deal of respect for Buddhism for the same reasons - except that suffering within society and individual pain are very different things. Buddhism has its own unique way of coming to terms with minimising suffering.

In fact that brings us to the question of society versus the individual. Traditional Chinese religions such as Taoism and Confucianism provide a balance for this particular paradigm. They are in no way similar to Buddhism, except through Western eyes.   They fit together really well. They are often described as the Ying Yang or FengShui of Chinese religion,  and many older generation Chinese people subscribe to both for that reason.

Confucianism comes from the tradition of harmony within society, whereas Daoism is more about the individual way within the universe that encourages going with the natural flow of things.

It's a kind of maximum efficiency approach to life. To illustrate this:

What is the best way to get a container of muddy water to become clear?

- Do nothing. Let the container sit and the dirt and mud will eventually settle to the bottom and the water will be clear.”

Quote:

My own hypothesis on the absence of biology in the social sciences today is because of what the Nazis did. Any hint today of biological determinism seems to be equated with carting people off to gas chambers. I think we ought to be more grown up than this.

There are the ethologisits, sociobiologists, and evolutionary psychologists. It's really a question of where the emphasis lies, seeing that human beings are also open to the influence of experience through learning. Some scientists place the emphasis on biology others place the emphasis on learning from experience.

Postmodernism is a philosophy of relativism and critique. By its very nature it can't reject anything nor accept anything  ;D




   

Postmodernism is a philosophy of relativism and critique. By its very nature it can't reject anything nor accept anything.

- Axle

Hmm .. sounds like agnostic heaven lol :)

I always knew agnostics had a nice place to go to- sort of, I can't really be certain, maybe not but then again .....  :P

LMAO!!

Ok so you're an agnostic!

I've got a question for you: isn't all this uncertainty destabilizing?

At times it can come across as some profound fear in making a decision .. like being stuck in "perpetual procrastination" mode. It must be so frustrating.

Not at all. I see Agnostics as the Democrats when it comes to theology. Agnostics keep the bastards on either side of the fence honest.  8-)


One can be agnostic on some issues. So, it doesn't follow that they can't make a decision on any.

Axle wrote on Feb 20^th, 2011 at 8:34pm:

Not at all. I see Agnostics as the Democrats when it comes to theology. Agnostics keep the bastards on either side of the fence honest.  8-) One can be agnostic on some issues. So, it doesn't follow that they can't make a decision on any.

But you're either Agnostic or you're not .. right?

What you're inferring is that you can be Agnostic whenever you feel like it as if it's some tap which turns on and off many times during the day.

Oh and incidentally .. this discussion is now taking me back to my University days at a time when I was studying Philosophy (Sartre in particular) for some reason.

You sound like Plato and Aristotle rolled up into one. Like Plato you seem to believe in absolutes and like Aristotle you're using his logic.

However, the point remains, you can be Agnostic on some issues and not on others. It's a question of whether you believe that an answer can be forthcoming for the issue at hand. In respect of whether there is a God , an agnostic doesn't believe that we can ever know this. Well, not while we're still walking around on this planet.  ;)

You sound like Plato and Aristotle rolled up into one. Like Plato you seem to believe in absolutes and like Aristotle you're using his logic.

- Axle

Is there a problem with that? Aristotle was Plato's prize student after all lol :)

We can't dispense with logic but thinking in absolutes isn't ideal for every issue or problem.

We can't dispense with logic but thinking in absolutes isn't ideal for every issue or problem.

- Axle

Ok. I follow this.

Now could you explain to me again .. how is it that a Theist is a Theist non stop all day every day full stop yet an Agnostic can chop and change?

And .. are Atheists like Agnostics in this way?

And how does this affect the respective paradigms under which each "species" functions?

How is an Agnostic chopping and changing when it comes to God? As I said earlier, an Agnostic doesn't believe we can know whether there is a god or not. An Atheist doesn't believe there is one. How is s(h)e chopping and changing?

Why do you think that a person being Agnostic with respect to a god would influence other problems or issues that they come across? It's simply not the case.

How does your theism influence your acceptance or rejection of quantum mechanics? I'd think you'd just accept the facts regardless of your belief, right?

Axle wrote on Feb 20^th, 2011 at 9:30pm:

An Atheist doesn't believe there is one. How is s(h)e chopping and changing?

Not chopping and changing... Just walking across an abyss in zero gravity.

