I have it on good authority that Akis is preparing another masterpiece for discussion, but in the mean time I will like to address some of Dimitris comments, not all. I will like to leave the “Rights of Man” for a later date, when we have built up a more firm base and a better understanding of each others point of view. Nor would I delve too much into “freedom is a State of Mind” because I do not believe that that is what I meant, let alone create another dogmatic belief. My intent was to open our minds to infinite possibilities and not to create a dogmatic anything. Dogmas close minds by setting boundaries.
I would however take exception to, and deal with that last paragraph that “As for Jesus, may I suggest that he used his own freedom to express his belief about what others should be slaves to”?
In my piece “Element of Confusion” I stated that one of our fundamental scientific laws is that “action and reaction are equal and opposite” and that same law is reflected in religious teachings as “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” meaning that even in the spiritual realm, if I could describe the non material plane dimensions as the spiritual realm, our actions or even thoughts being energy forms, have equal and opposite consequences.
Prior to Jesus, this law described the inescapable state of the human condition. The continuous and endless struggle in dealing with action and reaction or as Akis will say the struggle for the “ΕΝΑΡΜΟΝΙΣΜΟΣ ΑΝΤΙΦΑΣΕΩΝ”, was the accepted state of mans existence.
Jesus interpreted that condition as the unending cycle of death or the gradual loss of mans recollection and ultimate realization of his true self and his divine origin.
Jesus fundamentally proposed that through “absolute love” that law which kept man enslaved to the material plane and perpetual death becomes null and void. In my understanding this is liberation and not enslavement.
Παρασκευή 27 Νοεμβρίου 2009
Παρασκευή 20 Νοεμβρίου 2009
RATTLE AND ROLL
It will seem that my contradictory writing (αντιφατικο σχολιο), struck a note or two and caused things to be…..shaken. Our open discussion (ανοικτος διαλογος) demands that we do not only shake a few things but also ….. rattle and roll them.
Our inability to say things clearly, so that we can be equally understood by all, is another of those blessings that we are all endowed. Everything written or said is subject to interpretation irrespective of the richness of language. I think we all probably feel the same but who can possibly express that feeling in words and be absolutely clear.
So let us play with words and see what shakes rattles and rolls.
I will like to start by shaking “positive dogmatism” a little bit more. I have given a great deal of thought to this term and the feeling it conjures is of someone in a box with a positive frame of mind, which I suppose, whether we like it or not, we all must be to a certain extend. I say box because a dogma is nothing more but a set of defined boundaries that are indisputable or as you say unshakeable.
By the way, I do not think that I have ever been a “positive dogmatist” because the walls of my box are in a state of disrepair from the constant kicking shaking and rattling I do inside. In fact the reason for all the kicking and shaking (and o.k. rattling and rolling) is because I have had this feeling that positive dogmatism is in fact a paradox, and with that in mind let us move to that all important question….
“What is Freedom”?
I will like to start with the presumption that life is a precious state (gift some might say), simply because as far as I know so far, (and that is shaky) it provides the only platform to experience. I say that knowing that my main protagonist in an act of contradiction (αντιφασις) did exactly the opposite in order to give meaning to life.
The examples you provided although true expressions of individual freedom are in fact expressing different degrees or perceptions of freedom. I say that because the word “Freedom” is one of those words that have an absolute meaning or origin. So by definition it cannot exist in a box or dogma without changing to a relative term. It is for this reason that the material part of human experience only perceives freedom in a number of relative infinite degrees.
The word freedom is another one of those words identified by Socrates to have absolute and divine origin alien to earthly human experience. Absolute freedom cannot be truly and permanently experienced as long as we have to breathe and eat to survive. I think Socrates made that clear with his final act.
Socrates used his absolute freedom as a means to the realization of a higher ideal. Jesus as I mentioned earlier used freedom to give meaning to life and promoted a higher ideal which was the invalidation of atheism.
This apparent contradiction (αντιφασις) i.e. the realization of a higher ideal and the need for life as a platform to experience, leads us back to that interesting piece by Akis on “Εναρμονισμο Αντιφασεων” as a means of addressing our greatest fear… Death.
Your comments accompanied by a great deal of Shake Rattle and Roll will be greatly appreciated.
Phivos
Our inability to say things clearly, so that we can be equally understood by all, is another of those blessings that we are all endowed. Everything written or said is subject to interpretation irrespective of the richness of language. I think we all probably feel the same but who can possibly express that feeling in words and be absolutely clear.
So let us play with words and see what shakes rattles and rolls.
I will like to start by shaking “positive dogmatism” a little bit more. I have given a great deal of thought to this term and the feeling it conjures is of someone in a box with a positive frame of mind, which I suppose, whether we like it or not, we all must be to a certain extend. I say box because a dogma is nothing more but a set of defined boundaries that are indisputable or as you say unshakeable.
By the way, I do not think that I have ever been a “positive dogmatist” because the walls of my box are in a state of disrepair from the constant kicking shaking and rattling I do inside. In fact the reason for all the kicking and shaking (and o.k. rattling and rolling) is because I have had this feeling that positive dogmatism is in fact a paradox, and with that in mind let us move to that all important question….
“What is Freedom”?
I will like to start with the presumption that life is a precious state (gift some might say), simply because as far as I know so far, (and that is shaky) it provides the only platform to experience. I say that knowing that my main protagonist in an act of contradiction (αντιφασις) did exactly the opposite in order to give meaning to life.
