tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-43683513726980711252024-03-15T18:24:34.711+02:00This Universe Out HereRan K.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17931361479329507296noreply@blogger.comBlogger79125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4368351372698071125.post-34820869762475459002024-02-02T12:28:00.013+02:002024-02-02T12:28:00.133+02:00Evolution, - one other point<span style="font-family: Palatino;">I have written two posts about evolution but I have not related to this one point: - Obviously there are two lines of plants and animals. - Animals could not have appeared simultaneously with plants because they can not feed off minerals like plants but need plants (or other animals) to feed on. - So the two lines as I said couldn't have appeared together. That is to say at first only plants appeared. Then what? - Could have animals developed off plants? As it seems - obviously not.<br />
<br />
- So should we assume some time after plants have already been present again an altogether different line appeared independently? - Neither one of the possibilities appears to be acceptable. Why has this not been mentioned earlier? Perhaps it has.<br />
<br />
One other point, - quite clearly, - man too is a different line from the animals. It is not so easy to prove this to contemporary so called “scientists” so mentioning it does not seem to be so useful, - but still I believe off those who arrive at my blog relatively many will understand this point too.<br />
<br />
So far.</span>Ran K.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17931361479329507296noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4368351372698071125.post-12489244165681831712024-01-01T12:00:00.975+02:002024-01-01T12:00:00.136+02:00Returning to where we come from (following an earlier post)<div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype;">I have earlier written a post related to evolution. - I there mistakenly used the term “natural choice” instead of “natural selection”. In translating “natural selection″ to Hebrew - as the Hebrew term I knew, - and then translating it back to English, - you would normally get “natural choice”. It was only years later that I found out about the mistake.<br />
<br />
- This post will somewhat repeat what I said there. - I do not see a point in writing it differently.<br />
<br />
The older post is at <a href="https://thisuniverseouthere.blogspot.com/2016/06/natural-choice-examined.html">https://thisuniverseouthere.blogspot.com/2016/06/natural-choice-examined.html</a>. - The comments I added there are to be considered a part of it. - This one I believe will be more complete.<br />
<br />
- Some time ago <span style="font-size: 9.75pt;">(April 28 2022)</span> I was in the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. As I was walking out of there I saw three people walking out of one of the buildings I was passing next to. - Judging by the building they came out of I could guess they were biologists or at least had to do with the issue. - And apparently at least one or two of them were. We had a short conversation, - about as long as it took them to pass from the building they came out of to the one next to it, - and subsequently one of them - Prof. Tamar Keasar, normally related to Haifa University I think, - sent me an e-mail message. She sent me a file of <a href="https://terebess.hu/keletkultinfo/The_Blind_Watchmaker.pdf" target="_blank">this</a> book, and a link to <a href="https://davidson.weizmann.ac.il/online/sciencepanorama/%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%91%D7%94-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%9C%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%A0%D7%92%D7%93-%D7%90%D7%91%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%94" target="_blank">this</a> page.<br />
<br />
- Sometime later I sent her a reply message.<span style="font-size: 9.75pt;"> (May 19)</span> It included the following:<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 22.5pt; margin-right: 30pt; text-align: right;">«<span dir="rtl" style="font-family: "Segoe UI","sans-serif"; font-size: 9.25pt;">לעניין תהליך הברירה הטבעית, - הרעיון הפשוט ביותר עשוי לומר שאם צבי מסויים ירוץ במהירות גבוהה יותר מאחרים סיכויי הישרדותו גבוהים יותר ולכן עם הזמן נמצא צבאים מהירים יותר משהוו קדם לכן.<br />
<br />
- אבל אם נניח שמהירותו (כ-) 100 קמ"ש, ואם נניח כמו"כ שמהירותו של טורף פוטנציאלי (- נאמר צ'יטה) עשויה להגיע ל-100 או 115 קמ"ש, - אז אם תגיע מהירותו של הצבי ל-150 או 200 קמ"ש, (כדוגמא מובהקת) כל עוד לא תגדל מהירותם של הטורפים הפוטנציאליים, - לא ימשך התהליך ולא יוסיפו הצבאים להיות מהירים יותר משהינם. לא נמצא צבאים שמהירותם תגיע ללמעלה מ-200 קמ"ש, ל-300 קמ"ש.<br />
<br />
- כדוגמא אחרת צוארה של הג'ירפה לא יגיע למעלה מהגובה בו תוכל למצא עלים למאכל.<br />
<br />
אבל: - לעניין האדם, - ברור ומובן שתהליך הברירה הטבעית אינו פועל מזה זמן. אינני מציין פרק זמן מתוך הבנה שתוכלי את להעריכו טוב ממני. - אם נתייחס לתקופה שבה עדיין היה ה-"מנוע" של תהליך הברירה הטבעית פעיל לעניינה של האנושות, - אז לעניין היכולות המנטליות המתפתחות על-ידו ניתן להעריך שלא היה בידו (של התהליך) להעמיד או ליצור הכרה (mind) המסוגלת ללמעלה מבניית אי-אילו בקתות קש או יצירת כלים כלשהם בעלי-מידת-מורכבות דומה. שום דבר שמתקרב ליכולות הנדרשות ליצירת רשת האינטרנט, לעיסוק במתמטיקה גבוהה או בפיזיקה גרעינית, לבניית גורדי שחקים, או לבניין כלים כחלליות וטילים הקיימים היום. - הדבר דומה למצב שבו מהירות ריצתו של צבי כבדוגמא מקדם תגיע ל-700 או 800 קמ"ש אם לא הרבה למעלה מכך.</span>».</div>