Axle wrote on Feb 20^th, 2011 at 9:30pm:

How is an Agnostic chopping and changing when it comes to God? As I said earlier, an Agnostic doesn't believe we can know whether there is a god or not. An Atheist doesn't believe there is one. How is s(h)e chopping and changing? Why do you think that a person being Agnostic with respect to a god would influence other problems or issues that they come across? It's simply not the case. How does your theism influence your acceptance or rejection of quantum mechanics? I'd think you'd just accept the facts regardless of your belief, right?

So let me get this right .. reading your posts .. you're saying that Agnosticism is NOT some general paradigm within which Agnostics function/interpret the world.

Earlier in this thread , I stated that paradigm is being used loosely in this thread. The concept of paradigms emerged in the debates in the history and philosophy of science.

You're using paradigm as substitute for attitude, I assume.

On that basis, being an agnostic with respect to God doesn't necessarily mean that it's a general attitude to everything. That's the problem with an absolutist way of thinking. It assumes essences.

Ok .. I follow this.

How do you use/define "paradigms"?

Oh and for me a paradigm = a system of beliefs under which we function and interpret the world (very basically put of course).

How is an Agnostic chopping and changing when it comes to God? As I said earlier, an Agnostic doesn't believe we can know whether there is a god or not. An Atheist doesn't believe there is one. How is s(h)e chopping and changing?

- Axle


Well .. take a look at this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

Like I said .. chopping and changing lol :P

Paradigm as it occurred in HPS referred to the ensemble of theories, practices and intruments used to solve a problem, which was used for further research and other problems.

The two definitions aren't incompatible. Kuhn was criticised for using several different meanings for the word

Axle wrote on Feb 20^th, 2011 at 10:02pm:

Paradigm as it occurred in HPS referred to the ensemble of theories, practices and intruments used to solve a problem, which was used for further research and other problems. The two definitions aren't incompatible. Kuhn was criticised for using several different meanings for the word

So our respective definitions are functional/valid?

I probably should read Kuhn's book again. It was one of our charming text books back in my University Philosophy days lol :)

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 20^th, 2011 at 10:02pm:

How is an Agnostic chopping and changing when it comes to God? As I said earlier, an Agnostic doesn't believe we can know whether there is a god or not. An Atheist doesn't believe there is one. How is s(h)e chopping and changing? - Axle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism Like I said .. chopping and changing lol :P

Well Axle .. you've gone all silent on me now.

Take another look at what you stated:

As I said earlier, an Agnostic doesn't believe we can know whether there is a god or not

Now contrast the above with this ( thanks to the above links ):

The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who does believe that one or more deities exist but does not claim to have knowledge of such.

Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they claim not to know or be able to know whether any deity exists

You see?? It's all over the place .. isn't it??

Axle wrote on Feb 20^th, 2011 at 8:59pm:

You sound like Plato and Aristotle rolled up into one. Like Plato you seem to believe in absolutes and like Aristotle you're using his logic. However, the point remains, you can be Agnostic on some issues and not on others. It's a question of whether you believe that an answer can be forthcoming for the issue at hand. In respect of whether there is a God , an agnostic doesn't believe that we can ever know this. Well, not while we're still walking around on this planet.  ;)

Well it now seems you're incorrect Axle.

( please refer to my previous post as to why )

I wouldn't be so quick on the draw, Lisa. When we say someone chops and changes, it's someone that keeps on changing their views. All you've done in the above is shown that there are different flavours of agnosticism or that the term can be applied in different camps.

I could also point to different religions and denominations and sects within each and then again, by your own source, there's agnostic theism. Does that mean that you chop and change because there are different flavours of theism? By your own petard you could say that theism is all over the place.

I've stated my brand when it comes to God and that does not mean that I chop and change.

Well Axle .. this is how I see it:

Today I've decided I'm going to be an Agnostic Theist .. tomorrow an Agnostic Atheist .. I'm still Agnostic hey.

But there's a world of difference btwn the 2 brands.

It's tantamount to saying I am half pregnant.

All you've done in the above is shown that there are different flavours of agnosticism or that the term can be applied in different camps.

- Axle

That's right .. as I said .. it's all over the place .. and these camps are worlds apart.

I've stated my brand when it comes to God and that does not mean that I chop and change.

- Axle

Well umm no you haven't. Are you an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist?

Which brand do you identify with?

Lisa you've lost me and I think you've lost yourself in the process. With normal usage when 3 different people come along  and say respectively, they're a theist, agnostic and atheist you generally understand that the theist believes in some diety or dieties, the agnostic says he can't know , and the athiest says that there's no god(s).

Now, to say that someone can apply a term to different shades within a camp doesn't change the above , rather it just obfuscates things. And you're really going nowhere.

I stated that as an agnostic in respect of theism that my position is that you cannot know whether there is or isn't a diety or dieties. Show me where that's not agnostic? And if you can, you've made a point, if you can't then you haven't.

