Open-Mindedness - Theosophy.Net2024-03-29T09:29:13Zhttps://theosophy.net/forum/topics/open-mindedness?commentId=3055387%3AComment%3A88812&feed=yes&xn_auth=noGreat video Jon. Thank you s…tag:theosophy.net,2013-05-07:3055387:Comment:1249832013-05-07T09:08:26.057ZSerendipityhttps://theosophy.net/profile/Serendipity
<p>Great video Jon. Thank you so much for sharing!</p>
<p>Great video Jon. Thank you so much for sharing!</p> It has been such a pleasure t…tag:theosophy.net,2011-12-01:3055387:Comment:914072011-12-01T06:23:00.530ZCapt. Anand Kumarhttps://theosophy.net/profile/CaptAnandKumar
<p>It has been such a pleasure to read you thoughts organized and articulated in such beautiful flow. Thanks Hannes. Please do complete what you have to say.</p>
<p>It has been such a pleasure to read you thoughts organized and articulated in such beautiful flow. Thanks Hannes. Please do complete what you have to say.</p> Part 4:
If we can explain thi…tag:theosophy.net,2011-12-01:3055387:Comment:915632011-12-01T03:49:44.114ZHannes Frischathttps://theosophy.net/profile/HannesFrischat
<p>Part 4:</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">If we can explain things (and prove these explanations to ourselves by living them) there is no need for <b>belief</b>. Belief <span style="font-weight: normal;">is not a concept needed in</span> Theosophy, at least as I have been learning it. The only form of belief that I can accept is this: Say I wanted to explore the north pole in a time when there were not much information about it and some researcher that had already been there told me from…</p>
<p>Part 4:</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">If we can explain things (and prove these explanations to ourselves by living them) there is no need for <b>belief</b>. Belief <span style="font-weight: normal;">is not a concept needed in</span> Theosophy, at least as I have been learning it. The only form of belief that I can accept is this: Say I wanted to explore the north pole in a time when there were not much information about it and some researcher that had already been there told me from his experience that I better pack my warm clothes and not start earlier than when I am really prepared – well then I better trust that sort of information if this source has turned out as reliable over years and years. But even the truth of that sort of information and my understanding of it will be put to test sooner or later.<br/> <br/> Which leads to critical thinking. It is obvious that somebody that neglects everything that has not been proven <em>by others to him</em> (but according to his rules of course) is good in <b>critical</b> thinking. However his interpretation of the world is the only one that with total certainity will be incomplete, because there is always more. If mankind would have stuck to that sort of thinking we would still live on a plate at with the abyss at its borders. As a consequence: <em>we should always be critical</em>, and try to prove everything to ourselves, <i>but</i> also allow ourselves to extend the realized principles over the borders of our immediate comfort zone.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"> </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">OK, I needed more than most of you will probably ever have time to read only to comment the basic terms used in this video. Originally I planned to walk through the scene setup, the examples and the conclusions but I'll stop at this point, although there would be lots more ideas of what to say.<br/> <br/> Best<br/>
Hannes</p> Part 3:
It would be a full di…tag:theosophy.net,2011-12-01:3055387:Comment:913962011-12-01T03:48:36.090ZHannes Frischathttps://theosophy.net/profile/HannesFrischat
<p>Part 3:</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">It would be a full discussion of itself how these originated, split up and criss-crossed the lines of idealism and materialism during the centuries, so we will leave that thought here. The conclusion however is, that <b>SCIENCE</b>, in the truest sense of it, should include every attempt to understand the universe and ourselves, and that should use every ability and device that we have to our command. <i>Consciousness, thinking, logic, analogy…</i></p>
<p>Part 3:</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">It would be a full discussion of itself how these originated, split up and criss-crossed the lines of idealism and materialism during the centuries, so we will leave that thought here. The conclusion however is, that <b>SCIENCE</b>, in the truest sense of it, should include every attempt to understand the universe and ourselves, and that should use every ability and device that we have to our command. <i>Consciousness, thinking, logic, analogy</i> and <i>intuition</i> are part of those abilities; and a conception of science that does not accept them as REALITIES is plainly materialistic – but by far not the only way to define what science or scientific really is or at least should be if done responsibly.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"> </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">It is obvious that different conceptions of science will lead to different perceptions of what can be <b>explained</b> or not. If we include different modes of force and matter as a possibility and assume that the same basic principles rule them all (or rather the essence of these principles) then we should be able to explain a lot more. And if we accept the existence of conciousness as fundamental in contrast to being a side-effect of matter, then even more.<br/> <br/> And, of course, the term 'explain' needs an explanation as well. When do we think something is explained? Is it when we can make a drawing of it? What about things (or problems or correlations) that are not bound to forms? Is something only explained if we can reduce it by logical deduction according to aristotelic rules towards something else that we accept as known? There are many alternative logical conceptions ... and what do we <em>know</em> really?</p> Part 2:
However it does not e…tag:theosophy.net,2011-12-01:3055387:Comment:914512011-12-01T03:47:19.710ZHannes Frischathttps://theosophy.net/profile/HannesFrischat
<p>Part 2:</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">However it does not explain a lot of questions: <i>Why</i> does matter exist? Why do we have these four forces and why do they have their respective proportions? Why is matter constituted from something else which we call energy and don't know very much about actually?</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"> </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">And here are some more questions: Would it be possible to have other species of matter than ours that are…</p>
<p>Part 2:</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">However it does not explain a lot of questions: <i>Why</i> does matter exist? Why do we have these four forces and why do they have their respective proportions? Why is matter constituted from something else which we call energy and don't know very much about actually?</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"> </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">And here are some more questions: Would it be possible to have other species of matter than ours that are either constituted from different sorts of energy or in other proportions from the same energy? How would these other forms of matter or substance interact with our matter if they existed? How could we, if these interactions were weak, detect these other modes of substance?<br/><br/>All these questions can be, and are actually asked, and parts of it actually have already been answered, at least in approach.<br/><br/>If we ask these sort of questions it may become obvious that a really thoughtful physicist might have a widely different conception of what <b>science</b> really is. As a personal note I have studied physics and done a decade of fundamental physical research in university, and I <i>never</i> found any physical fact that would have been in contradiction with Theosophy – on the contrary.<br/><br/>Therefore, whenever we talk about some concept to be '<b>scientific</b>' or '<b>non-scientific</b>' we must ask about the training and thoroughness of the person drawing that line.<br/><br/>Additionally we should acknowledge that 'science' does not only consist of what we call natural sciences. The other branch is what is called 'humanities' or 'arts' in english, but it might be admitted to indicate that the german term is 'Geisteswissenschaften' which means <b>sciences of spirit and mind</b>.</p> OK then, here comes some more…tag:theosophy.net,2011-12-01:3055387:Comment:916402011-12-01T03:45:46.248ZHannes Frischathttps://theosophy.net/profile/HannesFrischat
<p>OK then, here comes some more detailed discussion from my side.<br></br><br></br>Part 1:</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">In this article the author uses the following pairs of terms:</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br></br>a) <b>Natural</b> and <b>supernatural</b> events<br></br>b) <b>Scientific</b> and <b>non-scientific</b> concepts<br></br>c) <b>Explained</b> and <b>unexplained</b> things<br></br>d) <b>Belief</b> and <b>disbelief</b><br></br>e) <b>Critical</b> and <b>uncritical</b> thinking<br></br>f) <b>Open</b>-…</p>
<p>OK then, here comes some more detailed discussion from my side.<br/><br/>Part 1:</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">In this article the author uses the following pairs of terms:</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br/>a) <b>Natural</b> and <b>supernatural</b> events<br/>b) <b>Scientific</b> and <b>non-scientific</b> concepts<br/>c) <b>Explained</b> and <b>unexplained</b> things<br/>d) <b>Belief</b> and <b>disbelief</b><br/>e) <b>Critical</b> and <b>uncritical</b> thinking<br/>f) <b>Open</b>- and <b>close-mindedness</b><br/><br/>In trying to explain these terms from a theosophical point of view (as far as I understand it) we should start saying that if we accept <b>nature</b> as the boundless subsumption of all living entities, of all beings, in all worlds, as far as we can imagine and beyond that into the infinitude – then Nature is all there is. According to that <b>no supernatural events exist</b>.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"> </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">We have to take care here because in theosophical literature the term nature sometimes refers to the revealed part, or even to the manifested, or to our cosm which is a sub-cosm of bigger entities. In that sense there would exist beings, intelligences, consciousness-es and substances that are way beyond of how we can understand these terms, however if we include them into the All (which is not a being because that can never be boundless) then there is nothing outside of this.<br/><br/>What the author actually means with 'supernatural events' are events that can not be explained by considering anything other than the presently accepted forces of <i>matter</i>, the knowledge of which he equalizes with '<b>scientific</b>'.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"> </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">Whenever we think about matter we should remember ourselves that presently four basic forces of matter are known, which are electromagnetism, gravitation, strong and weak interaction (nuclear forces). A good practical physicist will split every problem thrown at him into these four aspects of physical matter and try to solve it which is fine and a very practical approach.</p> Here is the filetag:theosophy.net,2011-11-30:3055387:Comment:914332011-11-30T23:59:29.815ZHannes Frischathttps://theosophy.net/profile/HannesFrischat