<br />
<span style="font-size: 6.75pt;">(In English:<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 22.5pt; margin-right: 207.5pt;">“As for the process of natural selection, - the simplest idea may say that if a certain deer will run at a higher speed than others his chances of survival are higher and therefore with time we will find quicker deers than [those who] had been before.<br />
<br />
But if we will assume its speed is (about) 100 km/h, and if we will assume as well that the speed of a potential predator (- say a cheetah) might arrive at 100 or 115 km/h, - than if the speed of the deer will arrive at 150 or 200 km/h, (as a clear example) as long as the speed of potential predators will not increase, - the process will not continue and deers will not further become quicker than they (presently) are. We will not find deers the speed of will reach higher than 200 km/h, - 300 km/h.<br />
<br />
As another example the giraffe's neck will not reach higher than where it could find leaves to eat.<br />
<br />
But: - As for man, - it is clear and understood that the natural selection process is not active for a period of time. I am not denoting a period out of an understanding that you will be able to estimate it better than myself. - If we relate to the period in which the ‘engine’ of the natural selection process was still active regarding humanity, - than as for the mental abilities developed by it it is possible to estimate that it (the process) was not capable of establishing or creating a mind capable of more than building a number of straw huts or creating any tools of a similar measure of complexity. Nothing coming near the abilities needed for creating the Internet, dealing with high math or nuclear physics, building skyscrapers, or constructing devices like spaceships and missiles existing today. - It is like a situation in which the speed of a deer as in the previous example will reach 700 or 800 km/h if not much further.”)</div></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://watchkin.com/05f205895d" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="180" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrBKGBzGqcTbeN08-TEWzA7jnQpcPPhaRhmBekUZHgiRyhf1YTihIIiVotnmU4cZBJAuSF2j3AtmyJqE8ijj3t3eYH21lphO5SHw7pSZuPza29NvTR13LS4v2u-8EOFCOUIJudY-OfkOXl0d_HW-Y5CAaKVzFTtdhj1cLvAGPmj6MFdfk-p1w3cs4sQQ/w100-h200/Cleese%20Scientist.png" width="100" /></a></div>I never got an answer. Though it did say at the end I will be waiting for one. - What did happen is that the possibility to add comments on the page she had sent me a link to (on <a href="https://davidson.weizmann.ac.il/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><span style="color: #222222;">a site</span></a> of <a href="https://www.weizmann.ac.il/pages/he" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><span style="color: #222222;">the Weizmann Institute in Israel</span></a>) disappeared. The whole comments section there disappeared.<br />
<br />
- The page is entitled “the Scientific Answer to Arguments Countering Evolution”. (In Hebrew) Perhaps here I ought to clarify I don't oppose the idea of evolution itself. I didn't even know about the opposition so much else than having found out off the site of the Weizmann Institute subsequent to the link Prof. Keasar has sent me as I said.<br />
<br />
- I don't see reasonability in negating the idea of evolution itself. But the theory of “natural selection” is a joke. - Things which may be often referred to are the development of bacteria resistant to antibiotics and insects being able to become immuned to insecticides. But these are cases in which the attempt is to eliminate the relevant population. - Suppose we put to death every person whose height is below 170 cm in a reasonably or relatively isolated surroundings. - In consistent repetition this would obviously lead to an obvious change in the general distribution there. - Does this prove the reasonability or validity of the theory of natural selection? I do not think an answer is necessary. - Similarly with the bacteria and the insects.<br />
<br />
- I think it is a historical matter. - As far as I know before Darwin the view generally has been in accord with the story told in the first chapter of the book of Genesis. - Then Darwin came and following observation he conducted presented his well known idea.<br />
<br />
It has been initially most controversial and faced great opposition. Subsequently findings seem to have affirmed the idea of evolution in an unquestionable manner. - But this never proved the idea of what was supposed to have been what was standing behind the evolution. - Darwin referred to evolution and to his idea of natural-selection which were both new then to all, - and saw no need to separate his presentation. So the two were wrapped together as far as relevant interested individuals may have generally noticed, - be those materialistic scientists or conservative men of religion.<br />
