Question From High School Student

[duendy]

There's crude and there's crude....what is -in my opinion-sacrelgious in its deepest meaning, is to use the err metaphor of 'fuked up mental functioning' to ...define Deep Awesome Direct Spiritual Experience.

look dude. go your way. and i go my way. that is THE best Way

 

[Raithere]

Sorry duendy, I didn't mean to offend you with a crass colloquialism, let me rephrase.

Drugs, specifically hallucinogens, disrupt the normal brain processes by altering neurotransmitter function. You see visions because your brain is not functioning properly, not because the chemical has some magical effect allowing you to see into some supernormal plane of existence.

Once again, I didn't mean to offend. It's just that I'm used to calling such a state being "fucked up".

~Raithere

 

[§outh§tar]

raithere my response will be late but hopefully by friday night you should have it.

 

[duendy]

Sorry duendy, I didn't mean to offend you with a crass colloquialism, let me rephrase.

d___No. i am not some easily offendable person. seiously. but when i feel i am up against an impasse is when i wonder how to get through. you present that challenge to me.
didn't Count Basie ofr Duke Ellington say something like 'if you dont get it [Jazz] don't ask me to explain'? THAT.......if you hadn't HAd hallucinogenic experience i could understand. but people that have, do, and STILl dont click kinda fail me really. i reckon is you approach the experience already with physicalst mechansitic precepts! which actually you are revealing to me with how you define 'it'.....the non-specific nature of Deep experience. which doesn't HAVe to be inspired by hallucinogens, but can happen spontaneously. though sacramants Are the easist route

Drugs, specifically hallucinogens, disrupt the normal brain processes by altering neurotransmitter function. You see visions because your brain is not functioning properly, not because the chemical has some magical effect allowing you to see into some supernormal plane of existence.

d__you see. that is exactly what i mean. you are stuck in physicalism. and ignoreing MEANING. and preconceiving what 'normality' is
were Hitler's followers normal? all those robotic looking hallucinogen-less masses shouting 'Heil Hitler'...thaT NORMAL?......IS wbUSH normal. are people struggling to get to shit jobs in endless miserable traffic queues. is THat normal?...what the fuck Is normal. reality on a wet monday morning?
so am i saying that's NOt normal? no, i am saying their is a continuum of potential EXPERIENCE is what i am saying. that of course i couldn;t negotitate a car when in deep ecstasy, but that dont mean that the deep meaningful experiences i have = 'fuked up'...are you crazy?

Once again, I didn't mean to offend. It's just that I'm used to calling such a state being "fucked up".

d__haha...i know dude. and your showing your age. i am guessing you are young? (sorry if i offend) but i used to be at the Lycaeum and i got to know many young people there calling Tripping 'getting fuked...' That attitude i seek to challenge!
~Raithere

Tripping didn't begin in the 1960s Or '5os. it is primal.going WAy back with our species. And it is the sources of mythology, philosophy, fairylore, folklore and religion, AND science. so the EXPERIENCe deserves the deepest of respect

 

[MarcAC]

...Can you post the text of the entry you prefer?

...So how do I know what to look for?

Not the one I prefer: the one which applies;

OED "I. 1. a. The animating or vital principle in man (and animals); that which gives life to the physical organism, in contrast to its purely material elements; the breath of life."

Look for God, then look at life.

To define god we distinguish god from that which is not-god. At once this causes a problem; there is something greater than god (god + not-god).

Before the problematic conclusion is arrived at we first have to discern the relative 'greatnesses'. I would start at (infinity + 1).

 

[Light Travelling]

Hello,

I am a high school senior currently working on a project for my current issues class. I am trying to gather a diverse group of perspectives on the highly debated issue of evolution by collecting the opinions of a random group of people. Your help of answering the following questions would be extremely beneficial in my research endeavors.

My questions are:

Do you think the theory of Evolution should be covered in high school science classes? Why or why not?
Do you think the concept of Intelligent Design should be covered in high
school science classes?Why or why not?

When responding please leave your name and occupation/title/affiliation.

Thank you for your time,
all responses, opinions, and perspectives, are greatly appreciated.

*This is simply a high school essay assignment. It requires students to interview various people on the issues of Intelligent Design and Evolution
and use quotes from their interviews to develop a strong essay on the issue. Quotes will only be used in my paper that I will turn in for a grade and will only be read by my teacher and classmates.

