Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sriram on October 20, 2015, 06:16:52 AM
-
Hi everyone,
Here is a nice video about higher consciousness. Its short and simple...and nothing religious or spiritual.
http://timewheel.net/Video-Check-Out-This-Brilliant-Animation-On-Higher-Consciousness
When I say that spirituality is about Self Development...this is what I mean.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Well, I'm not going to watch the video. I've quite often heard people talk about 'higher consciousness'. When questioned, people who bandy this phrase about can never explain what it means. Mostly, it sounds as if they want others to consider that they, those who advocate 'higher consciousness' , have some special, sort of 'spiritual' quality that we, the atheists, the sceptics, etc, do not have. They imagine they can 'reach' some insight unavailable to those who prefer to say 'I don't know', and who much prefer objective truth and reality and who know the difference between reality and imagination - the wonderful, amazing ... and REAL ... ability of the human mind.
-
Susan, the end of your post seems to do exactly the same for religious people as regards 'objective' truth as higher consciousness might do for non believers.
-
Doesn't consciousness reside in the mind? All 'higher consciousness' aims to do in my understanding - I haven't watched the video - is access the 'superior' level that is usually masked by our day- to-day thinking.
-
The video is an animation and explains in simple terms how we have evolved higher brain functions and that we need to move beyond the basic reptilian brain.
-
Quite a good, short, video. Self-reflection is a property of the mind, no harm in exercising it from time to time.
-
I think it's a pity that the word 'higher' is used as it can imply superiority which invites the comments which Susan has quite logically made. Words like 'higher' and 'superior' can attract the attention of the self centred or egocentric to imagine that it is a way of enhancing their egos and portraying themselves as being on a higher level than other mere mortals.
-
I think it's a pity that the word 'higher' is used as it can imply superiority which invites the comments which Susan has quite logically made. Words like 'higher' and 'superior' can attract the attention of the self centred or egocentric to imagine that it is a way of enhancing their egos and portraying themselves as being on a higher level than other mere mortals.
I know atheists like to think we are all the same.... just 'different'. But humans ARE superior to other animals. Some humans like Gandhi ARE superior to other humans like Hitler.
Its in fact ego centric for people to think that they are the same as everyone else....and no one can be superior to them. Superiority and inferiority is intrinsic to life.
-
You can only discuss whether things or people or animals are higher or lower, or superior or inferior if you are sharing a scale of values with whoever you are talking to. But obviously, we not sharing such a scale.
I dare say ... you might see this ... in exercising your higher consciousness!
-
If we are unable to accept that we could be inferior to someone in certain aspects...then we are not likely to learn and grow much. Everyone is not the same. Some are better athletes, some are better at maths, some are better cooks, some are better at spirituality! We can't get egoistic about such matters. It only makes things worse.
-
If we are unable to accept that we could be inferior to someone in certain aspects...then we are not likely to learn and grow much. Everyone is not the same. Some are better athletes, some are better at maths, some are better cooks, some are better at spirituality! We can't get egoistic about such matters. It only makes things worse.
Of course people have unique genetic make-ups and therefore each person has a unique combination of talents. But consciousness does not have quantifiable 'layers' of spiritual knowledge, or advancement, or whatever fancy name those who think they have choose to call their imagined superiority in this - non-existent - field! . It's a pity, I suppose, that we call the difference between sleep, wakefulness and anaesthetised sleep, etc, 'levels' of consciousness- a new word would probably help here.
to think one is able to 'reach' or 'achieve' some imagined 'higher level of consciousness is a conceit, not backed up by any evidence.
-
Its in fact ego centric for people to think that they are the same as everyone else....and no one can be superior to them..
What a surprising interpretation of what some atheists might say.
-
We humans have acquired some qualities that we regard as inherently superior. Intelligence, moral sense, humility, altruism, selflessness, self control ...and many other such qualities. This is a higher consciousness as compared to being on a basic competitive & survival mode.
People who have the above qualities are superior and of a higher consciousness than those who are more animal like (now don't tell me we are also animals...please! ::) ). There is a gradation. Everyone is not the same....which we can observe.
The video in the OP gives an anatomical/physiological reason as to how we have developed this higher consciousness. As simple as that.
Merely thumping the table and declaring that 'I am not inferior to anyone else!!'...is egoistic and misses the point entirely.
-
Interesting that this interpretation comes from someone who insists that they are superior when it comes to spirituality and suggests those who don't share his beliefs are less developed spiritually.