<br />
- Therefore when apparently the idea of evolution has gained heavy support off finding of fossils, continually, - quite absent-mindedly perhaps - the notion was as if this verifies Darwin's idea of natural selection as well.<br />
<br />
I am not learned in the issue or the subject, - but the general idea seems somewhat inevitable.<br />
<br />
- Else - I might mention one quote from the book mentioned earlier - I did not read the book and I don't suppose I will, - I came across <a href="https://www.cs.unc.edu/~taylorr/blind_watchmaker.html" target="_blank">this</a> reference off which I am quoting:<span style="font-size: 9.25pt;"> (- …)</span> “<span style="font-family: times; font-size: 10.25pt;">We shall keep in mind the fact that these very same ingredients, at least in some rudimentary form, must have arisen spontaneously on the early Earth, otherwise cumulative selection, and therefore life, would never have got started in the first place</span>“. - It seems the author initially assumes the rightness of his idea he wishes to support, - considering its truth inevitable, - and - probably somewhat absent mindedly - practically relies on this supposed inevitability in order to prove what he wishes. I will return to this book in the end. Here the issue he wishes to deal with is the development of the initial tools prior to the possibility of natural selection which are necessary in order to make it possible. It is also what the first point in the main part of this post is about.<br />
<br />
However, - after this long passage following my assertion that I don't have an issue with the idea of evolution in itself, - let's get back to where we were. - I said the possibility to comment on the Internet page I mentioned disappeared. <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20220126091907/https://davidson.weizmann.ac.il/online/sciencepanorama/%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%91%D7%94-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%9C%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%A0%D7%92%D7%93-%D7%90%D7%91%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%94" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Here</a> you can see the page as it was before I sent the e-mail message to Prof. Keasar.<span style="font-size: 7.25pt;"> (The capture is from January 26, it is the last capture of this page on the Wayback Machine before May 19 when I sent the message)</span> <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20220919152315/https://davidson.weizmann.ac.il/online/sciencepanorama/%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%91%D7%94-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%9C%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%A0%D7%92%D7%93-%D7%90%D7%91%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%94" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Here</a> you can see the page as I found it subsequently.<span style="font-size: 7.25pt;"> (Here the capture is from September 19, - the first after the same date of May 19)</span><br />
<br />
Obviously this is not a coincidence. The e-mail message I sent and quoted here has led to this consequence. - Is this the way of science? The reason is obvious, - the learned individuals involved are so certain of their ideas that the point I referred to in the quote above is merely considered a hindrance in their eyes. - They can't answer it, and never will be able to, - but such a thing they think is just an accident where their inability to respond would mislead innocent readers causing them to assume I am right.<br />
<br />
- Materialistic people often refer to countering ideas as irrational. - The views negating brute materialism are considered so. - An attitude such as described here causing the disappearance of the comments section on the Internet page so that I will not be able to present what I did in the e-mail message there too, - is not always wrong. - But we should consider it concretely. - What does it display? - What does it reveal?<br />
<br />
I dare say the person having written the book referred to here seems like a very stupid one to me. Off reasons not mentioned here. But I can not tell really, - St. Paul was a fanatic persecutor of Christians up to a certain point. - However, - I think this occurrence is quite significant. Particularly since one can really see the point brought <span style="font-size: 8.5pt;">[- in the e-mail message quoted here]</span> cannot be bypassed. - It is an actual negation of the common assumption. - And while at the side of other points brought here it obviously stands stronger and clearer.<br />
<br />