Now what brand of theism are you? If I can point to a dozen different theistic positions does that make you incorrect?

Ok Axle .. this is essentially my point:

I think the term agnosticism is confusing because it's all over the place. It's an obscure, wishy washy term that can mean anything and everything. And our discussion has only proven this.

Also .. given its uncertain and therefore unstable nature .. it's of little surprise to me that agnosticism is straddling both theist and atheist camps looking for meaning and context.

The term in itself is coherent. Stripped down to it's basic , you'd say that a person who is agnostic on an whether something is or isn't the case means that they believe that they can't know.  So, I've said that's where I am in relation to dieties.

Now, to say that someone can be agnostic about some aspect of theism or atheism does not mean that the term agnostic is incoherent or, as you put it, all over the place. And it's perfectly valid for someone to be agnostic about theism as a whole.

It's very late ..

Ok .. let's take one last look at this:

Agnostic atheists : do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they claim not to know or be able to know whether any deity exists.

Agnostic theists : believes that the proposition that at least one deity exists is true, but per agnosticism also believes that this proposition is unknown or inherently unknowable.

Commonality: they both state they can't really know that there is a God.

Difference: Essentially one states they don't believe in God, the other that they do believe in God.

My conclusion: The Agnostic Atheist position is at least consistent. The Agnostic Theist position doesn't make any sense at all.

Read what I said above your last post. Tell me what's inconsistent about being agnostic about theism as a whole? That you have a theist that's agnostic about some aspect of theism or an atheist who is agnostic about some aspect of atheism is irrelevant to the agnosticism I stated.

But there is also this little spot of bother ..

"Strong agnosticism or positive agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible for humans to know whether or not any deities exist. It is a broader view than weak agnosticism, which states that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is unknown but not necessarily unknowable."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_agnosticism

So once more .. I maintain that Agnosticism is indeed all over the place.

So in effect ..

An Agnostic can mean ..

1) A Weak Agnostic Theist

2) A Weak Agnostic Atheist

3) A Strong Agnostic Theist

4) A Strong Agnostic Atheist

Alright, you've shown that there are flavours of agnosticism. How does each flavour undermine the other? That brings me back to what I said way earlier about being Platonic in your thinking. You think that there has to be a one and only flavour.

By your own line of argumentation, I could say that your particular theism is all over the place because there are so many varieties of it. Would you subscribe to that?

Alright, you've shown that there are flavours of agnosticism. How does each flavour undermine the other?

- Axle

Well these so called flavours do actually undermine each other and I would argue .. in a very significant and contradictory manner.

You see I've demonstrated tonight how one is able to wear the Agnostic label and that label may mean that:

1)  I do believe in God yet on the other hand it may well mean I don't believe in God.

2) my belief or non belief in God is completely unknowable yet on the other hand it might be knowable.

Like I said .. it's wishy washy and all over the place.

I'd dispute your lumping theism and athiesm with agnosticism. There's the noun and the adjective . You're mixing them up. There's the noun agnosticism which , I suppose, falls under the first two points in your list. Then there's the adjective which describes brands of theists and athiests, not brands of agnostics, which covers your last two points.

As such you'd be forced to argue, in your fashion, that the theist and atheist camps are all over the place.

Huh?? You just acknowledged that there were indeed different flavours within Agnosticism. And Wiki seems to agree with you.

Now you suddenly don't wish to acknowledge this anymore lol??

Tis ok Axle .. I empathise .. completely.

Thanks for a great discussion. Night.

Not so fast , Lisa. You've been muddying the water and not proving anything about the agnosticism that I hold. Yes, as I just explained, the two flavours would be strong and weak agnosticism. They're two positions of agnosticism. Those are substantive positions and have nothing to do with agnostic atheists or agnostic theists. There, agnosticism is used to describe some within the athiest and theist camp.

To say an agnostic is a theist is contrary. How can (s)he be if they fall under the strong and weak  agnosticism that you defined. Your argument argument bites theism on its backside. You have acknowledged "agnostic theists" and if we were looking at it like you, you would say that theism is befuddled. However, we do know how "agnostic" is being used there. It isn't a problem.  We won't go to the more fundamental problem about which theist has the right number of gods.

