"Joseph H" <joseph@humanisation.org> wrote in message
news:1142767621.752666.146390@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Oh, this is just a contentious view of human reasoning - and human
self. Nothing new.

We view our history through a filigree of our own creation. Our
discourse is couched in standard forms - belief, creativity, theory -
which shield us from undue contact with reality. The products of this
discourse - our religions, our philosophies, our works of art - must
conform to certain patterns. They must have pleasing form; they must be
plausible; they must offer some certainty or some hope. When they
possess all, or most of the above, they serve as a kind of coral reef,
protecting us from the harsher elements. Within that reef we may safely
go about our daily business. All's well.

Most of us have sufficient self to subsist behind this pleasing
fiction. We are so consumed with our own lives and so complete
personality-wise that we can function without further recourse to
clarification. We accept our local forms and get on with it. Others,
however, need more. These are the true naifs: they actually think that
belief must relate to reality. Fools! Gobshites! Belief is a fantasy
that allows us to ***** without further thought.....

But these naifs may go further. They may actually go beyond the
filigree of our own creation. They may even penetrate to reality
itself. If they come rushing back with their good news they will., of
course, be greeted with total disinterest on the part of their fellows
who have already acquired total certainty from this or that ridiculous
religion.

But...you see..., we've got away with this for 10000 years now.

...by appealing to the core principles of neurobiology, evolutionary theory,
and cognitive science, practitioners of a new human science can reach a
deeper understanding of why we feel certain courses of action to be
intrinsically correct. They can help us to understand why we have moral
feelings. For now, though, the scientists can offer no guidance on whether
we are really correct in making certain decisions, because no way is known
to define what is correct without total reference to the moral feelings
under scrutiny. Perhaps this is the ultimate burden of the free will
bequeathed to us by our genes: in the final analysis, even when we know what
we are likely to do and why, each of us must still choose.

The challenge to science and philosophy to solve this dilemma is very
great-in our opinion, there is none greater. Society, through its laws and
institutions, already regulates behavior. But it does so in virtual blind
ignorance of the deep reaches of human nature. By relying on moral
intuition, on those satisfying visceral feelings of right and wrong, people
remain enslaved by their genes and culture. Their minds develop along the
channels set by the hereditary epigenetic rules, and while they exercise
free will in moment-by-moment choices, this faculty remains superficial and
its value to the individual is largely illusory. Only by penetrating to the
physical basis of moral thought and considering its evolutionary meaning
will people have the power to control their own lives. They will then be in
a better position to choose ethical precepts and the forms of social
regulation needed to maintain the precepts.

Promethean Fire - Reflections on the Origins of Mind
Charles J. Lumsdem - E.O. Wilson - 1983
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1583484256/

Because
we were separate and isolated etc etc...and because we could amble
along inefficiently without undue peril except to the odd million who
died from some plague we could safely ignore the naifs. But now we are
coming together. No more hiding places left. Forced to deal with each
other. Peril ahead etc etc.

So mow maybe it would be nice to see the truth. And it ain't all that
bad. We're just a creature colonising a planet and we're close to
completing the task. Maybe if we saw that we might value ourselves
more. And if we valued ourselves more maybe we might make a batter life
for all of us.

Joseph H
www.humanisation.org

The challenge to science and philosophy to solve this dilemma is very
great-in our opinion, there is none greater. Society, through its laws and
institutions, already regulates behavior. But it does so in virtual blind
ignorance of the deep reaches of human nature.

intuition, on those satisfying visceral feelings of right and wrong, people
remain enslaved by their genes and culture.

channels set by the hereditary epigenetic rules, and while they exercise
free will in moment-by-moment choices, this faculty remains superficial and
its value to the individual is largely illusory. Only by penetrating to the
physical basis of moral thought and considering its evolutionary meaning
will people have the power to control their own lives.

a better position to choose ethical precepts and the forms of social
regulation needed to maintain the precepts.

Promethean Fire - Reflections on the Origins of Mind
Charles J. Lumsdem - E.O. Wilson - 1983
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1583484256/

Because
we were separate and isolated etc etc...and because we could amble
along inefficiently without undue peril except to the odd million who
died from some plague we could safely ignore the naifs. But now we are
coming together. No more hiding places left. Forced to deal with each
other. Peril ahead etc etc.

So mow maybe it would be nice to see the truth. And it ain't all that
bad. We're just a creature colonising a planet and we're close to
completing the task. Maybe if we saw that we might value ourselves
more. And if we valued ourselves more maybe we might make a batter life
for all of us.

Joseph H
www.humanisation.org

Joseph H wrote:

But these naifs may go further. They may actually go beyond the
filigree of our own creation. They may even penetrate to reality
itself. If they come rushing back with their good news they will., of
course, be greeted with total disinterest on the part of their fellows
who have already acquired total certainty from this or that ridiculous
religion

It's funny, I definitely take notice of what scientists discover and
have respect for that. I do not see an either or situation. But I
have experiences and practices that are different from theirs. And
from these I have drawn conclusions that are assumed to be false and
mocked. (I get no respect - I am the Rodney Dangerfield of the
spiritually inclined - from the orthodaox religions, who also use their
beliefs to restrict their experience).

Slowly through history Science has come to recognize some things that
were known to others via more intuitive methods. But I see no reason
to wait around for what they consider validation. This would be like
the Quantum physicists saying that Newton's ideas hold up in certain
situations at certain scales, so I must cast aside my ideas, especially
because we cannot yet reconcile these two into one system.

You do not seek in certain areas and your beliefs would nip the bud of
certain kinds of experiences you would consider 'supernatural' and thus
not real. Then, unscientifically, you pass judgement on all there as
not likely to be real or unreal and hallucinatory, futher adding -
usually - the unproven theory that all people who believe in things
beyond the scope of current science and technology's ability to test,
believe in these things because they cannot face their fears, to soothe
themselves.

Never noticing how cutting off certain kinds of experience and emotions
and intuition, fits well with your own psychological needs to maintain
control and be calm and transcend.