The examples you provided although true expressions of individual freedom are in fact expressing different degrees or perceptions of freedom. I say that because the word “Freedom” is one of those words that have an absolute meaning or origin. So by definition it cannot exist in a box or dogma without changing to a relative term. It is for this reason that the material part of human experience only perceives freedom in a number of relative infinite degrees.
The word freedom is another one of those words identified by Socrates to have absolute and divine origin alien to earthly human experience. Absolute freedom cannot be truly and permanently experienced as long as we have to breathe and eat to survive. I think Socrates made that clear with his final act.
Socrates used his absolute freedom as a means to the realization of a higher ideal. Jesus as I mentioned earlier used freedom to give meaning to life and promoted a higher ideal which was the invalidation of atheism.
This apparent contradiction (αντιφασις) i.e. the realization of a higher ideal and the need for life as a platform to experience, leads us back to that interesting piece by Akis on “Εναρμονισμο Αντιφασεων” as a means of addressing our greatest fear… Death.
Your comments accompanied by a great deal of Shake Rattle and Roll will be greatly appreciated.
Phivos
Τετάρτη 18 Νοεμβρίου 2009
What is Freedom and who is Free?
Thoughts for consideration:
THOUGHT “A”
1905. A young cadet of the US Army undergoing his first day’s training, including a haircut, has a picture of Mozart in his tent. The ignorant Master Sergeant disapproves of the haircut and wants to know where Mozart is, in order to give him a proper military haircut. In the end, he has all the boys in his charge wear their gas masks while doing their training, in order to cover his embarrassment at his stupidity and to show the boys who the real boss of the troop is. At the end of the day, he tells the boys that they may remove the gas masks and be dismissed if they shout “Mozart is shit”. A cheerful, gleeful shout from the boys laughingly pronounces the required statement, the masks come off and the boys merrily head for their dinner. However, the Sergeant notices one recruit still wearing his mask and still at attention.
In short: The boy refuses to say that Mozart is shit and therefore he does not remove the mask. Traditional military punishment for days does not force him to change his mind and he keeps the mask on day and night, even when sleeping or when having a shower.
The Master Sergeant in the end gives in and tells him to remove the mask. The boy refuses to do this, unless the Master Sergeant says that Mozart was a great composer. He plays some works of Mozart on the company’s piano, to demonstrate his meaning. However, even though the Master Sergeant concedes that it is a nice tune, he refuses to say that Mozart is a great composer. The boy refuses to remove the gas mask and more days go by in the status quo, with the Master Sergeant becoming more and more desperate. In the end, the Master Sergeant cannot take it any more and concedes that Mozart was a great composer. However, the boy refuses to remove the gas mask unless the Sergeant shouts his statement in front of all his troops, which the Sergeant eventually does with gusto! The boy takes off the gas mask and laughs with pleasure while continuing with his daily training.
QUESTION: Is this boy a free man even though he is in fact a slave to the Army and military rules and regulations? The boy refuses to surrender his beliefs and achieves a victory over his superior, but is he a free man?
THOUGHT “B”
450 BC. Peloponnesian wars. According to Thucydides, a Greek state surrounds the fort of another Greek State and eventually, following a promise of free passage, the defenders surrender. The winners change their mind about the free passage and demand that the prisoners swear allegiance to them, before they are allowed to go free, hoping that the prisoners will refuse and thereby give the winners an excuse to kill them and do away with a serious problem (from the winners’ point of view). One by one the prisoners are asked to swear allegiance, one by one they refuse and one by one are put to death.
QUESTION: Did the prisoners die free men? Did they die as slaves? What did their actions gain them in terms of freedom? No doubt the actions of the winners were despicable, but by achieving what they wanted in the first place, were they not the ones actually free, through their horrible acts ensuring their future freedom from aggression from a dangerous neighbour?
THOUGHT “C”
2009. A documentary. A guy alone films himself in the wilderness. Lots of game and water available and he can sustain himself for ever, if he so wishes. No taxes to pay, no rules to follow, no obligations to anyone. On day 32 he films himself crying. He misses human companionship. He misses the human touch, the exchange of words, thoughts and ideas.
QUESTION: This person is free from all restrictions yet he yearns for human contact which will essentially mean giving up some of his freedom, because as with all things human, one must compromise. He is therefore desperate to give up at least PART of his freedom, for the sake of companionship. When is he freer? Alone or with company?
DIMITRIS
THOUGHT “A”
1905. A young cadet of the US Army undergoing his first day’s training, including a haircut, has a picture of Mozart in his tent. The ignorant Master Sergeant disapproves of the haircut and wants to know where Mozart is, in order to give him a proper military haircut. In the end, he has all the boys in his charge wear their gas masks while doing their training, in order to cover his embarrassment at his stupidity and to show the boys who the real boss of the troop is. At the end of the day, he tells the boys that they may remove the gas masks and be dismissed if they shout “Mozart is shit”. A cheerful, gleeful shout from the boys laughingly pronounces the required statement, the masks come off and the boys merrily head for their dinner. However, the Sergeant notices one recruit still wearing his mask and still at attention.
In short: The boy refuses to say that Mozart is shit and therefore he does not remove the mask. Traditional military punishment for days does not force him to change his mind and he keeps the mask on day and night, even when sleeping or when having a shower.