Axle wrote on Feb 21^st, 2011 at 1:34am:

Not so fast , Lisa. You've been muddying the water and not proving anything about the agnosticism that I hold. Yes, as I just explained, the two flavours would be strong and weak agnosticism. They're two positions of agnosticism. Those are substantive positions and have nothing to do with agnostic atheists or agnostic theists. There, agnosticism is used to describe some within the athiest and theist camp. To say an agnostic is a theist is contrary. How can (s)he be if they fall under the strong and weak  agnosticism that you defined. Your argument argument bites theism on its backside. You have acknowledged "agnostic theists" and if we were looking at it like you, you would say that theism is befuddled. However, we do know how "agnostic" is being used there. It isn't a problem.  We won't go to the more fundamental problem about which theist has the right number of gods.

Ha! You came back lol!

I've now muddied the waters of agnosticism?

Yet all I've done is merely reproduce and present published online information regarding agnosticism .. information that is readily available to any person who googles the word agnosticism.

My definitions??? No .. not mine. Again, the definitions I've posted are available for anyone to see if they google the word agnosticism.

If anything .. you seem to be slowly waking up to the fact that the waters are indeed muddy. Perhaps now you may be able to appreciate why I stated last night that agnosticism was all over the place .. and wishy washy. Muddy? That too.

If you care to read back Axle .. according to the definitions readily available to anyone who googles the term agnosticism .. one is able to see that if you wear the agnostic label then that label may very well mean:

1)  I do believe in God yet on the other hand it may well mean I don't believe in God.

2) my belief or non belief in God is completely unknowable yet on the other hand it might be knowable.

Conclusion? It's all wishy washy, muddy and I would also add .. very confusing.

Little wonder agnostics can't move forward and reach any conclusions. There's so much mud one needs to push through.

Paradigm means model.
Therefore a construct or theory because we don't know.

Science is the first to admit its current models will always be superceded.

As for Spirituality: What science (which means knowing) has there been, as universal as that?

Didn't you mean 'antagonism'!?

:-X

Paradigms are different framewaorks of knowlege. Our understanding of the world is usually built from the ground up, with basic concepts and more subtle variations on them.

The term paradigm is often used to refer to the intellectual barrier it can create between people whose views are wildly different. It is like you are speaking a different language, because your view of the fundamentals are so different. I see a lot of political discussions around here where people comment on specific technical issues who obviously have a totally different paradigm from the norm, but think it is somehow useful to offer a brief commentary without explaining where they are coming from. Like a communist blaming a CEO for his bankruptcy, leading people to believe he is referring to a direct link, when in fact it is the entire system that he rejects.

In science, there is a paradigm shoft between for example newtonian mechanics and relativity that people are often unaware of. Relativity is not simply a different set of equations, but attaches a different meaning to things like mass, time and distance.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 9:06am:

The term paradigm is often used to refer to the intellectual barrier it can create between people whose views are wildly different.

Conversely, a paradigm can artificially construct an intellectual barrier between people whose views in truth are not too different.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ic3YTLctRa0&feature=feedu



http://lightworkers.org/channeling/132262/aa-uriels-message-when-are-you-being-may-23-2011


Uriel's Message -- When Are You Being?

The relationship between human and time has always been one you consider as a limitation to your creation. You have to wait for results, to know spirit and heaven, to understand your purpose and life path, to be ready for your connection and so on. Yet the issue of time only exists in your third dimensional reality. All results are measured in the days, weeks, months and years that they take to manifest. Yet this is another third dimensional illusion. When you shift your understanding to higher dimensions you see that time is no more than the motion of energy through the density of illusion.

The more dense the illusion, the harder it is and the longer it takes for energy to move through it. Since you judge your manifestation results by how much time they take to manifest, you believe that time stands between manifestation and creation yet it is not responsible for any delays. Density, which is a mirror of your being, is what creates time or delays in manifestation. And while the greatest amount of density is created by doubt, fear and confusion, it is the 'when' of your being, where you are in your own individual timelines that creates the aspect of time and the level of density associated with it.

When your being is grounded in the past, which is the experiences you have lived, your emotional DNA energies, the vibrations you are at and your energetic frequencies, you are being in a space of great density and illusion which is a mirror of the past. This limits the flow of energy movement and activates the element of time in your manifestations. If you shift your attention to being in the moment you remove the density and time seems to go by quickly which is just another illusion created by the lack of density. From the point of spirit, it is only energy movement that corresponds to your own energetic vibration.

You know 'when' you are placing your being by asking whether you are in the present moment. As you set your intention for each moment, ask 'when' you are being, the point of your timeline where you are energetically. This is the point of your being. You cannot undo, change or re-do the past but you can use that information to create differently in each moment. Stay focused in the present and you will release the density that blocks energy's movement and the illusion of time and waiting, and you will experience instant manifestation as you connect directly and powerfully with the energy that is yours to create with, without density and therefore, without time.

Uriel