Of course people are different and we are different to other animals. The point is that you seem to believe in some direction of travel regarding spiritual beliefs and that you are further along it than others. I think that we all see things differently with no direction or superiority. I don't believe the stuff you do - fine, we are just different. You seem to be the one with the ego claiming superiority. Of course there are atheists who claim they are more rational and logical than believers - I don't necessarily share that view.
-
Does the video actually compare human consciousness with the consciousness of other mamals, all of which have evolved differently? If that is the case, then I would be even less inclined to look at it.
-
No it doesn't. It is not really making any claims or comparisons as such ... you could just listen to it anyway ... it is only a few minutes, you are not going to be brain washed! In fact it is just making the same point anyone here might make in a reflective moment.
Of-course, as soon as someone starts off with words such as "higher", "superior", "advanced" etc we know we are being sold something.
-
Does the video actually compare human consciousness with the consciousness of other mamals, all of which have evolved differently? If that is the case, then I would be even less inclined to look at it.
Susan, you should listen to the video. I was surprised, it wasn't what I was expecting, and unrelated to the New Age idea of higher consciousness. I think you'll find you won't suffer too much from cognitive dissonance.
-
Watched it, for something claiming not to be wishy-washy,it was both wishy and washy
-
I think it's a pity that the word 'higher' is used as it can imply superiority which invites the comments which Susan has quite logically made. Words like 'higher' and 'superior' can attract the attention of the self centred or egocentric to imagine that it is a way of enhancing their egos and portraying themselves as being on a higher level than other mere mortals.
I know atheists like to think we are all the same.... just 'different'. But humans ARE superior to other animals. Some humans like Gandhi ARE superior to other humans like Hitler.
Its in fact ego centric for people to think that they are the same as everyone else....and no one can be superior to them. Superiority and inferiority is intrinsic to life.
Well, I would suggest that superiority and inferiority are relative terms which are largely subjective when applied to human nature. However, I was commenting upon 'consciousness' as having superior or inferior qualities. I see consciousness as being more neutral but available to be directed i.e. giving attention to. A person who directs their consciousness (attention) whole heartedly to any pursuit is more likely to be superior at it than somebody who doesn't or who directs their attention elsewhere. There are other words which are often associated with consciousness (in a 'spiritual' sense). One of these is 'expansion' which is associated with the practice of freeing consciousness from its constraining attachments to the contents of the psyche. Another is 'clarity' which is associated with being aware without the cataracts of preconceived concepts or accumulated emotions.
-
I think it's a pity that the word 'higher' is used as it can imply superiority which invites the comments which Susan has quite logically made. Words like 'higher' and 'superior' can attract the attention of the self centred or egocentric to imagine that it is a way of enhancing their egos and portraying themselves as being on a higher level than other mere mortals.
I know atheists like to think we are all the same.... just 'different'. But humans ARE superior to other animals. Some humans like Gandhi ARE superior to other humans like Hitler.
Its in fact ego centric for people to think that they are the same as everyone else....and no one can be superior to them. Superiority and inferiority is intrinsic to life.
Well, I would suggest that superiority and inferiority are relative terms which are largely subjective when applied to human nature. However, I was commenting upon 'consciousness' as having superior or inferior qualities. I see consciousness as being more neutral but available to be directed i.e. giving attention to. A person who directs their consciousness (attention) whole heartedly to any pursuit is more likely to be superior at it than somebody who doesn't or who directs their attention elsewhere. There are other words which are often associated with consciousness (in a 'spiritual' sense). One of these is 'expansion' which is associated with the practice of freeing consciousness from its constraining attachments to the contents of the psyche. Another is 'clarity' which is associated with being aware without the cataracts of preconceived concepts or accumulated emotions.
Yes, I go along with most of what you say here, Ekim. I watched the video but I didn't learn anything that I didn't know before, and, like you, I regret that the term 'higher consciousness' was used, as it implies some form of superiority of some compared with others. I certainly don't think in terms of my superiority simply because I have the ability to use what the video suggests are the elements of this 'higher consciousness' from within the mammalian neocortex. Plenty of other people, both with whom I meet and here, on this Message Board, often show elements of empathy, imagination, reflection, non introspective thinking etc.
For me, the secret is to seek a balance between what the video calls our reptilian brain and our mammalian brain, although I would not necessarily think of it in those terms. Easy to say, of course, but much harder to achieve. :)
-
Could so called 'higher consciousness' just refer to people who have talents not all of us possess, like those who are good musicians, for instance?