The Master Sergeant in the end gives in and tells him to remove the mask. The boy refuses to do this, unless the Master Sergeant says that Mozart was a great composer. He plays some works of Mozart on the company’s piano, to demonstrate his meaning. However, even though the Master Sergeant concedes that it is a nice tune, he refuses to say that Mozart is a great composer. The boy refuses to remove the gas mask and more days go by in the status quo, with the Master Sergeant becoming more and more desperate. In the end, the Master Sergeant cannot take it any more and concedes that Mozart was a great composer. However, the boy refuses to remove the gas mask unless the Sergeant shouts his statement in front of all his troops, which the Sergeant eventually does with gusto! The boy takes off the gas mask and laughs with pleasure while continuing with his daily training.
QUESTION: Is this boy a free man even though he is in fact a slave to the Army and military rules and regulations? The boy refuses to surrender his beliefs and achieves a victory over his superior, but is he a free man?
THOUGHT “B”
450 BC. Peloponnesian wars. According to Thucydides, a Greek state surrounds the fort of another Greek State and eventually, following a promise of free passage, the defenders surrender. The winners change their mind about the free passage and demand that the prisoners swear allegiance to them, before they are allowed to go free, hoping that the prisoners will refuse and thereby give the winners an excuse to kill them and do away with a serious problem (from the winners’ point of view). One by one the prisoners are asked to swear allegiance, one by one they refuse and one by one are put to death.
QUESTION: Did the prisoners die free men? Did they die as slaves? What did their actions gain them in terms of freedom? No doubt the actions of the winners were despicable, but by achieving what they wanted in the first place, were they not the ones actually free, through their horrible acts ensuring their future freedom from aggression from a dangerous neighbour?
THOUGHT “C”
2009. A documentary. A guy alone films himself in the wilderness. Lots of game and water available and he can sustain himself for ever, if he so wishes. No taxes to pay, no rules to follow, no obligations to anyone. On day 32 he films himself crying. He misses human companionship. He misses the human touch, the exchange of words, thoughts and ideas.
QUESTION: This person is free from all restrictions yet he yearns for human contact which will essentially mean giving up some of his freedom, because as with all things human, one must compromise. He is therefore desperate to give up at least PART of his freedom, for the sake of companionship. When is he freer? Alone or with company?
DIMITRIS
What I have said was...shaken
AA
I think that my chronic inability to say things clearly may have been overcome in the statement published on the blog under the heading God, in other words had nothing to do with it (http://aniktosdialogos.blogspot.com/) A second reading might make it clear that I am being misquoted when old friend Phivos accredits me with
The extrapolation (Dimitri), that our DNA is the sole contributor to our nature and actions, is unsound, in that it leaves multidimensional influence variables out of the equation. I will be prepared to conceit that it describes a mechanism but not the cause.
What I have said was that
"Η εξελικτική μας πορεία " was what? Necessity has formulated our rules and regulations, which we eventually turned into laws, or, so important and crucial were they that we incorporated them into our genes....
and I gave examples of what I meant. In other words, the "multidimensional variable influences" that Phivos refers to, are exactly what I have said contribute to our DNA, which in turn determines our behaviour as well as our other components as human beings.
BB
As a confirmed Atheist, I have found my "positive dogmatism" somewhat shaken of late and I should like to introduce a new element for discussion, as an introduction to which I take something I have said apropos in the same blog God, in other words had nothing to do with it
A positive dogmatist would then be someone who has an unshakable belief in the accuracy of his position, until proof OR REASONABLE ARGUMENT to the contrary is provided. In other words, You and I! :-))
I have recently read Dostoevsky's The Brothers of Karamazov, and I have just completed "The Idiot". I could not help crying in places at the author's pain at humanity's cruelty to itself, but also the dignity which characterises, distinguishes and separates us from other animals. Dostoevsky was deeply Orthodox religious and so obviously such a "humane" person, full of compassion and love for his fellow beings, yet had a weakness for gambling which is so in conflict with his undoubted genius, that it shocks me into stupefaction.
But what shook my confidence in atheism was a part of the introduction to the book, written by a A. D. P. Briggs, a university professor. He said that the concept of Intelligent Design (Creation by God) is now given scientific credence by the discovery of some tiny machine-like structures in nature which are "irreducibly complex", which means that they could not have emerged from a process of Darwinian natural selection, or by chance alone. There is, for example, a "flagellar motor" within a bacterial cell, using its thirty distinct moving parts to rotate at 100.000 rpm, which has all the appearance of a machine designed by engineers; there MUST be intelligence behind it!
CC
I am copying this to my brother Panicos, who is a religious fanatic and would probably be able to contribute to the discussion.
DIMITRIS
I think that my chronic inability to say things clearly may have been overcome in the statement published on the blog under the heading God, in other words had nothing to do with it (http://aniktosdialogos.blogspot.com/) A second reading might make it clear that I am being misquoted when old friend Phivos accredits me with
The extrapolation (Dimitri), that our DNA is the sole contributor to our nature and actions, is unsound, in that it leaves multidimensional influence variables out of the equation. I will be prepared to conceit that it describes a mechanism but not the cause.
What I have said was that
"Η εξελικτική μας πορεία " was what? Necessity has formulated our rules and regulations, which we eventually turned into laws, or, so important and crucial were they that we incorporated them into our genes....
and I gave examples of what I meant. In other words, the "multidimensional variable influences" that Phivos refers to, are exactly what I have said contribute to our DNA, which in turn determines our behaviour as well as our other components as human beings.