- Are those imagining themselves to be scientists really rational? Do they follow pure logic? - Or are they sunk in their nearby surroundings where they and their fellow men and women mutually absorb each other's sentiments and ideas? - I might say, at the time I studied math, - (one of the most foolish things I ever did) one time the teacher (in Tel Aviv University) made a mistake in proving a theorem. Out of, I guess, about 300 students - I was the only one who noticed it. I tried to mention it, but I was not sure I was right, so I hesitated, and things went on. - At the end of the course on a special class added then intended as a preparation for the exam I again referred to the matter. - I was right and the proof was not valid. (The course was of set theory) The teacher having made a mistake may certainly be reasonable, - it is known that brilliant mathematicians make mistakes too. - But the practical case where about 300 students have read the proof twice, - first just after the class in which it was presented, and second at the end of the course while preparing for the exam, - and not one of them notices it does not really prove what it is supposed to, - raises questions regarding science in general. - And math is supposed to be just the most solid science of all. - Actually the mistake was not very serious and very easy to correct so the proof would be valid then; - but still - one might ask as for the way things really are. - Regarding the matter we have began with here, - how reasonable are those engaging in life science and biology investigating the issue? - And are they people of independent thought, or somehow somewhere in the vicinity of sheeps in a herd?<br />
<br />
Time will tell, inevitably. - But we are here in the present, deeped in ignorance and blindness of selected humans of shallow personality and their own chosen materialistic means.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://watchkin.com/a114fd5ff5" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="142" data-original-width="189" height="142" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAkoyIuc6vEM0oF8Q4izn1CSQYM2qAvImZoegs_7QZaMRuTxmVrCA2hCre0xSDN1lDSPfZe3TR_oZ_iL9AFbZM2hIchpWlnEj4lllEDDzU3I-p7ZtObUVwkZ5g4sAjqjJ9XkhGfdbKv8dQXeYttZgiruzGyw9BcoEXIn7cRX_GgFAsFnGXsdBlEBwPuQ/s1600/%D7%95%D7%90%D7%AA%D7%9D%20%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%93%D7%99%D7%9D%20h%20142.png" width="189" /></a></div><br /><br /><br /><br />- Before going to what was supposed to be the main part of this post I wish to make another comment: -<br />Quite obviously without having particular knowledge about the subject one may assume it is possible to have an estimation of how frequent would mutations occur. Further it is also quite obvious it would be possible as well to estimate how often would these mutations be of use, - contribute to the suggested process of natural selection - have any weight in this sense that is. Then as well it could be estimated how many of these practically useful mutations ought to be necessary for the purpose of the development of any particular organ, or appearance of any new species, or perhaps any other detectable change in a living being as well.<br />This means it is possible as well to calculate what would be the reasonable pace or speed of such a phenomenon. How long would it take for such things to happen, how much time would it demand or require. Such results - however possibly somewhat inaccurate, - should be compared to what has been found off the findings of fossils. - Assuming the numbers will be at reasonable agreement, - at an acceptable correspondence, - than this would render the theory some support. - Either greater or less significant, - but anyway some reasonability could be claimed. - I have never come across any reference to such a thing, - either on the Weizmann Institute site, or anywhere else. Without such an examination the attitude could not be said to be serious. - It does seem quite obvious too. - It seems it could easily be guessed those involved are simply so sure of the rightness of their theory the need hardly occurs to them, or that for the same reason they find it unnecessary.<br />
<br /><br />
- Next is what I referred to as the main part here:<br />
<br /><br />
1. - Obviously the theory of natural selection relies on the existence of a mechanism which needs to be in place before it begins to operate. This is unquestionable. - The appearance of such a mechanism of course can not rely on the idea by which the evolution is supposed to take place. - The reasonable possibility of the appearance of such a mechanism does not merely rely on the fundamental possibility of chemical reactions needed for the spontaneous construction perhaps assumed. The actual chances for a random continual process as thought of are most significant for a real actual estimation of the reasonability of the theory. Here, as it seems, - one needs not have professional knowledge of biology or chemistry in order to say that the complex structure of the DNA and whichever other elements necessary accompanying it are such that it would be most unreasonable to think that they would come to be by mere random occurrences as assumed.<br />
<br />
I have not thoroughly investigated the matter but I never came across any reference to the matter of the chances. Of the probability. Putting this aside makes no sense. - Again, not relating to this I do not think the engagement could even be called serious. I am quite sure there would be mathematical means today which could serve the purpose.<br />
<br />