-
Could so called 'higher consciousness' just refer to people who have talents not all of us possess, like those who are good musicians, for instance?
Yes, just a different outlook and way of viewing things. Different consciousness, not higher - unless someone wants to bang the desk and insist otherwise.
-
My personal take us that our 'higher self' is the part of us that doesn't get caught up in the stories of everyday - the silliness, angst, all the misguided thinking that makes us anxious, cross and unhappy.
-
My personal take us that our 'higher self' is the part of us that doesn't get caught up in the stories of everyday - the silliness, angst, all the misguided thinking that makes us anxious, cross and unhappy.
I don't quite get that one?
-
Could so called 'higher consciousness' just refer to people who have talents not all of us possess, like those who are good musicians, for instance?
I suspect that 'higher consciousness' arose from its analogy with vision and the ability to broaden it by rising up to a higher position as you might in a helicopter. The perspective changes from that of somebody who may have spent a lifetime narrowly focused on immediate surroundings. I'm not sure what you mean by 'good musician', but some may have just focused on honing a skill with a musical instrument. Another may have done the same but have also realised a potential to express themselves as a composer. Realisation of hidden potential might be associated with what the term 'higher consciousness' is meant to represent. The Christian term 'ascension' also implies climbing up to something higher.
-
Could so called 'higher consciousness' just refer to people who have talents not all of us possess, like those who are good musicians, for instance?
I suspect that 'higher consciousness' arose from its analogy with vision and the ability to broaden it by rising up to a higher position as you might in a helicopter. The perspective changes from that of somebody who may have spent a lifetime narrowly focused on immediate surroundings. I'm not sure what you mean by 'good musician', but some may have just focused on honing a skill with a musical instrument. Another may have done the same but have also realised a potential to express themselves as a composer. Realisation of hidden potential might be associated with what the term 'higher consciousness' is meant to represent. The Christian term 'ascension' also implies climbing up to something higher.
Having thought about it I would think an ear for music or an appreciation of music would be better than good at music - as I see it.
-
Could so called 'higher consciousness' just refer to people who have talents not all of us possess, like those who are good musicians, for instance?
I suspect that 'higher consciousness' arose from its analogy with vision and the ability to broaden it by rising up to a higher position as you might in a helicopter. The perspective changes from that of somebody who may have spent a lifetime narrowly focused on immediate surroundings. I'm not sure what you mean by 'good musician', but some may have just focused on honing a skill with a musical instrument. Another may have done the same but have also realised a potential to express themselves as a composer. Realisation of hidden potential might be associated with what the term 'higher consciousness' is meant to represent. The Christian term 'ascension' also implies climbing up to something higher.
Having thought about it I would think an ear for music or an appreciation of music would be better than good at music - as I see it.
Perhaps so. It makes you wonder how Beethoven continued composing music after he became deaf.
-
My personal take us that our 'higher self' is the part of us that doesn't get caught up in the stories of everyday - the silliness, angst, all the misguided thinking that makes us anxious, cross and unhappy.
I don't quite get that one?
We live in our heads much if the time, making judgements, fretting, making poor decisions, often in reaction to things we think happen to us. Our 'higher self', if you want to call it that, is the one that steps aside from the constant internal chatter and sees things as they really are.
I do think we need to be wary of thinking 'higher self' or 'higher consciousness' means having a special talent or appreciation for something. It doesn't - anyone can reflect and question their thinking and the stories they live with, and live better lives with more contentment and less distress.
-
Things as they really are? Wow, there are bits of me that can do that? How does that work? What are thin as they really are?
-
My personal take us that our 'higher self' is the part of us that doesn't get caught up in the stories of everyday - the silliness, angst, all the misguided thinking that makes us anxious, cross and unhappy.
I don't quite get that one?
We live in our heads much if the time, making judgements, fretting, making poor decisions, often in reaction to things we think happen to us. Our 'higher self', if you want to call it that, is the one that steps aside from the constant internal chatter and sees things as they really are.
I do think we need to be wary of thinking 'higher self' or 'higher consciousness' means having a special talent or appreciation for something. It doesn't - anyone can reflect and question their thinking and the stories they live with, and live better lives with more contentment and less distress.
I would gave said that was all part of normal thinking.
-
;D
Ok, perhaps a better way if putting it is seeing things as they arent? It's all just a story but we tend to believe our stories like they are real. We don't have to do that though, and we act from a higher place when we remember that.
-
My personal take us that our 'higher self' is the part of us that doesn't get caught up in the stories of everyday - the silliness, angst, all the misguided thinking that makes us anxious, cross and unhappy.