To try and revive a degrading thread. -

Evolution should be taught, yes it is scientific fact. But it fails to answer where the basic parameters and building blocks of the universe came from. So the question of intelligent design (at high school) should be posed, but left open and not actually taught. We shouldn't hide from what we dont fully understand.

The points unanswered by evolution theory or big bang theory (which I 100% believe in) are;

How did the following come into being;

The first two molecules of matter
Time
Space
Energy (energy can be maniplulated but not created)
Gravity

 

[duendy]

These threads always degrade. . .
Thread-entropy is the rule.

may be it's YOU looking through dull-coloured spectacles?

 

[Raithere]

Tripping didn't begin in the 1960s Or '5os. it is primal.going WAy back with our species. And it is the sources of mythology, philosophy, fairylore, folklore and religion, AND science. so the EXPERIENCe deserves the deepest of respect

Duendy,

I apologized because I did not mean to offend you. As to the subject, I remain irreverent. I respect people not ideologies, religions, doctrines, dogma, traditions, or rites. Generally speaking I have little or no use for them... I most certainly do not consider them sacred. Why should I consider hallucinogens any more sacred than spinning around in a circle until I get dizzy and fall down?

As to hallucinogenic experience being the source of mythology, philosophy, fairylore, folklore, religion, and science... Sorry, no. It may have had some small effect through certain individuals but I think you'd be very hard pressed to demonstrate a case for primary effect, science in particular.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

"I. 1. a. The animating or vital principle in man (and animals); that which gives life to the physical organism, in contrast to its purely material elements; the breath of life."

The thing is, for all our looking no such "vital principle" has ever been found... in fact there's no reason to propose it's existence in the first place. Under examination, life breaks down into mundane chemical and physical processes obeying natural laws.

Look for God, then look at life. Before the problematic conclusion is arrived at we first have to discern the relative 'greatnesses'. I would start at (infinity + 1).

I have no idea what any of this is supposed to mean. Start at infinity +1?!?

~Raithere

 

[duendy]

Duendy,

I apologized because I did not mean to offend you. As to the subject, I remain irreverent. I respect people not ideologies, religions, doctrines, dogma, traditions, or rites.

d__so you are ritual-free are you? do you roll spliff?...make a cup 'tea, coffee.....?
thing is that what i am goin on about is ABOUT people if you'd only see it, and our relationsip with Nature

Generally speaking I have little or no use for them... I most certainly do not consider them sacred. Why should I consider hallucinogens any more sacred than spinning around in a circle until I get dizzy and fall down?

d___you are comparing getting dizzy with hallucinogenic ecstaic experience. ....hmmmmm, strange.All i get from your confessions is that you couldn't have had the kind of profound experience i have had, and have read about others having...gooing WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYY back

As to hallucinogenic experience being the source of mythology, philosophy, fairylore, folklore, religion, and science... Sorry, no. It may have had some small effect through certain individuals but I think you'd be very hard pressed to demonstrate a case for primary effect, science in particular.

~Raithere

haha...this is my que to come to you with book titles, sources, quotes....? if you had the passion i might make an effort. but i dont sense any, so why should I....
but yes it IS there throughout, also i missed out,..... Healing

 

[Raithere]

so you are ritual-free are you? do you roll spliff?...make a cup 'tea, coffee.....?

I have habits and patterns of behavior certainly. But they are not rituals in that ascribe them with no special significance.

thing is that what i am goin on about is ABOUT people if you'd only see it, and our relationsip with Nature

I have respect and an appreciation for nature. I'm meticulous in my observations of nature. I frequently go for long walks in the woods, stargaze, beach comb, and hunt for minerals and fossils. In my youth I spent days hiking in the woods without a compass or map and just a bit of food and water living off the land. Can you be more specific? What is it that you think I'm missing other than the (misguided IMO) notion that nature and I share some magical connection?

you are comparing getting dizzy with hallucinogenic ecstaic experience. ....hmmmmm, strange.

Sure. Spin around long enough and your perception becomes skewed. Even after you stop you feel and see the Earth spinning. Of course, the Earth is not spinning around you; you've simply altered your perceptions. Drugs do the same kind of thing.