BB
As a confirmed Atheist, I have found my "positive dogmatism" somewhat shaken of late and I should like to introduce a new element for discussion, as an introduction to which I take something I have said apropos in the same blog God, in other words had nothing to do with it
A positive dogmatist would then be someone who has an unshakable belief in the accuracy of his position, until proof OR REASONABLE ARGUMENT to the contrary is provided. In other words, You and I! :-))
I have recently read Dostoevsky's The Brothers of Karamazov, and I have just completed "The Idiot". I could not help crying in places at the author's pain at humanity's cruelty to itself, but also the dignity which characterises, distinguishes and separates us from other animals. Dostoevsky was deeply Orthodox religious and so obviously such a "humane" person, full of compassion and love for his fellow beings, yet had a weakness for gambling which is so in conflict with his undoubted genius, that it shocks me into stupefaction.
But what shook my confidence in atheism was a part of the introduction to the book, written by a A. D. P. Briggs, a university professor. He said that the concept of Intelligent Design (Creation by God) is now given scientific credence by the discovery of some tiny machine-like structures in nature which are "irreducibly complex", which means that they could not have emerged from a process of Darwinian natural selection, or by chance alone. There is, for example, a "flagellar motor" within a bacterial cell, using its thirty distinct moving parts to rotate at 100.000 rpm, which has all the appearance of a machine designed by engineers; there MUST be intelligence behind it!
CC
I am copying this to my brother Panicos, who is a religious fanatic and would probably be able to contribute to the discussion.
DIMITRIS
Τρίτη 17 Νοεμβρίου 2009
AN ELEMENT OF CONFUSION ?
I have read all of your beautifully written blogs (Akis and Dimitri) a number of times trying to find an entry point to your discussions and introduce an element of confusion that should be present in all discussions.
It was only natural or αναπόφευκτο that I should settle with Akis statement that “Είναι συνεπώς αναπόφευκτο ο άνθρωπος να λειτουργεί και να εκδηλώνεται αντιφατικά”. Akis will agree, this is in keeping with all the discussions we have had since we were five years old, not because we disagreed on everything, we have discussed, but because we fundamentally agreed.
I will like to develop this contradictory nature of man not so much from Akis philosophical perspective but more from what is available to us from empirical scientific evidence, and probably earn a premature nod of agreement with Dimitris.
The main assumption on which I will base my argument is that human nature and human behavior must be the product of its environment, since human kind is the product of the same creative process. If “antiphrasis” is an essential element of this creative universal equation then Akis statement must hold true. The one area we may differ, primarily philosophically, is in the way we define what constitutes our environment.
The one constant in all scientific research has been to continually expand our understanding of that definition and what we perceive or understand to be our environment.
Over years of scientific research our understanding of the solar system expanded, into an infinite universe, and the atom contracted to an infinite microcosm of energy and its manifestations.
Scientific universal laws had to be modified to reflect gravitational laws of the macrocosm and quantum laws of the microcosm to a Unified Universal law governing the nature of all environments.
Although there were a number of unifying theories proposed one underlying principle in all these scientific theories is, that in order for our scientifically derived laws to apply in a unifying fashion our environment must be multidimensional and synchronous.
The idea of a solely three dimensional material universe influencing universal mechanisms of change is no longer valid, and by definition the nature of who we are and how we act, is not valid, if we indeed share the nature of our environment.
The extrapolation (Dimitri), that our DNA is the sole contributor to our nature and actions, is unsound, in that it leaves multidimensional influence variables out of the equation. I will be prepared to conceit that it describes a mechanism but not the cause.
Did God have something to do with it?
The spiritualist or religious scholar may argue that the door is most certainly open, in that the synchronous multidimensional nature of man is precisely what we have been talking about and that theological and scientific opinions differed simply due to a lack of the correct definition of what constitutes our environment.
Akis argues that “antiphasis” is also part of our natural nature and must therefore be reflected in all natural processes.
The word “antiphasis” is the product of two words “anti” and “phasis” the word anti denoting the opposite of the noun phasis, proposing the existence of two opposing states.
In the purest sense this describes a state of balance or equilibrium and is essential in all scientific arguments if a steady state is to exist.
Modern theoretical physicists also argue that the existence of “matter” is due to the existence of “anti-matter”, if a balanced stable universe is to exist.
Another fundamental scientific law states that “action and reaction, are equal and opposite”. Nature and scientific argument in its most fundamental building blocks is composed of plusses and minuses.
One would therefore argue that “anti-phatism” is an essential element to human nature and can be shown, at least in its purest form, to obey natural law. On the surface one would say that Akis is correct in saying that “Είναι συνεπώς αναπόφευκτο ο άνθρωπος να λειτουργεί και να εκδηλώνεται αντιφατικά”.
However, how could it be plausible for me to make Akis argument, without expressing an antiphasis to that argument? It will not only be unnatural it will be uncharacteristic.
The natural laws that I have so simplistic summarized apply to what I have described as a stable state, a balance or an equilibrium. What I have neglected to say so far is that steady state exists in an infinitesimally small period of time, because everything in the universe is constantly changing, not simply oscillating on either side of the equation, but changing on a specific direction. Latest scientific observations confirm that the universe is expanding and not with a view to contracting in another cycle. If that is indeed the case then that push or force responsible for all change must be outside the material plane.