<p>Here is the file</p>
<p>Here is the file</p> M. Sufilight said: Yes there…tag:theosophy.net,2011-11-30:3055387:Comment:913912011-11-30T23:47:51.607ZHannes Frischathttps://theosophy.net/profile/HannesFrischat
<blockquote><p><strong>M. Sufilight</strong> said:<br></br> Yes there are assumptions and there are also your own assumptions. <br></br> What I was trying to say is: <br></br>
There are also those who are skeptical about skepticism - ie. <em>others</em> skepticism.<br></br>
You are skeptical about the video and criticize it, although you might misapprehend the videos intentions based on your own assumptions. - If you find the video to be skeptical, why criticize it for being what you yourself are - skeptical…</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><p><strong>M. Sufilight</strong> said:<br/> Yes there are assumptions and there are also your own assumptions. <br/>
What I was trying to say is: <br/>
There are also those who are skeptical about skepticism - ie. <em>others</em> skepticism.<br/>
You are skeptical about the video and criticize it, although you might misapprehend the videos intentions based on your own assumptions. - If you find the video to be skeptical, why criticize it for being what you yourself are - skeptical or a user of assumptions. Well, of course only, if you find the video to be skeptical.</p>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>First of all I hope we are friends here or if not that we can get there sooner or later.<br/> <br/>
Then it seems my first answer might have been too condensed. In order to discuss the text more in depth I transcribed it ... would please a friendly native english speaker (or more than one) look into the transcript and pm/post any corrections?<br/>
<br/>
Thank you very much,<br/>
Hannes</p> I'm experiencing fatigue. Lol…tag:theosophy.net,2011-11-20:3055387:Comment:890362011-11-20T01:47:51.706ZMichael Simonhttps://theosophy.net/profile/MichaelSimon
I'm experiencing fatigue. Lol. "I teach that which I wish to learn," I meant to express.
I'm experiencing fatigue. Lol. "I teach that which I wish to learn," I meant to express. M - re promotion-of-altruism:…tag:theosophy.net,2011-11-20:3055387:Comment:890342011-11-20T01:43:37.234ZMichael Simonhttps://theosophy.net/profile/MichaelSimon
M - re promotion-of-altruism: yes/no. In any given moment I seek (better world, more whatever), because I see/perceive lack; in these moments promotion is important to ME (Me being personality/ego/meat-suit). I don't view this seeking as bad, but as gloriously human, natural, and reflexive. In any given moment, I see/intuit perfection (in world as in all-things), and seeing/intuiting no lack, I attract or repel (an example of repel may be my expressions not resonating or appearing confusing),…
M - re promotion-of-altruism: yes/no. In any given moment I seek (better world, more whatever), because I see/perceive lack; in these moments promotion is important to ME (Me being personality/ego/meat-suit). I don't view this seeking as bad, but as gloriously human, natural, and reflexive. In any given moment, I see/intuit perfection (in world as in all-things), and seeing/intuiting no lack, I attract or repel (an example of repel may be my expressions not resonating or appearing confusing), by see beyond-need of altruism; seeing beyond-need does not mean my body/mind is not of-service to others - in fact I watch in awe as I am receptive/available to others effortlessly, naturally, where this "service" used to require a code of morals or to be remembered by ME (again, ME: personality/ego). There is a fellowship I am involved with which suggests attraction-rather-than-promotion, but both attraction and promotion are concepts that you and I may use differently. Often I see arguments between people are merely concept-wars, and not disagreements of experience. That is to say, yes, I desire a better world; I have preferences; I "want" less suffering for others. Detached from these wants, I observe my body/mind moved more-efficiently toward this end, without me having to tell others "I am compassionate" or "I am altruistic."<br />
<br />
My expression "I honor/celebrate duality" can also be expressed: "your sight is valid," or "God experiences two things through the two of us," or "thank you." It's agendaless. "I teach that which I wish to hear," suggests my teacher, so perhaps it's me speaking to me, showing/formulating for me how your sight is valid, or showing me that My way is not The (only) way. Will it lead-to open-mindedness? Not a clue. I no longer see/project future (in these intuitive moments). What I experience - in these moments - I conceptualize as openness/receptivity/vulnerability/enfolding/flowering/service/peace. But it's not-practice, but beyond-practice; rather, realization - and I do not mean to suggest realization is better-than practice. I see them now as two views, two sights - different, but one no better/worse than another. Another way to say all this: when I see altruism, it's important to me; when I don't see it (or when there's no-Me to see), it's not important.