About Those Beliefs You're Ashamed of Holding..

[Fadedflower]

Thanks, Purple. I'll pick it up.

 

[karri0n]

"Do what thou wilt, is the whole of the law"

Immerse yourself in the work and lust not the result, and then your magick will come full circle and the results will magnify the work....

Ok, I'll concede that Crowley used a K, and was certainly one of the most gifted magicians of his time, but his preference doesn't make it correct.

Also, are you sure it's not "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" ?

 

[plantvision]

. Too many people think that faith is a defense for a belief. Faith is in fact the lack of defense.

Exactely "Faith is a lack of defense", you do not defend Faith, because there is no reason to, you have complete belief in it, there is no reason to defend it.

Sounds like you've had a bumpy ride, thump.

If someone turns to faith because he feels it makes his life better, I have no problem with that. Even if he doesn't care to analyze his ideas criticaly nor is able to defend them to others, if this works for him I really can't object or tell him he should do differently. Life is tough, everyone has to make his own arrangements with it. But, if you can't justify your beliefs all you can say to others is "It works great for me, try it out for yourself". Other than that you can't expect to convince people to see it your way no matter how strongly you believe.

Another well put statement, your believes are yours, all you can do is lead by example, if other people see your life is good they will inquire. At that time you can tell them what works for you.
Trying to shove your belifs down somebody else throats is futile.

No one should be ashamed of thier beliefs. I don't know what's wrong with some of you guys that you feel the need to ridicule those who have different beliefs than you. I've seen it in various threads, you are damaging your very own karma and putting out small acts of pettiness that over tme and space will be magnified into acts of pure hate and evil. No one says you need to agree with other people's beliefs, but there's also no need to belittle anyone else. If only more people could see the damage they do by putting out all this negative energy. The world could be amuch better place, if only people would take more care in thier words and actions. Spread the love and smother the hate!

No matter how great your beliefs may be, when you use them to harm or belittle somebody else, you actions become poison to you and the person involved.

id say the big 3 religions have some pretty evil stuff in their holy books. also the countless people that have died from these religions in the past because the attackers believed god wanted them to do it. why do ppl need to be told how to live by humans that somehow know god better than them? i dont see a reason for it. IMO, religion does more harm than good.

Yes religion does harm, but I cant say it does more harm than good, that is a pretty all incompassing statement.
Yes through the years mans concept of religion has made him do some terrible actions.
But true faith has nothing to do with misquided beliefs.

 

[Heisenberg]

Exactely "Faith is a lack of defense", you do not defend Faith, because there is no reason to, you have complete belief in it, there is no reason to defend it.

Indeed, that was my point. People think that because they have faith in something, it is above doubt. If someone is satisfied with that standard for being convinced of a belief, who am I to insist better standards? It is when they bring this belief to the table, where it is exposed to those who apply systematic and consistent doubt to all claims, when faith is not acceptable. When someone suggests faith as motivation for believing a claim, they really aren't adding anything meaningful to the truth, and should keep their beliefs away from situations that require defense.

"Faith" is a fine invention
When Gentlemen can see—
But Microscopes are prudent
In an Emergency.
-Emily D.

 

[sk'mo]

I think, Heisenburg, That you are applying science to something non-scientific. The idea of 'negative' or 'positive energy' which hippies and other 'dreamer-types' talk of isn't as out there as one might believe. It is just an exaggerated explanation of how an individual's actions can impact others. An example of this might be stopping for coffee in the morning on your way to work and the server is all happy and cheery. This in turn, lightens your mood and affects how you interact with co-workers, making them a bit less stressed about their day, and on. Ergo, that server's 'positive energy' traveled through 'space and time' and was 'amplified' by you.

The idea is to remind people that their actions, even seemingly insignificant ones, can bare consequences beyond one's immediate surroundings. In mathematics I believe it is referred to as 'Chaos Theory'.

 

[Heisenberg]

I think, Heisenburg, That you are applying science to something non-scientific. The idea of 'negative' or 'positive energy' which hippies and other 'dreamer-types' talk of isn't as out there as one might believe. It is just an exaggerated explanation of how an individual's actions can impact others. An example of this might be stopping for coffee in the morning on your way to work and the server is all happy and cheery. This in turn, lightens your mood and affects how you interact with co-workers, making them a bit less stressed about their day, and on. Ergo, that server's 'positive energy' traveled through 'space and time' and was 'amplified' by you.