If the argument of a multidimensional synchronous universe, derived by unified universal theory, opened the door to spiritual and theological argument, then the argument of a non material plane influence, as the cause for change, does not simply open the door, it allows the proposition, for the present, that it comes from God as the simplest if not the only theory proposed by the human collective consciousness.
If “antiphasis” is the influence of a material plane, and if theologians are to be believed that we are fundamentally created in the image of God, then “antiphasis” is not in Gods thinking and by theological definition not natural to our most basic self.
I hope all this makes sense to someone. If not then I hope it adds an element of confusion, which I promised earlier, that should promote a well being to an “anoikto dialogo”.
PHIVOS
It was only natural or αναπόφευκτο that I should settle with Akis statement that “Είναι συνεπώς αναπόφευκτο ο άνθρωπος να λειτουργεί και να εκδηλώνεται αντιφατικά”. Akis will agree, this is in keeping with all the discussions we have had since we were five years old, not because we disagreed on everything, we have discussed, but because we fundamentally agreed.
I will like to develop this contradictory nature of man not so much from Akis philosophical perspective but more from what is available to us from empirical scientific evidence, and probably earn a premature nod of agreement with Dimitris.
The main assumption on which I will base my argument is that human nature and human behavior must be the product of its environment, since human kind is the product of the same creative process. If “antiphrasis” is an essential element of this creative universal equation then Akis statement must hold true. The one area we may differ, primarily philosophically, is in the way we define what constitutes our environment.
The one constant in all scientific research has been to continually expand our understanding of that definition and what we perceive or understand to be our environment.
Over years of scientific research our understanding of the solar system expanded, into an infinite universe, and the atom contracted to an infinite microcosm of energy and its manifestations.
Scientific universal laws had to be modified to reflect gravitational laws of the macrocosm and quantum laws of the microcosm to a Unified Universal law governing the nature of all environments.
Although there were a number of unifying theories proposed one underlying principle in all these scientific theories is, that in order for our scientifically derived laws to apply in a unifying fashion our environment must be multidimensional and synchronous.
The idea of a solely three dimensional material universe influencing universal mechanisms of change is no longer valid, and by definition the nature of who we are and how we act, is not valid, if we indeed share the nature of our environment.
The extrapolation (Dimitri), that our DNA is the sole contributor to our nature and actions, is unsound, in that it leaves multidimensional influence variables out of the equation. I will be prepared to conceit that it describes a mechanism but not the cause.
Did God have something to do with it?
The spiritualist or religious scholar may argue that the door is most certainly open, in that the synchronous multidimensional nature of man is precisely what we have been talking about and that theological and scientific opinions differed simply due to a lack of the correct definition of what constitutes our environment.
Akis argues that “antiphasis” is also part of our natural nature and must therefore be reflected in all natural processes.
The word “antiphasis” is the product of two words “anti” and “phasis” the word anti denoting the opposite of the noun phasis, proposing the existence of two opposing states.
In the purest sense this describes a state of balance or equilibrium and is essential in all scientific arguments if a steady state is to exist.
Modern theoretical physicists also argue that the existence of “matter” is due to the existence of “anti-matter”, if a balanced stable universe is to exist.
Another fundamental scientific law states that “action and reaction, are equal and opposite”. Nature and scientific argument in its most fundamental building blocks is composed of plusses and minuses.
One would therefore argue that “anti-phatism” is an essential element to human nature and can be shown, at least in its purest form, to obey natural law. On the surface one would say that Akis is correct in saying that “Είναι συνεπώς αναπόφευκτο ο άνθρωπος να λειτουργεί και να εκδηλώνεται αντιφατικά”.
However, how could it be plausible for me to make Akis argument, without expressing an antiphasis to that argument? It will not only be unnatural it will be uncharacteristic.
The natural laws that I have so simplistic summarized apply to what I have described as a stable state, a balance or an equilibrium. What I have neglected to say so far is that steady state exists in an infinitesimally small period of time, because everything in the universe is constantly changing, not simply oscillating on either side of the equation, but changing on a specific direction. Latest scientific observations confirm that the universe is expanding and not with a view to contracting in another cycle. If that is indeed the case then that push or force responsible for all change must be outside the material plane.
If the argument of a multidimensional synchronous universe, derived by unified universal theory, opened the door to spiritual and theological argument, then the argument of a non material plane influence, as the cause for change, does not simply open the door, it allows the proposition, for the present, that it comes from God as the simplest if not the only theory proposed by the human collective consciousness.
If “antiphasis” is the influence of a material plane, and if theologians are to be believed that we are fundamentally created in the image of God, then “antiphasis” is not in Gods thinking and by theological definition not natural to our most basic self.
I hope all this makes sense to someone. If not then I hope it adds an element of confusion, which I promised earlier, that should promote a well being to an “anoikto dialogo”.
PHIVOS
Δευτέρα 2 Νοεμβρίου 2009
ΕΝΑΡΜΟΝΙΣΜΟΣ ΑΝΤΙΦΑΣΕΩΝ
Είναι κοινά αποδεκτό ότι ο άνθρωπος είναι ταυτόχρονα ένστικτα, συναισθήματα και πνεύμα, χαρακτηριστικά τα οποία, αν και διαφορετικά μεταξύ τους, λειτουργούν και προπαντός εκδηλώνονται ως να είναι ένα.