All i get from your confessions is that you couldn't have had the kind of profound experience i have had, and have read about others having...

Yeah, that's me alright... without a single profound experience.

haha...this is my que to come to you with book titles, sources, quotes?

You could begin by offering an argument.

if you had the passion i might make an effort. but i dont sense any, so why should I

Ah, you still think you know me. There is nothing I am not passionate about... all of life, the good, the bad, the ugly, and the beautiful... all of wisdom and knowledge... every experience, touch, taste, and emption is to be savored. You keep alluding to the revelatory wisdom buried in your experience but I do not see the evidence of it.

You're telling me that hallucinogenic visions are the gateway to this revelation... I'm telling you that revelation exists in every experience.

The religious are all the same, you are not looking at the real world deeply enough so you assume it is flat, and mundane, and devoid of any inherent meaning. To give it meaning you have to imagine that there is something more to it... something magical and hidden away from plain sight. I say you are not looking at the real world closely enough.

~Raithere

 

[Light Travelling]

No it should not. . .

It should not be taught nor the theory posed - it is not a theory of anything.

If God exists (and belief in such does not make it so, nor is belief proof, nor are words on a page proof of god either), this god-question is an unanswered question (of physical:nature; for even god will have a nature; a reality based upon energy; if such exists), emotional-psychological attachments to a belief system is not an issue - for any science; mathematics; physics; etc.

Belief in god does not have to end - simply because science provides facts and theories that make specific myths untenable.

Calculus; physics; biology; medical science; textbooks do not start out with ". . . and so the information you are about to read was revealed by his divine greatness. . . " to do so would be proselytizing from a Christian perspective; there is no need to start out the description of any process with a god-abstraction; the abstraction merely describes the god-abstraction and not the process; ID theory is pointless. Christian foundations are responsible for this "wedge" of belief into the average child's formative years; those in the public school system; this is the intent (it is not for scientists - they have already rejected it - peer reviewed it and don’t want to waste their time with it, they are busy working on science; and theories that work, gathering more and more scientific information, on the whole of the biological world).

Either ID proposes a process or it doesn’t; attributing it to *god; means they don’t.

ID theory is merely a subversive intent; nothing more; it is sophistry designed for children.

*Of course god might not be the intelligent cause of life; or guiding force, it could also be super-intelligent aliens.

All I am saying is that there are certain things science does not yet understand. A students mind should be made aware of this.

There are any number of possibilities as to what the truth of what we do not understand is. A students mind should be made aware of this as well.

Thats all.

 

[duendy]

I have habits and patterns of behavior certainly. But they are not rituals in that ascribe them with no special significance.

d___...yeah yeahhhh

I have respect and an appreciation for nature. I'm meticulous in my observations of nature. I frequently go for long walks in the woods, stargaze, beach comb, and hunt for minerals and fossils. In my youth I spent days hiking in the woods without a compass or map and just a bit of food and water living off the land. Can you be more specific? What is it that you think I'm missing other than the (misguided IMO) notion that nature and I share some magical connection?

d__so your NOT a youth then...? am surprised with your 'getting fuked' reference
OK, uyou like being in Nature. so do I. yes i love walking and looking at sky, trees, all of that. THAt is not being looked down on. But ANYone who knows deeply about hallucinogens will also feel all of that, PLUS realize the continuum of experience. that sense of experience has potential of going to deeper and deeper levels. For example, you cant drive a car if you are in complete ecstasy for you need your normal functions of changing gear etc....so ther's a time and a place.
you are a strange person. you only seem to go so far and then ,,,,stop. but if yer happy yer happy

Sure. Spin around long enough and your perception becomes skewed. Even after you stop you feel and see the Earth spinning. Of course, the Earth is not spinning around you; you've simply altered your perceptions. Drugs do the same kind of thing.

d_)__oh for...goodness sake. you are talkinto an experienced person here. i know the idifference between getting dizzy and the experiences forthcoming from deep ecstasy. all this is not winning an argument, it is more revealing to me the superficial hallucinogenic experience you must have had....! that you compare being dizzy with deep spiritual experience.
As a matter of interest, when did you have experience with hallucinogens, and what did you have?

