 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
People here on Midgard prodly name themselves "Homo sapiens", which means like sapient/reasonable/sensible/intelligent human being. Yet this should be inexorably corrected. Humans are only potentially sapient/etc.. Whether they become such or not - is another matter. And, looking around us, we can notice that those who did become sapient/etc. are in a significant minority. There are very smart, just smart, stupid and very stupid, ignorant and plain imbeciles; overall - everyone is different.
Question: Why is human called sapient/etc. and not something less pretentious?
Quite simple - only human can be truly sapient/etc. (with certain restrictions to be sure), but both animals and humans can be smart. Only person who seeks self-development, walks the path of light (meaning evolving himself) can become sapient/etc.. That is a difficult path, but who says that going uphill or up the ladder or whatnot isn't? And those who follow a principle of "the less you know - the tighter you sleep" of course take the easy way (going down is certaily easier and supposedly more "fun"), often not realizing that this way leads to degradation. So that person can become smart, but never sapient/etc. by definition, since the objective laws of nature.
On the way to become sapient/etc. one should develop and follow moral values (consequences of knowledge), because knowledge itself, however true - is just a barebone of a system, in itself not enough to become sapient/etc.. Moral values such as these (do include but are not limited to):
Be scrupulous
Be fair
Be principled
Be competent
Be literate
Be patriot
Be selfless
Be polite
Be modest
Be patient
Be magnanimous
Be kind
Be responsive
Be good
Never betray
Never lie
Never curse
Never be rude
Don't be cruel
Don't be apathetic
Don't consume alcohol
Don't smoke
Don't consume drugs
Don't believe in religions
Don't trust parasites
Don't flatter yourself
Don't be lazy
Don't hurry
"And also you have to be able to see the difference and thus strife for undesrstanding of information that enters your mind. Only information that is understood can become Knowledge, and only carrier of Knowledge can become sapient person, one who understands the laws of nature, from which he came, and ralezes the responsibility for his every action..." excerpt from one specific Code of Honor.
However smart a person is - without following through with moral values no one can become sapient/etc. No amount of scientific degrees can move one closer to it. Without enlightenment by knowledge even geniuses can be evil, but never sapient/etc.. That is the law of nature and it's not going to change, even for a huge sum of money.
So if a person chooses the way towards sapience, there ppears immediate and inevitable need to find answers to fundametal questions such as: How does our world works? How does it develop? Which laws does it follow? What is my place and purpose in it?
To get any answers to these questions one should study (and/or develop on his own) many teachings and then choose one teaching or theory, which could in non contradictory form explain all processes happening in our world based on actual laes of nature. And of course it is imperative to study these laws themselves. There are some good bsic principles to profess while doing so:
- Definitions (common language, being on the same page). Providing everything with explicit definitions, leaving no room for secondary meanings.
- Following the rule of complexity: from simple towards complicated. Without understanding of the basics one shouldn't opt for the high-end level results. Meaning that one shouldn't try to jump over steppes of understanding.
- Do not confuse cause and effect connections: always keep an eye on sources and consequences to never confuse them and thus compromise everything.
Having all of the above one can start learing the "alphabet". When we talk about real laws of nature we should have a firm grasp on: what is reality?
"Reality (supposedly from late latin 'realis') - something that actually exists; there is objective reality (or material world in every form and appearance), which is independent from human consciousness, and subjective reality, which is basically the sum of images and states of consciousness..."
Little clarification - rality for us is everything that exists around and inside us, while one of borderline types of subjective reality is virtual reality (reality created with technological devices).
And all of that is a reality with which we interact constantly. Many people today close their ways towards devvelopment by living more in subjective reality. While you can only develop living and breathing in objective reality.
Question: how does the rule of complexity apply here?
Hence the actual laws of nature (which no one can change, you can only accept them as they are) are formed on the levels of macro- and microworlds in "objective reality" - it is consistent and logical to start there. So in our first stage "objective reality" is the subject of our studies. Reality, which is independent from our consciousness.
So let's analyze different points of view, each of which pretends to be true, on the example of a question of how our world came to be and how it develops. Let's try and find something which would non-contradictory and objectively explain our world's occurence and processes in it. Ever y person chooses for himself what to accept, not necessarily having any actual traction with objective reality. So...
All religions state: everything that exists is created by "God". Most esoteric teachings do the same, though with minor differences: "God" has much more fancy names there - "World's Mind", "Absolut" etc.. So how reliable is this information? To not create a huge tractatus and analyze every last one of them (you can do it on your own) let's take a look at same old so-called "Old Testament" as one of the most popular books, which has a chapter describing creation of the world in six days.
Little clarification: it has been expressly stated many times that this book is in no way a fiction and that every world belong the "the God" and so any change or interpretation of this text is inexcusable.
It takes a completely ignorant person to take this for granted. Person that wouldn't know that sun and moon are not the same, person that would believe that "God" could have actually "fixed" those along the stars in the solid skies.
A question arises: who or what is "God", who could could do something like this?
And there is no definitive answer. Some say that "God" is such a being that is perfect, nothing can be more perfect or higher than him (yet if it's a being - then it's material, isn't it?). Revelation tells us that "God" is pure Spirit, not connected to any body thus his nature is completely immaterial (so what is Spirit then?). Others sa that "God" - is everything around us! "God" - is light, love, happiness! In schools they teach children that "God" - is the highest subject of religious beliefs, supernatural being with exceptional qualities and powers. And such perfect and supernatural being as "God" assures us that Earth was created on the first day of creation but sun, moon and stars - on fourth, etc.?