I don't quite get that one?
We live in our heads much if the time, making judgements, fretting, making poor decisions, often in reaction to things we think happen to us. Our 'higher self', if you want to call it that, is the one that steps aside from the constant internal chatter and sees things as they really are.
I do think we need to be wary of thinking 'higher self' or 'higher consciousness' means having a special talent or appreciation for something. It doesn't - anyone can reflect and question their thinking and the stories they live with, and live better lives with more contentment and less distress.
I would gave said that was all part of normal thinking.
You could google a list of CBT thinking errors and see how many you do. The first time I looked at it I ticked all of them. Most had a multitude of ticks.
-
;D
Ok, perhaps a better way if putting it is seeing things as they arent? It's all just a story but we tend to believe our stories like they are real. We don't have to do that though, and we act from a higher place when we remember that.
Sorry I am not sure what you mean?
-
;D
Ok, perhaps a better way if putting it is seeing things as they arent? It's all just a story but we tend to believe our stories like they are real. We don't have to do that though, and we act from a higher place when we remember that.
Sorry I am not sure what you mean?
Ok, suppose I'm out shopping and I see a friend and she ignores me. I could believe my story about how rude she is, or how hateful I am. Or I could assume that she probably didn't see me.
I believed stories about myself that weren't very nice. I am working towards getting better ones.
-
Could so called 'higher consciousness' just refer to people who have talents not all of us possess, like those who are good musicians, for instance?
I suspect that 'higher consciousness' arose from its analogy with vision and the ability to broaden it by rising up to a higher position as you might in a helicopter. The perspective changes from that of somebody who may have spent a lifetime narrowly focused on immediate surroundings. I'm not sure what you mean by 'good musician', but some may have just focused on honing a skill with a musical instrument. Another may have done the same but have also realised a potential to express themselves as a composer. Realisation of hidden potential might be associated with what the term 'higher consciousness' is meant to represent. The Christian term 'ascension' also implies climbing up to something higher.
Having thought about it I would think an ear for music or an appreciation of music would be better than good at music - as I see it.
Perhaps so. It makes you wonder how Beethoven continued composing music after he became deaf.
Must say it it didn't make me wonder that :)
-
This just reads like woo here. I am reminded of Johnson's stone kicking refutation of Berkeley. Having a way of dealing with the vicissitudes of life that focusses on the gap between what we experience and a larger perspective is just a tactic. Today is the anniversary of the Aberfan tragedy - the waffle about higher consciousness or higher places seems to me a denigration of the what appears to be real destruction and suffering caused by that tragedy.
We indulge ourselves with this idea that there are clearer perspectives. They are just different and the, to me, rather poncy idea that you can deal with what seems real by some movement to see it as illusory is an indulgence for those who have time to do so.
-
Note, if stuff works to get you through the day, that's great. But we are back at the whole issue of it being called Higher. This sort of stuff is just the tactic
-
I made myself extremely miserable by getting caught up in thinking crap. Through CBT I learned that much of it wasn't true. It's not woo, it's something that works. And it stopped me from going round the bend. You might think it self indulgent but it meant my kids got their mother back. I can't do anything about the tragedies that happen but I can do all I can to give my family the strongest possible base in which to deal with life, including not getting caught up in shit that doesn't matter.
-
The reason I call it the higher self is because I had friends doing ATP. They couldn't get on with the 'higher power' stuff of AA and were ready to chuck it in. I suggested that they thought of their higher power as the place within themselves that knew what to do for the best. They kept going.
-
As per previous comments, whatever gets you through the day fine, but it isn't about how things are or are not. Tactics are fine, claiming that anyone using them is somehow 'higher' or if someone gets by by other ways is somehow not seeing things that they should is what seems indulgent.
-
You have people who know what to do for the best? Dear Dawkins, I just try to get by. Again this reads like woo dressed up with its sleekit friend, anecdote. I am happy that CBT works, but it is already a choice about what works means. I think more support needs to be given to CBT but all the idea that we are talking about things that are on.some scale better misses the point to me. Pragmatism makes sense to me, a move beyond that is indulgence.
-
Just to note I am struggling with discussion of CBT given CMG's raising of one of the other meanings of the acronym previously
-
As per previous comments, whatever gets you through the day fine, but it isn't about how things are or are not. Tactics are fine, claiming that anyone using them is somehow 'higher' or if someone gets by by other ways is somehow not seeing things that they should is what seems indulgent.