Since actions, attitudes and feelings are all part of the natural world, they are all subject to science. The idea that kindness is likely to be returned is a well understood concept that requires no special explanation involving strange energies. My point is, If something is unscientific then do not try to gain legitimacy from scientific words and concepts. These are usually the people who, when science backs them up, praise the discovery and happily add it to there list of evidence. When science shoots them down, they discount the entire approach and label it closed minded. Science has a precise meaning for the word energy, and makes no room for exaggeration. Someone who misuses the term isn't saying anything meaningful or providing any sort of sensible explanation for their claim.

 

[sk'mo]

And conversely, one should not apply scientific meaning to words not used in scientific context.

What does it mean to be "subject to science"? And, if attitudes and feelings are subject to it, why don't I understand modern art? Really, I once saw a very large hamburger sculpture. How can science explain that?

I believe the idea of karma isn't simply that kindness will be reciprocated, but that an individual's actions permeate throughout the universe (More presumably, throughout a population. Seeing as karma is all about how we treat each other, right?) and can come back ten(?)-fold. To use a simile: Picture a ripple in a pond bouncing off of the edges and many more ripples returning to where you dropped a pebble. - See that, I'm using the idea of kinetic energy to relate a social concept I find difficult to explain.

Sometimes invoking novel ideas helps a group comprehend concepts with which they have limited understanding. Whether it is Einstein talking about traveling the speed of light to explain relativity, or the religious practices of aboriginal peoples that allowed them to understand ecology and sustainability (What better way to preserve the environment, than to see all living things as sacred, eh?.).

 

[zvuv]

If it's beyond logic then it makes no sense. Or more directly, it's nonsense.

The way Faded uses the word energy is to describe some spiritual/emotional/psychological quality that has nothing to do with the meaning of the word in physics. In fact negative energy in physics is an exotic phenomenon and not common at all. Apparently in the spiritual realm there is a surplus of negative energy.

QM is not magic nor even mysterious. We can predict quantum behavior with very great accuracy. QM is used routinely in mundane banal applications such as electronics. The your cell phone or computer depend on components designed according to QM theory.

You might enjoy hearing Tiffany explain Quantum Physics http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA680ysYoB0

All physical laws are mysterious in the sense that we can never get to the bottom of them. When we find an explanation for gravity in terms of deeper principles, we will begin to ask why those underlying principles are the way they are. QM is no different from any other law of physics in this regard. In fact any human knowledge about anything at all is bottomless. This is not an open door for magic or supernatural phenomena.

Yes I do think there are beliefs that are shameful and people who should be ashamed of holding those beliefs. What would you say to a racist or a terrorist?

In general I don't see religious people as dupes, unenlightened or stupid. I have known some highly intelligent, extremely well educated people who are fervent believers. I think they are mistaken in their reasoning but not because they are idiots and haven't thought deeply on the subject.

 

[Heisenberg]

And conversely, one should not apply scientific meaning to words not used in scientific context.

What does it mean to be "subject to science"? And, if attitudes and feelings are subject to it, why don't I understand modern art? Really, I once saw a very large hamburger sculpture. How can science explain that?

I believe the idea of karma isn't simply that kindness will be reciprocated, but that an individual's actions permeate throughout the universe (More presumably, throughout a population. Seeing as karma is all about how we treat each other, right?) and can come back ten(?)-fold. To use a simile: Picture a ripple in a pond bouncing off of the edges and many more ripples returning to where you dropped a pebble. - See that, I'm using the idea of kinetic energy to relate a social concept I find difficult to explain.

Anything that is of the natural world is subject to science, as science is the study of the natural world. "subject to science" simply means subject to study and evaluation. Understanding how people respond to acts of kindness or abuse is not outside of science, as was suggested. Science is a systematic way of carefully and thoroughly observing nature while using consistent logic to evaluate the results.