Τις πλείστες όμως φορές, αν όχι όλες, διαφωνούν, όχι μόνο μεταξύ τους, αλλά και το κάθε χαρακτηριστικό ξεχωριστά από μόνο του δεν λειτουργεί με το μέτρο εκείνο που θα ήταν το ιδανικό για τη κάθε δοσμένη περίσταση.
Είναι συνεπώς αναπόφευκτο ο άνθρωπος να λειτουργεί και να εκδηλώνεται αντιφατικά, μια και ουσιαστικά διαφωνεί κατά βάθος με τον ίδιο του τον εαυτό... πόσο δε μάλλον με τους άλλους αλλά και το ευρύτερο του περιβάλλον.
Όπως είναι φυσικό η αντιφατικότητα προκαλεί στον άνθρωπο δυσφορία. Γι’ αυτό και αισθάνεται την ανάγκη να εφευρίσκει τρόπους για να την αντιμετωπίζει και να ανακουφίζεται.
Οι τρόποι είναι ίσως όσοι και όλοι οι άνθρωποι ξεχωριστά αλλά και μαζί. Χοντρικά θα μπορούσαν να καταμεριστούν και σε τρεις κύριες κατηγορίες.
Σε αυτούς που έχουν την τάση να ανακουφίζονται από τις αντιφάσεις προσπαθώντας να τες ξεγελάσουν με "θεϊκούς" ή απόλυτους όρους, σε αυτούς που τες ξεγελούν με "ζωικούς" όρους, εκφράζοντας συνήθως μονολιθικές αντιλήψεις, και σ’ αυτούς που επιλέγουν να μην τες ξεγελούν αλλά να τες αντιμετωπίζουν εναρμονίζοντας τες μέσα στα ανθρώπινα πλαίσια...
Αυτοί που επιλέγουν να ξεγελούν τις αντιφάσεις - και που είναι ακόμη η συντριπτική πλειοψηφία των ανθρώπων - είναι αυτοί που έχουν την τάση να εξουσιάζουν ή και να εξουσιάζονται, να υποτάσσουν ή και να υποτάσσονται. Εκ των των πραγμάτων δε αφού αυτοί είναι που ακόμη κυριαρχούν είναι και αυτοί που έχουν και την κύρια ευθύνη για τες αρνητικές συμπεριφορές μας.
Το γεγονός ότι εξελικτικά χάνουν την αίγλη και επιρροή τους είναι μεν θετικό, είναι όμως και η απόδειξη των λανθασμένων επιλογών τους.
Αυτοί που επιλέγουν να αντιμετωπίσουν τις αντιφάσεις κινούμενοι μέσα στα ανθρώπινα πλαίσια, είναι υποχρεωμένοι να αποδεχτούν ότι αρχικά και για κάποιο χρονικό διάστημα θα συνυπάρχουν μαζί τους, έστω κι αν αυτό σημαίνει ότι θα συνυπάρχουν με κάτι που τους προκαλεί δυσφορία…
Η μόνη ανακούφιση που άμεσα αισθάνονται είναι ότι λειτουργούν με σύμμαχο τους την πραγματικότητα και την αλήθεια χωρίς καμιά υστεροβουλία και ιδιοτέλεια. Και αυτό διότι σε αντίθεση με τους απόλυτους και τους μονολιθικούς, δεν υποβάλλονται σε οποιαδήποτε μορφή μύησης, πλύσης εγκεφάλου ή και παράδοσης σε ψευδαισθήσεις ή και σε ημιαλήθειες αφού έμμεσα αισθάνονται την υποχρέωση ότι για να λειτουργήσουν ανθρώπινα θα πρέπει να αποβάλουν από πάνω τους και από μέσα τους, ότι πιθανόν τους έχει επηρεάσει με απόλυτους, μονολιθικούς ή και αυθαίρετους όρους.
Στη συνέχεια ενεργοποιείται μια δυνατότητα που έχει ο κάθε άνθρωπος μέσα του και η οποία του επιτρέπει να εξεικοιωθεί με το άγνωστο. Αυτό τον απαλλάσσει από την ανάγκη να επιδιώκει να λειτουργεί με υπεράνθρωπους ή απάνθρωπους όρους για να εκπληρωθεί δήθεν ο "σκοπός" του.
Προσγειωμένα, με ειλικρίνεια, καλοσύνη, κατανόηση, υπομονή η καλή πλευρά της φύσης του αναδύεται χωρίς να χρειάζεται να επιστρατευθούν οι εκφοβισμοί, οι ενοχοποιήσεις ή και τα ευτελή συμφέροντα.
Όταν λοιπόν αφήσουμε τον εαυτό μας ελεύθερο από τες όποιες εξαρτήσεις και προκαταλήψεις, όταν με σεμνότητα αποδεχτούμε τους περιορισμούς μας αλλά και προσπαθήσουμε αντικειμενικά να αντιληφθούμε τι είναι αυτό που, από τη μια εξελικτικά επιβάλλεται και από την άλλη μας ωθεί ή και μας ελκύει περισσότερο από οποιαδήποτε άλλη ενέργεια, τότε θα πάρουμε τους παλμούς και θα αντιληφθούμε ότι κάπου, σ΄ ένα βαθύτερο νόημα της ελευθερίας κρύβονται οι απαντήσεις για το πώς εναρμονίζονται οι αντιφάσεις.