Why do you think that I would say anyone is 'higher' than another? It's just a label, it's meaningless.
You don't think that magical thinking or fortune telling are thinking errors? You think it's fine to clutch a lucky rabbits foot 'if it gets you through the day' and blame yourself if disaster befalls? Because that's all we're talking about.
-
Perhaps because it is in a thread called higher consciousness which you have then described as what you think higher means?
And yep, if clutching a rabbit foot works for you, fine. I can think you are wrong in doing it but not going to be saying my thinking is higher or that it would work for you. Again as noted I think CBT is valuable and we should invest more in it because it 'works', i.e. better than nothing or placebo but it doesn't mean it is anything more than getting through the day to a standard/view that we have deemed acceptable
-
I'm just trying to express how I think these ideas can be helpful to the individual. I don't live from a 'higher' perspective but if I can question the thinking that distresses me then I feel better. Sriram calls it higher consciousness; Udayana calls it self-reflection. I would call it questioning your thinking.
Keeping a lucky rabbits foot is fine if it enables you to function thinking you and your loved ones are safe. The moment something happens you are in the shit - was it your fault for not having enough faith in the rabbits foot? Perhaps you need more rabbit's feet? Maybe your guardian angels can sort it - let's get some lucky crystals.
Yeah, next time I'm with a bunch of people with anxiety I'll hand out the lucky pixie charms. Perhaps the NHS should dish them out instead of running GAD courses, it makes no odds.
-
If something works better than nothing and placebo, we go with it. I stated it clearly. If it was homeopathy, crystals or rabbits feet, fine! I think that there are clear reasons why CBT works BUT I wouldn't describe it as acting from a higher place which you have done.
-
No, that is you calling it that. As I said, when people talk about 'higher' this it that and struggle with it I find it a useful way of understanding it. There are situations where it helps.
I don't know if Sriram thinks his higher consciousness means superiority; I do not.
-
From his earlier post it certainly sounded as though Sriram did see it as superior. The film itself spins it that way. If you are seeing things from a seemingly more detached, objective, perspective you might well feel superior or describe your state as "higher". But this is also true when your "high" is drug or exercise, endorphin, induced.
It is not in itself any more objective, just a rearrangement of your view or way of thinking from which you may or may not have insights you might not otherwise encounter.
-
I haven't watched the film. But like many people with mental health issues I have/had very low self esteem, started in childhood and cemented in adulthood. It's not detached to question whether one's poor opinion of oneself is justified, it's just kind.
Again I can't speak for Sriram, but for me it has nothing to do with superiority, but a personal reminder that I can do and be better than I believed.
-
Yes, I can see that... feel much the same way.
Incidentally I noticed in today's paper that they are introducing mindfulness classes in prisons, in an attempt to reduce the levels of aggression and violence.
-
For me it's getting pen to paper. I would dream of talking to someone else the way I sometimes talk to myself. Getting it down on paper shows how absurd it is.
-
Hi everyone,
Starting from the assumption that all life has evolved due to random gene variation and NS...the natural logical conclusion would be that there is nothing higher or lower. We are no better than fish or worms or bacteria.
But obviously explaining the complexity of human mind/body and the necessity for the neo-cortex to evolve merely for the purpose of survival is rather difficult.
If however we start from the assumption that spiritual evolution guides and directs physical evolution, then the emergence of human life and even the development of the neo-cortex and the frontal lobe makes perfect sense.
In this case... life is a gradation, like a school, and people (and other life forms) are at different levels of development. Using the higher brain functions as compared to the lower brain functions therefore is not just an accident but the very purpose of life and its evolution. We are meant to acquire the higher qualities that the higher brain enables.
And...not surprisingly (to me) this is exactly what all spirituality and religions have been teaching for centuries. We humans have been pushed by religions and other spiritual teachings for millennia towards using more and more of the higher brain functions while controlling the urges and instincts dictated by the reptilian brain.
We can see here a clear union of spiritual goals and evolutionary direction IMO. Our spiritual leaders obviously knew about our 'higher' capabilities and the need to develop them, without even knowing about the neo-cortex and such other 'hardware' details.
So...there is no reason to shy away from using such terms as 'higher' and lower'....or to get all PC about it. In any developmental process...higher and lower levels of development will be inevitable.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Which is where I depart from you, Sriram. We can't judge who is more 'highly developed' and who isn't. What does that even mean?