Scientific terms can not be used outside of scientific context and still hold any sort of credible substance. Energy must be measurable and precisely quantifiable, or else it is not energy. The term energy is being used in an attempt to explain karma, not to liken it to something else for the sake of comprehension. You comparison to ripples in a pond certainly helps to put the idea of karma into perspective, but lends no merit to the theory. Especially since the energy powering the ripples is subject to entropy, as all energy is, which is the opposite of amplification. This is why the pebble does not translate into a tsunami. Suggesting that karma uses energy as a mechanism, and that this energy is not bound by the laws of thermodynamics, either implies the person does not understand the fundemental truths of the universe, or else understands them to the point of being a theoretical physicist.

 

[Heisenberg]

In general I don't see religious people as dupes, unenlightened or stupid. I have known some highly intelligent, extremely well educated people who are fervent believers. I think they are mistaken in their reasoning but not because they are idiots and haven't thought deeply on the subject.

This is a completely fair statement and something I also find to be true. A lot of religious people have thought deeply on the subject, but still neglect to apply rigorous doubt, do not understand the pitfalls of invalid reasoning, or else excuse religion from the standards they set for other beliefs. I doubt many religious people would take a drug based on a claim that has not been put through a process of doubt and passed consistent standards of merit. So while I would not make the statement that religious people are stupid, I would say that they are either unaware, under vigilant, or inconsistent.

 

[mouthmeetsoap]

This is a completely fair statement and something I also find to be true. A lot of religious people have thought deeply on the subject, but still neglect to apply rigorous doubt, do not understand the pitfalls of invalid reasoning, or else excuse religion from the standards they set for other beliefs. I doubt many religious people would take a drug based on a claim that has not been put through a process of doubt and passed consistent standards of merit. So while I would not make the statement that religious people are stupid, I would say that they are either unaware, under vigilant, or inconsistent.

You're the man Heisenberg. I'd rep you again if I could, but you say things I agree with far too often.

 

[zvuv]

... or else excuse religion from the standards they set for other beliefs. I doubt many religious people would take a drug based on a claim that has not been put through a process of doubt and passed consistent standards of merit. So while I would not make the statement that religious people are stupid, I would say that they are either unaware, under vigilant, or inconsistent.

Yes, inconsistent. IMO humans are not naturaly consistent in their thinking patterns or their behavior. This is a discipline that we have to learn and we never achieve more than partial mastery. People who are extremely intelligent in one area can be amazingly stupid about other things.

About language and technical terms. Many ordinairy words that have a legitimate non technical meaning are used in a specialized way by technical and other disciplines. For example the mathematical term 'irrational number' uses the word 'irrational' to mean something quite different from its use in ordinairy speech. Likewise the words power, force, work and energy were part of the English language long before they were adopted for special purposes in physics. There is nothing wrong with using 'energy' in its ordinairy sense of vigor or even in its New Age sense as some kind of driving spiritual element. The problem occurs when people think physics is talking about the same thing just because it uses the same words.

As Heisenberg points out: The ripples in the pond and kinetic energy perhaps serve as an analogy to understand the idea of Karmic Energy but the analogy does nothing to establish the validity of the idea. In the end the stone and the ripples are quite different. The structure of the original wave degrades, breaks up into incoherent reflections and eventualy just becomes noise. Eventually all traces of the wave will fade. And while energy itself is immortal, the pebble tossed into the pond permanently reduces the amount of useful energy in the universe. Speaking metaphoricaly, there are only so many pebbles that can be thrown into ponds.


Quantum Entanglement in fact does not allow the transmission of information faster than light.

The Many Universes 'Theory' is speculative and not an established fact.

Physics teaches us the much of the universe is disconnected. Beyond the limits of the observable universe, regions of space are receding from us at velocities faster than light and are causaly disconnected. What happens in those regions can have no effect on us.

Even putting aside these quibbles, I am not sure what these 'facts' would have done to establish the existence of Karmic Energy.

...Nothing is truely inexplicable at all...

How do you explain Existence?

 

[Johnnyorganic]

I believe I'll have a cold beer.

 

[sk'mo]

Anything that is of the natural world is subject to science, as science is the study of the natural world. "subject to science" simply means subject to study and evaluation. Understanding how people respond to acts of kindness or abuse is not outside of science, as was suggested. Science is a systematic way of carefully and thoroughly observing nature while using consistent logic to evaluate the results.