Πράγματι η διαδικασία του εναρμονισμού των αντιφάσεων είναι εν πολλοίς παλμική. Και δεν θα μπορούσε να ήταν διαφορετικά αφού προσπαθούμε να εναρμονίσουμε ένστικτα, συναισθήματα και πνεύμα, χωρίς να τα καταργούμε και χωρίς να επιβάλλουμε το ένα σε βάρος του άλλου...
Όσο δε πιο πολύ αυτό-καλλιεργούμαστε με το βαθύτερο νόημα της ελευθερίας τόσο πιο αυθόρμητα επιτυγχάνουμε τον εναρμονισμό των αντιφάσεων. Τόσο πιο πολύ συμπλέουμε μ’ αυτό που συμβαίνει. Τόσο πιο πολύ ανακουφιζόμαστε . Τόσο πιο πολύ εξανθρωπιζόμαστε...
ΑΚΗΣ
Τις πλείστες όμως φορές, αν όχι όλες, διαφωνούν, όχι μόνο μεταξύ τους, αλλά και το κάθε χαρακτηριστικό ξεχωριστά από μόνο του δεν λειτουργεί με το μέτρο εκείνο που θα ήταν το ιδανικό για τη κάθε δοσμένη περίσταση.
Είναι συνεπώς αναπόφευκτο ο άνθρωπος να λειτουργεί και να εκδηλώνεται αντιφατικά, μια και ουσιαστικά διαφωνεί κατά βάθος με τον ίδιο του τον εαυτό... πόσο δε μάλλον με τους άλλους αλλά και το ευρύτερο του περιβάλλον.
Όπως είναι φυσικό η αντιφατικότητα προκαλεί στον άνθρωπο δυσφορία. Γι’ αυτό και αισθάνεται την ανάγκη να εφευρίσκει τρόπους για να την αντιμετωπίζει και να ανακουφίζεται.
Οι τρόποι είναι ίσως όσοι και όλοι οι άνθρωποι ξεχωριστά αλλά και μαζί. Χοντρικά θα μπορούσαν να καταμεριστούν και σε τρεις κύριες κατηγορίες.
Σε αυτούς που έχουν την τάση να ανακουφίζονται από τις αντιφάσεις προσπαθώντας να τες ξεγελάσουν με "θεϊκούς" ή απόλυτους όρους, σε αυτούς που τες ξεγελούν με "ζωικούς" όρους, εκφράζοντας συνήθως μονολιθικές αντιλήψεις, και σ’ αυτούς που επιλέγουν να μην τες ξεγελούν αλλά να τες αντιμετωπίζουν εναρμονίζοντας τες μέσα στα ανθρώπινα πλαίσια...
Αυτοί που επιλέγουν να ξεγελούν τις αντιφάσεις - και που είναι ακόμη η συντριπτική πλειοψηφία των ανθρώπων - είναι αυτοί που έχουν την τάση να εξουσιάζουν ή και να εξουσιάζονται, να υποτάσσουν ή και να υποτάσσονται. Εκ των των πραγμάτων δε αφού αυτοί είναι που ακόμη κυριαρχούν είναι και αυτοί που έχουν και την κύρια ευθύνη για τες αρνητικές συμπεριφορές μας.
Το γεγονός ότι εξελικτικά χάνουν την αίγλη και επιρροή τους είναι μεν θετικό, είναι όμως και η απόδειξη των λανθασμένων επιλογών τους.
Αυτοί που επιλέγουν να αντιμετωπίσουν τις αντιφάσεις κινούμενοι μέσα στα ανθρώπινα πλαίσια, είναι υποχρεωμένοι να αποδεχτούν ότι αρχικά και για κάποιο χρονικό διάστημα θα συνυπάρχουν μαζί τους, έστω κι αν αυτό σημαίνει ότι θα συνυπάρχουν με κάτι που τους προκαλεί δυσφορία…
Η μόνη ανακούφιση που άμεσα αισθάνονται είναι ότι λειτουργούν με σύμμαχο τους την πραγματικότητα και την αλήθεια χωρίς καμιά υστεροβουλία και ιδιοτέλεια. Και αυτό διότι σε αντίθεση με τους απόλυτους και τους μονολιθικούς, δεν υποβάλλονται σε οποιαδήποτε μορφή μύησης, πλύσης εγκεφάλου ή και παράδοσης σε ψευδαισθήσεις ή και σε ημιαλήθειες αφού έμμεσα αισθάνονται την υποχρέωση ότι για να λειτουργήσουν ανθρώπινα θα πρέπει να αποβάλουν από πάνω τους και από μέσα τους, ότι πιθανόν τους έχει επηρεάσει με απόλυτους, μονολιθικούς ή και αυθαίρετους όρους.
Στη συνέχεια ενεργοποιείται μια δυνατότητα που έχει ο κάθε άνθρωπος μέσα του και η οποία του επιτρέπει να εξεικοιωθεί με το άγνωστο. Αυτό τον απαλλάσσει από την ανάγκη να επιδιώκει να λειτουργεί με υπεράνθρωπους ή απάνθρωπους όρους για να εκπληρωθεί δήθεν ο "σκοπός" του.