Yeah, that's me alright... without a single profound experience.

d__well, i am afriad that's what it does sound like kiddo

You could begin by offering an argument.

d__i am really permeating bemusement

Ah, you still think you know me. There is nothing I am not passionate about... all of life, the good, the bad, the ugly, and the beautiful... all of wisdom and knowledge... every experience, touch, taste, and emption is to be savored. You keep alluding to the revelatory wisdom buried in your experience but I do not see the evidence of it.

d___give me your address and i will post it to you

You're telling me that hallucinogenic visions are the gateway to this revelation... I'm telling you that revelation exists in every experience.

d__and i dont contradict that. but experience is a continuum, of deeper and deeper levels. look, I am not particulalry into the psychotherpaeutic angle with hallcuinogens--was once, and can see it s role, but....--Stanislave Grof when doing psychedelic psychotherpy found that some people, his 'patients' would not repond to large doses of LSD. they had 'Obsessive Compulsive Disorder'...so there was a holding back. after increasing dosages at future session this block was resolved. Grof also found that when experience got too deep for some people they came back to a perception that was an exagerated perception. where everything was actutely real
so do you see, people can block hallcuinogenic exp[erience, which is why set and setting are so important. from you blase attitude it sounds to me that its not hallucinogens that skewed you, but your whole attitude....'meticulous'?

The religious are all the same, you are not looking at the real world deeply enough so you assume it is flat, and mundane, and devoid of any inherent meaning. To give it meaning you have to imagine that there is something more to it... something magical and hidden away from plain sight. I say you are not looking at the real world closely enough.


~Raithere

oh dude, dont tell me what i know. believe me i explore all this. what i am speaking of is CONTINUUM. you admit one cant be in love the whole time yeah. say you see your lover, and get all that feeling, right? l;ovely isn't it. then there's wok Monday morning. you dont feel that same feeling then do you?...no. but that doesn't take away that feeling you HAd dad does it. or denounce the feeling you are having Monday morning. is just is. stop teachin yer granny how to suk eggs

 

[MarcAC]

The thing is, for all our looking no such "vital principle" has ever been found... in fact there's no reason to propose it's existence in the first place.

You stated it yourself; "the essence of meaning".

Under examination, life breaks down into mundane chemical and physical processes obeying natural laws.

Yet there seems to be some amount of uncertainty within the laws themselves. Why did it turn out this way? I am at least equally justified in asking that as you may be in ignoring it.

I have no idea what any of this is supposed to mean. Start at infinity +1?!?

Well it seems I misunderstood your (god + not-god) venture. In this case (god + not-god) may be equated to (infinity + 1) which may be limited to (>>1 + 1). Regardless, the point is I haven't seen you present any justification of your notion that defining god, which results in god + not-god then makes god < not-god;

"To define god we distinguish god from that which is not-god. At once this causes a problem; there is something greater than god (god + not-god)".

You certainly don't mean the additional word "not". Care to clarify?

 

[MarcAC]

These threads always degrade. . .
Thread-entropy is the rule.

(Remember it isn't your classroom, it is our classroom.)

Really, the thread ended there.

 

[mouse]

The religious are all the same, you are not looking at the real world deeply enough so you assume it is flat, and mundane, and devoid of any inherent meaning. To give it meaning you have to imagine that there is something more to it... something magical and hidden away from plain sight. I say you are not looking at the real world closely enough.

It's seems unrealistic to make such a general statement about a very large group of people. Looking at the world "deeply enough" and having religious feelings do not seem mutually exclusive.

I agree that for the real world (although i am not entirely sure what that term defines) to exist and to be intelligible, there is no requirement of a faith of any kind necessary. Having said that, it also does not explicitly negate it.

If we can agree to that, we can also agree that a religious person may very well have a good background in e.g. physics and chemistry (i.e. having looked deeply enough at the real world) and still maintain his or her faith as long as it does not contradict with the natural laws as we know it.

Although personally, i would find it an utterly useless exercise to let a faith, accepted only by the idea that it might be possible, be the judge of my thoughts and actions.

 

[spidergoat]

My questions are:

Do you think the theory of Evolution should be covered in high school science classes?

Yes.

Why or why not?

Because it's science.

Do you think the concept of Intelligent Design should be covered in high
school science classes?

Yes.

Why or why not?