Scientific terms can not be used outside of scientific context and still hold any sort of credible substance. Energy must be measurable and precisely quantifiable, or else it is not energy. The term energy is being used in an attempt to explain karma, not to liken it to something else for the sake of comprehension. You comparison to ripples in a pond certainly helps to put the idea of karma into perspective, but lends no merit to the theory. Especially since the energy powering the ripples is subject to entropy, as all energy is, which is the opposite of amplification. This is why the pebble does not translate into a tsunami. Suggesting that karma uses energy as a mechanism, and that this energy is not bound by the laws of thermodynamics, either implies the person does not understand the fundemental truths of the universe, or else understands them to the point of being a theoretical physicist.

I forgot to mention that there is no entropy in my pond... Well, maybe a little, but not too much.
Have you ever heard the song "Positive Vibration" by Bob Marley? You would take literally the assertion that a Rastaman gives off specific, quantifiable resonance? Does that discredit the message of the song?
Faded's original post did not read as anything more than 'spiritualistic'. Faded may have used the word 'energy', but not in any scientific sense. You inferred that connection yourself. Now, where that leapt into quantum physics... I don't know, but Faded isn't the only person who describes religious/spiritual experience or an aspect of their beliefs as an energy in a non-physical sense. There are multiple meanings for many words. This a good example.

Is art subject to science? How do I use science to make art?

 

[zvuv]

Faded did in fact conflate the two meanings of energy.

Well, you talk science quite nicely, sir. But, if you really know your science you're well aware that everything is made up of molecules and atoms, which are indeed, energy. Energy can be either positive or negative.

 

[Fadedflower]

This is exactly what my Grams has taught me. I was home schooled until College, all my cousins and sibs, too. She has studied both quantum theories and natural magic (left yhe 'k' off, happy?) and has discovered they support each other, if one looks beyond the magic as 'unexplainable' and instead sees it is truly the science of nature and the Universe working together.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Can you give me an example of something you would describe as magic or magical?

 

[DelSlow]

Can you give me an example of something you would describe as magic or magical?

Unicorns and Harry Potter!

 

[Padawanbater2]

Unicorns and Harry Potter!

Perfect examples to illustrate my point, thank you.

If unicorns exist and we could see them and interact with them in reality, would they then be 'magic'? If Harry Potter could perform magical spells in our reality before our eyes, would it be 'magic', or would it be just a skill set that he has?

So basically, magic is something outside our reality if that's the case, the previous question is invalid.

 

[Heisenberg]

I forgot to mention that there is no entropy in my pond... Well, maybe a little, but not too much.
Have you ever heard the song "Positive Vibration" by Bob Marley? You would take literally the assertion that a Rastaman gives off specific, quantifiable resonance? Does that discredit the message of the song?
Faded's original post did not read as anything more than 'spiritualistic'. Faded may have used the word 'energy', but not in any scientific sense. You inferred that connection yourself. Now, where that leapt into quantum physics... I don't know, but Faded isn't the only person who describes religious/spiritual experience or an aspect of their beliefs as an energy in a non-physical sense. There are multiple meanings for many words. This a good example.

Is art subject to science? How do I use science to make art?

A claim was made.

Small acts of pettiness over time and space will be magnified into acts of pure hate and evil

If only more people could see the damage they do by putting out all this negative energy. The world could be amuch better place, if only people would take more care in thier words and actions.

I then asked which type of energy this was, to be answered that it is a special energy that evades thermodynamic rules and is described by quantum mechanics. I believe scientific context has been well established.

I have no problem with people using the word energy as a description for something they lack a better term for. My problem comes when they use energy as an explanation, and expect that science somehow lends credit to the idea of this energy, and that is exactly what FF did. When someone puts forth a theory such as that, they really aren't even explaining what the theory says, since the terms become ambiguous. They are in essence saying 'something that I cant really describe is doing this specific thing that I can't verify and in a way that I can't really describe.' When they say that, are they really saying anything at all? At best it is simply an observation.

Is art subject to science.. Well is art part of the natural world? Can art be observed? Can we make predictions about art? I'll grant you that art is subjective, while science is objective, which may or may not limit the usefulness of the scientific method as applied to art, but it certainly doesn't make art exempt from science.

How do you use science to make art.. is there any science behind the functionality of an electric guitar? Do you consider the mandelbrot set to be art? Do you see any video games as artistic? These are some examples of how scientific theory can be utilized to make art.