While the media and popular authors continue to spread the message of Darwin's evolution-theory (and the new synthesis) as an established fact, more and more people, including a growing number of scientists, have their doubts about many of the claims made.

See Inverse logic in evolution-theory

Many of these objections have been known for a very long time. This raises the question why so many scientists choose to ignore the fundamental problems with evolution-theory.
Could it be they are afraid to acknowledge the possibility of spiritual views on life having any ground? It certainly seems so, judging the work of Richard Dawkins, whose work "The God Delusion" shows his ignorance of philosophical questions, beautifully shown by Alister McGrath, in his booklet "The Dawkins Delusion? Atheist fundamentalism and the denial of the divine".

Views: 474

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

To speak to something rational, it must be defineable in three conditions. This was a definition for the Reply by Charles Cosimano and his comment on mechanism.
Which three conditions?
Innate : that which arises directly out of Cause and Effect.

Intrinsic : That which arises directly out of Form and Function such that Form implements Function and Function iterates Form.

Abstract : that which arises directly out the binding
Where did you find these conditions? They are very succinctly formulated. Where can I find a broader description?
What about an act of will? Is that covered by the abstract condition? Which binding do you refer to?
For some reason the "reply to this" did not appear where it should have.

Reply by Martin Euser 22 minutes ago
Where did you find these conditions? They are very succinctly formulated. Where can I find a broader description?
What about an act of will? Is that covered by the abstract condition? Which binding do you refer to?

We have been working on this model for over five years now and came up with them. Our website is www.rationalmechanisms.com . An act of will would be found in the intrisic condition, this is where the binding occurs that gives rise to the abstract.
Richard: Yesterday I had a look at your and your friend's website.
I can see what you are aiming at. It is rather abstract in its formulation.
It will benefit from some concrete examples or applications, but I suppose that will come with time.
Transformations/phase transitions and the like will probably form a part of this model? How do qualities or gunas fit into this model?
"What is this supposed to clarify?"

"The only thing remaining to figure out is the mechanism."

My definition of a mechanism. If we are going to talk about something I think it would be helpful to "know" what it is.
An act of will?
How one answers that depends on the simplicity/complexity of the Rational Paradigm in question.
Let us assume we are referring to human Rational Paradigms.
Innately will arises from metabolism.
Intrinsically will arises from Gravity.
Abstractly will arises from experience.
The Act of Will (behavior) is always a sacrifice. We sacrifice the whole truth of any given experience for the value to which we are constrained.
If you will, think of "like" (the verb - to like).
The likes of our experiences reside within an imaginary center.
These are surrounded by the dislikes of our experiences.
Indifference surrounds both of these.
Our dislikes protect us from this unknown, while our likes become our gravity.
Will is like a flow within a gravitational mass that forms a fulcrum (base) between our likes and dislikes.
The attempt to resolve our likes and dislikes is an attempt to accommodate this flow - we call it Ambivalence.
Will describes the resolution of Ambivalence.
Free Will describes the truth of each human Rational Paradigm to resolve ambivalence according to their capacity and their experience alone.
We have free will distinct from any other Rational Paradigm because our gender has been abstracted from our sexuality. Humans apart from all other creatures can bind their sexuality to their dreams and they can do so to their nightmares.

God Bless
dwc
Many people are so gullible. They believe what they have been taught at schools. They are not to blame, but biologists and popularizers are.

We are all to blame. We sacrifice the whole truth of any given experience for the value to which we are constrained.
That is true too, in general. But we always "sacrifice" the whole truth of an experience, because we, as limited beings, cannot perceive but through the lens of our experiences.
Living (for humans) without values would be impossible, I suppose.
When I speak of value I am referring to any flow within given flow. In the RMCM we are an abstraction that arises out of value. This flow is transcendent. We are novel and as such we can not experience the feelings others have. This is the sacrifice of context, no two things can occupy the same space. Also we lack the ability to "see" the change in context (motion) and movement concurrently.
" It is not that the spiritual views of life, lack ground so much as they simply lack relevance"

You are right.

RSS

Search Theosophy.Net!

Loading

What to do...

Join Theosophy.Net Blogs Forum Live Chat Invite Facebook Facebook Group

A New View of Theosophy


About
FAQ

Theosophy References


Wiki Characteristics History Spirituality Esotericism Mysticism RotR ToS

Our Friends

© 2021   Created by Theosophy Network.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service