-
Hi Sriram,
I don't see it in your terms at all. If you want to use the word 'higher' to simply mean 'more complex' or even 'better fitted to survive' I have no objection at all. However I have no reason or evidence to think that *spiritual evolution(whatever that may mean) guides and directs physical evolution. Also, as plenty of species have developed certain abilities to a much greater extent than humans, the idea that this is a PC stance is rather ludicrous in my case.
*unless you mean that the physical development of the brain can aid survival, and, hence, through the process of evolution, can produce other physical effects which can also aid survival.
-
Hi everyone,
If life (and evolution) has an objective or goal...those who are nearer the goal are 'higher' and those who are further away are 'lower'. As simple as that. So..'higher' and 'lower' states of consciousness are relevant and meaningful in a philosophy that has a goal for life.
Some people (a small minority) believe life to be an accident and therefore to them this may not be meaningful. But to most others it makes perfect sense.
And the fact that ancient religious teachings match evolutionary models (as in the OP) is even better!
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi everyone,
If life (and evolution) has an objective or goal...those who are nearer the goal are 'higher' and those who are further away are 'lower'. As simple as that. So..'higher' and 'lower' states of consciousness are relevant and meaningful in a philosophy that has a goal for life.
There are no grounds for thinking that life has a goal though. Humans evolved from monkeys but monkeys are still here. Conditions in the cosmos are subject to incessant change, life evolves and adapts to fill changing niches. Considering one life form superior to another is a form of bias, like racism, there is no evidence for it, it is only personal prejudice speaking.
-
I know atheists like to think we are all the same.... just 'different'. But humans ARE superior to other animals. Some humans like Gandhi ARE superior to other humans like Hitler.
Its in fact ego centric for people to think that they are the same as everyone else....and no one can be superior to them. Superiority and inferiority is intrinsic to life.
"Superior" implies a scale that you are measuring against. There is no doubt that, measured on some scales, humans are superior to all other animals, but on others, not so much. If I put you in a cage with a lion, we'll soon discover who is superior.
-
I know atheists like to think we are all the same.... just 'different'. But humans ARE superior to other animals. Some humans like Gandhi ARE superior to other humans like Hitler.
Its in fact ego centric for people to think that they are the same as everyone else....and no one can be superior to them. Superiority and inferiority is intrinsic to life.
"Superior" implies a scale that you are measuring against. There is no doubt that, measured on some scales, humans are superior to all other animals, but on others, not so much. If I put you in a cage with a lion, we'll soon discover who is superior.
And that's precisely what I have pointed out already. Higher and lower aspects are part of life.
Because you assume an accidental and chance factor in life...you think there is no objective to life and therefore no inherent superiority/inferiority.
I assume otherwise, as I have pointed out many times. People who are more loving, more intellectual, more selfless and more universal are superior to those who are selfish, violent and cruel....because that's the objective of life.
-
I know atheists like to think we are all the same.... just 'different'. But humans ARE superior to other animals. Some humans like Gandhi ARE superior to other humans like Hitler.
Its in fact ego centric for people to think that they are the same as everyone else....and no one can be superior to them. Superiority and inferiority is intrinsic to life.
"Superior" implies a scale that you are measuring against. There is no doubt that, measured on some scales, humans are superior to all other animals, but on others, not so much. If I put you in a cage with a lion, we'll soon discover who is superior.
And that's precisely what I have pointed out already. Higher and lower aspects are part of life.
Because you assume an accidental and chance factor in life...you think there is no objective to life and therefore no inherent superiority/inferiority.
I assume otherwise, as I have pointed out many times. People who are more loving, more intellectual, more selfless and more universal are superior to those who are selfish, violent and cruel....because that's the objective of life.
Believing that there is an "objective" in life is nothing more than a human conceit.
The fact is that life is just a by-product of the properties of matter ... in short, a chemical process.
-
Believing that there is an "objective" in life is nothing more than a human conceit.
The fact is that life is just a by-product of the properties of matter ... in short, a chemical process.
So...you believe!
-
Believing that there is an "objective" in life is nothing more than a human conceit.
The fact is that life is just a by-product of the properties of matter ... in short, a chemical process.
So...you believe!
Yes, until I am presented with evidence to the contrary.
-
Yes, until I am presented with evidence to the contrary.
'Evidence' is only what we are programmed to see and observe. It cannot be presented on a platter. We should have the ability to see it.
-
Yes, until I am presented with evidence to the contrary.
'Evidence' is only what we are programmed to see and observe. It cannot be presented on a platter. We should have the ability to see it.
Indeed! Which is why I have come to the conclusion that life is nothing more than a chemical process.