Προσγειωμένα, με ειλικρίνεια, καλοσύνη, κατανόηση, υπομονή η καλή πλευρά της φύσης του αναδύεται χωρίς να χρειάζεται να επιστρατευθούν οι εκφοβισμοί, οι ενοχοποιήσεις ή και τα ευτελή συμφέροντα.
Όταν λοιπόν αφήσουμε τον εαυτό μας ελεύθερο από τες όποιες εξαρτήσεις και προκαταλήψεις, όταν με σεμνότητα αποδεχτούμε τους περιορισμούς μας αλλά και προσπαθήσουμε αντικειμενικά να αντιληφθούμε τι είναι αυτό που, από τη μια εξελικτικά επιβάλλεται και από την άλλη μας ωθεί ή και μας ελκύει περισσότερο από οποιαδήποτε άλλη ενέργεια, τότε θα πάρουμε τους παλμούς και θα αντιληφθούμε ότι κάπου, σ΄ ένα βαθύτερο νόημα της ελευθερίας κρύβονται οι απαντήσεις για το πώς εναρμονίζονται οι αντιφάσεις.
Πράγματι η διαδικασία του εναρμονισμού των αντιφάσεων είναι εν πολλοίς παλμική. Και δεν θα μπορούσε να ήταν διαφορετικά αφού προσπαθούμε να εναρμονίσουμε ένστικτα, συναισθήματα και πνεύμα, χωρίς να τα καταργούμε και χωρίς να επιβάλλουμε το ένα σε βάρος του άλλου...
Όσο δε πιο πολύ αυτό-καλλιεργούμαστε με το βαθύτερο νόημα της ελευθερίας τόσο πιο αυθόρμητα επιτυγχάνουμε τον εναρμονισμό των αντιφάσεων. Τόσο πιο πολύ συμπλέουμε μ’ αυτό που συμβαίνει. Τόσο πιο πολύ ανακουφιζόμαστε . Τόσο πιο πολύ εξανθρωπιζόμαστε...
ΑΚΗΣ
Κυριακή 1 Νοεμβρίου 2009
ΑΝΘΡΩΠΙΝΟ ΠΕΡΙΒΑΛΛΟΝ
Το γεγονός ότι οι άνθρωποι θεωρούν ως δεδομένη την θέση ότι δεν συνυπάρχουμε αρμονικά με το περιβάλλον είναι και αυτό, μια από τες μισές αλήθειες που δεχόμαστε αβασάνιστα ως απόλυτη αλήθεια.
Η άλλη μισή είναι ότι ο άνθρωπος λειτουργεί κυρίως ως δημιουργός και προστάτης του δικού του περιβάλλοντος.
Το περιβάλλον χωρίς τον άνθρωπο όχι μόνο δεν έχει ανάγκη προστασίας αλλά δεν έχει καν νόημα η έννοια της προστασίας του.
Το περιβάλλον διέπεται και αυτό από απρόβλεπτους και ρευστούς κανόνες που του επιτρέπουν να προσαρμόζεται και να αναπροσαρμόζεται. Να «αυτοκαταστρέφεται» και να «αναγεννιέται».
…Επιτρέπουν όμως όπως φαίνεται και στον καθένα μας να επιλέγει τι του ταιριάζει να υποστηρίξει και να το υποστηρίζει εφευρίσκοντας βολικά επιχειρήματα και θεωρίες.
Στους περιβαλλοντιστές θάπρεπε κανονικά να αμφισβητηθεί η αξιοπιστία τους ενόσω δεν θέλουν να αποδεχτούν ότι οι μεγαλύτερες «οικολογικές καταστροφές» έγιναν στον πλανήτη όταν δεν υπήρχαν άνθρωποι...
Τι παγετώνες, τι σεισμοί, πυρκαγιές, ξηρασίες, πλημμύρες, μετεωρίτες, κλιματολογικές αλλαγές,τσουνάμια και τόσα άλλα...
ΑΚΗΣ
Η άλλη μισή είναι ότι ο άνθρωπος λειτουργεί κυρίως ως δημιουργός και προστάτης του δικού του περιβάλλοντος.
Το περιβάλλον χωρίς τον άνθρωπο όχι μόνο δεν έχει ανάγκη προστασίας αλλά δεν έχει καν νόημα η έννοια της προστασίας του.
Το περιβάλλον διέπεται και αυτό από απρόβλεπτους και ρευστούς κανόνες που του επιτρέπουν να προσαρμόζεται και να αναπροσαρμόζεται. Να «αυτοκαταστρέφεται» και να «αναγεννιέται».
…Επιτρέπουν όμως όπως φαίνεται και στον καθένα μας να επιλέγει τι του ταιριάζει να υποστηρίξει και να το υποστηρίζει εφευρίσκοντας βολικά επιχειρήματα και θεωρίες.
Στους περιβαλλοντιστές θάπρεπε κανονικά να αμφισβητηθεί η αξιοπιστία τους ενόσω δεν θέλουν να αποδεχτούν ότι οι μεγαλύτερες «οικολογικές καταστροφές» έγιναν στον πλανήτη όταν δεν υπήρχαν άνθρωποι...
Τι παγετώνες, τι σεισμοί, πυρκαγιές, ξηρασίες, πλημμύρες, μετεωρίτες, κλιματολογικές αλλαγές,τσουνάμια και τόσα άλλα...
ΑΚΗΣ
Εγγραφή σε:
Αναρτήσεις (Atom)