Bedtime stories for children. Even very young children today know that there is big difference between Earth, Moon and Sun. And no priest can deny it (and they don't even try). Then what - cild from kindergarden know more that "wise" priests who continue to say that creation was done exactly as it is written in the "Bible"? Ludicrous!
Since there is no even approximate definition of who or what is "God" - everything that is based on this vague term is irrational in its core and cannot be real. And those people who fail to discover this - form religious worldview based not on knowledge, but on blind faith in what priests say - servants of the church, who think themselves to be higher than their "God" , because they allow themselves to interpret "His" words as they see fit - meaning changing the meaning of the "Bible"'s text, when it suit their purposes. Which means that they simply lie, not only to the people but to their own "God" as well.
For instance: in medieval ages those who questions the "Biblical fact" that Earth is the center of the universe could be easily burnt alive because of that. And it was called justice, mind you. And now it came to things like priests "blessing" rockets-carriers which are being sent into orbit. Ridiculous!
For information: blessing of rockets in Russia takes 170k roubles (5.7k usd) from the budget per launch!!! As they say - nothing personal - just good business. Doesn't stop rockets from failing. Yet before all that you could faind the problem and fine someone or do something. Now there is a great excuse - "God". You can't fine or punish "God". Interesting fact: the only submarine blessed by Russian Orthodox Church was "Kursk". Rings any bells? This is no longer ridiculous - it's retarded.
Question: can you, after analyzing "Bible"'s information about creation of the world, state that it is true, consistent with objective reality, and that it explains how world works? I think not, though every person makes his own conclusions.
Modern science has accumulated a stockpile of information about physically dense matter which is by their own account at most consists of 10% of world's matter. Yet they are clueless about the other 90%+, which they call "dark matter". And this is the reason behind their inability to create non-contradictory picture of the world - it's is lack of knowledge and information about it. Yet with their sheer authority they force their "10% assumption" views upon the world like if it was an absolute truth. And those, who defy their version, are being branded "pseudo-scientists", all works and projects and experiments of those defiant people are branded "pseudo-science". And consequences follow.
So how official science explains the creation of the world?
Most popular theory is a standard model "Big Bang", based on "singularity" - so-called state of infinite density at the moment of "Big Bang". This model explains everything that happened after that zero point so the most agonizing question for its followers is whether there was anything before that moment. If we view singularity ans the starting point there is always a question of what was before that point? Since there is no reliable answer to that question it is considered inappropriate to even ask it. In this case to answer "What was before there was nothing?" they say "God knows". Comedy continues.
For information: 22nd of November 1951 Pope stated that "Big Bang" theory doesn't contradict catholic views on the creation of the world. Orthodox Church also professes a positive attitude to this theory. Conservative protestant christians also welcomed the theory as one supporting historical interpretation of the ctreation of the world. Some muslims started to say that Koran (Quran) has mentions of "Big Bang". What a unanimity! Seeing that one can understand why Russian Orthodox Church opens religious lecterns in technologicla universities. They're on the same terms on the matter of creation and their views are probably mutual in other subjects as well.
Modern science has many different hypotheses about creation and all of them are (more or less) based on real facts. Yet because of lack of understanding of "dark matter" their conclusions do not reflect objective reality creating false assumptions.
Let's take a look upon another "scientific" hypothesis - theory of "physical vaccum". Acoording to this reality consists of three planes: rough reality, thin reality and plane of higher reality. This last one has three levels: Absolute "Nothing", primordial vacuum and (just) vacuum. Let's analyze these last three.
"After Absolute "Nothing" - Creator - created levels of primordial vacuum and vacuum, primordial vacuum gives birth to thinmaterial plane, represented by primordial torsionic fields... Presence of primordial torsionic fields makes vacuum structure unstable, resulting in creation from vacuum elementary particles - simplest representations of roughmaterial plane. This plave consists of all types of matter which have an energy. Here you can distinguish 4 levels of reality: solid body, liquid, gas and elementary particles..."
Question: what is Absolute "Nothing". It cleraly states that it is Creator ("God"), from which everything came about. thus everything else is secondary to that. Factually it is based on belief in "God" so it has nothing to do with objective reality. Can one, after absorbing and analyzing this information, call it reliable? Conclusion everyone makes for himself.
And there are plenty and then some theories which can be analyzed but I'll leave it to your own discretion. For the purpose of this piece what has been said should be enough.
It all comes down to the simple fact that there is no certainty on the subject of creation neither in religion, nor in modern science. Even more so - their point of view are coming together and becoming one and the same. Science becomes a religion. What a surprise.
So there is another, quite different theory. I won't go into it deep right now, but I'll express the barebone. This theory has 2 postulates:
1. Space. Infinite "value" with constantly changing features and qualities.
2. Matter. Finite "value" with constant features and qualities.
For information: since creation of this theory 1st postulate has been experimantally proven. Anisotropic nature of space is a scientific fact now.
This theory is the only ever theory among those I have studied that does follow the rule of complexity, doesn't confuse cause and effect while having all definitions laid out. Throughout my time I have seen a great many efforts to disprove it (all of which have failed). It is the only ever theory of those I know, that doesn't have contradictions. And I even don't have to tell any conclusions that author of this theory (some people call it "theory of everything") provides. Base is already said, so technically nothing else is needed. So maybe we can delve into it sometime and compare notes?
But anyways. There are three definitive conclusions to make to sum things up:
1. Religious point of view, based of priests' ignorance and lies has nothing to do with reality, lack any knowledge whatsoever.
2. Official science due to lack of understand about 90%+ of reality naturally can't explain how the world works.
3. Last word in acceptance or defiance is left for each person himself. Freedom of choice. And resposibility for it. Before yourself more than anything.