Students should be introduced to the concept of pseudo-science, and why Intelligent Design is not valid from a scientific perspective, and how it is a thinly veiled attempt to turn the USA into a Christo-Fascist Theocracy. It could be included in a chapter on the great follies and fallacies of humanity.

When responding please leave your name and occupation/title/affiliation
Spidergoat, Industrial Designer/Prototype Modelmaker

 

[Mystech]

Evolution should absolutely be tought in Science classes because, frankly, it is science. It is proven, it is fact, we can see it happening, biological evolution is

Lots of people like to confuse the issue by calling it the "theory" of evolution, using the layman form of the term which means that it is simply an unproven idea. This, however, is not how the scientific community uses the word. A theory is a model of the way some natural phenomena works, which can produce accurate and useful predictions about how certain elements will behave. Evolution does all of these things.

The theory of evolution is as solid and valid as is the theory of gravity, however I'm sure that everyone could quite surely see the absurdity of the situation if Christian fundamentalists were trying to attack the theory of gravity and demand equal time for the idea that angels are all holding us down to the ground.

As for the argument (bought up by okinrus, I believe) that it violates religious freedom to not teach intelligent design in a science class, I'd have to entirely disagree. About as many people buy into creationism as believe in a flat earth. Should flat-Earth-"theory" be taught in school 'lest we offend someone's religious beliefs? Teaching a scientific theory which does not mention God is not indoctrination of atheism any more than discussing Muslims in a world history class would be an endorsement of Allah. Religious freedom does not mean that Christians get to set the agenda for everyone regardless of how inappropriate the materials they'd tack onto the curriculum are. It's a bit like requiring home economics teachers to mention that Christ turned water into wine in the course of teaching students to cook.

The idea of intelligent design by contrast is not a theory. It is a mere supposition. To teach it in a theology or a philosophy class would be entirely fine, but it absolutely does not belong in a science class. If we begin to teach our children that one "Theory" (used in the layman sense, merely an untested and even untestable supposition) and then another genuine working scientific theory back to back as though they were both of equal scientific value does nothing but confuse children and weakens their education about what science actually is in the first place.

So says I, Craig Rodriguez, full time student at a university which I shall not name in the interest of personal privacy, and part time computer repair technician/graphic artist.

 

[Mystech]

Students should be introduced to the concept of pseudo-science, and why Intelligent Design is not valid from a scientific perspective, and how it is a thinly veiled attempt to turn the USA into a Christo-Fascist Theocracy.

Though your language is slightly inflammatory I'd have to agree with you very strongly on this. I hadn't thought of that particular angle. Using the example of creationism and intelligent design in a science class to help children delineate the difference between what is scientifically verifiable, and what is merely pseudoscience, or simply theology or philosophy could actually be a good way to give kids a better grasp of just what it is that science is all about (I know that in those early years kids tend to just accept everything written in their text books and call that science unless they've got a good school with some lab equipment which they can actually use as a class to verify those things that they've read and really get a hands on idea of the scientific method).

That's thinking outside the box, spidergoat, I like what you've got to say!

 

[Raithere]

you are a strange person. you only seem to go so far and then ,,,,stop. but if yer happy yer happy

I'll go anywhere... and then I come back home bearing new experiences and discoveries.

it is more revealing to me the superficial hallucinogenic experience you must have had

I've have my revelations and epiphanies, intense and deeply personal experiences, both with drugs and without. I simply do not translate them literally.

from you blase attitude it sounds to me that its not hallucinogens that skewed you

How, pray tell, I am "skewed"?

but your whole attitude....'meticulous'?

My "whole attitude" cannot be defined as meticulous but when I am studying something, yes. I am insatiably curious and very persistent.

oh dude, dont tell me what i know. believe me i explore all this. what i am speaking of is CONTINUUM.

Continuum I get. What I don't get is the assertion that there is something beyond. I'm asking you about spirit and thus far the only explanation I have is that its "deep" there is a continuum of experience, and that everything is conscious. Other than your insistence I don't see anything to back it up, it seems pure fantasy to me.

The experiences you seem to be alluding to I have had. The difference is that I interpreted the revelation personally; it gave me insight into my mind, the way I think. I no longer structure things the way I once did, mental constructs are tools, not reality.

~Raithere