- One other comment about this matter: - If we accept the idea, we must inevitably assume that all has begun with one single cell. - Assuming the process would have taken place more than once, - than obviously we would get two different mechanisms unable to mutually correspond and which could not (practically) be of the same structure or somewhat even of the same principle. - But the DNA, as far as I know, - is the same everywhere. - All works by the same principle. - Further: - If one wishes to assume that the living cell and the DNA within it did come to be by utter random reactions in a primeval world, it seems that than it would be natural to assume as well that such a process would take place more than ones. - If such a thing could happen once, - than why would it be the only unique occurrence throughout the life of the Earth? - If it could happen by chance, - within a surrounding existing at the time described today by contemporary scientists, - common sense would generally imply we should expect that such an occurrence would not be one which will never be repeated or occur in a similar manner. Unless you assume the period in which conditions enabling the process or convenient for the process was just long enough so that we might expect about a single occurrence of this kind. A funny assumption, I believe all will agree. - If you accept the probability for the event is reasonable you can hardly expect at the same time that only one event will take place altogether. You must guess an event would generally appear in an average every suitable period of time. Unlike that it seems - if one excepts the theory in question, - that all life on Earth came to be through one and only unique occurrence in which a living cell randomly has been constructed through no intention or guiding mechanism. - This also means all life here, including all it has brought, - might as well have not appeared at all, if it had not been for this only happening unintended where pure lifeless matter just fell into place somehow through the mere laws of physics and chemistry.<br />
<br />
One thing one should say still is that an idea may be raised of various similar beginnings of which only the one we know today survived. I don't think it is of much worth but still it ought to be mentioned.<br />
<br />
2. - Next there is the point I wrote about to Prof. Keasar which made Dr. Garti (of the Weizmann Institute) cease the ability to post comments on the relevant web page. - Clearly no one could argue that natural selection is active within humanity today. - This is also true for a period of time earlier. - Since our survival does not depend on our inherited features the process is not relevant to us. - If we look back and consider when has the situation not been like that, as for human beings that is, - the period we would be thinking of would be such that in particular ways at least the possible development would be most limited.<br />
<br />
- This would refer to man in a time when the conditions within which he had lived could no-doubt only contribute in certain ways. - Put aside the physical issue, - as for the mental features there was nothing around which would promote or cause advancement beyond a most initial and fundamental level. - If man was living in a rather primitive situation still any mental capacities which could in any way develop through natural selection would be of course in accord with this. But we do know the mental abilities of humans are far beyond that, - particularly in recent time the evidence is clear and unbreakable: - The construction of buildings including skyscrapers including the engineering work necessary, - the construction of vehicles from sport cars to jets and spaceships, - regarding math - even the work done centuries ago in ancient Greece is unexplainable, but high math today and modern physics go much further. - All computer work including the internet is most obvious today too. The above is most easily noticed and understood, - but actually there are also the abilities as displayed by Master Dogen, Goethe, or Mozart, - art may not be as easy to use as an example which would form solid evidence in the eyes of all, - but in truth is not less significant. However, - inevitably, - the theory discussed sucks heavily in an irreversible manner. There is no doubt there is another force acting in the matter. - And if so, obviously, - there is not a reason to think it could not act elsewhere. Then all is different and the so called “scientists” are similar to the people of clergy having convicted Galileo Galilei asserting that his views are wrong and absurd.<span style="font-size: 9.25pt;"> (- <a href="https://thisuniverseouthere.blogspot.com/p/sentence-of-tribunal-of-supreme.html">https://thisuniverseouthere.blogspot.com/</a></span>)<br />
<br />
3. - Next, - there is the phenomenon of the mind itself. - Off where is its existence?<br />
<br />
- Obviously, clearly, doubtlessly, - no materialistic theory dealing with physical matter only could reason this phenomenon.<br />
<br />
As for contemporary “scientific” attitude, - it might just ignore it. It might just relate to bodily and/or physical things while assuming the mind is nothing but some kind of a manifestation of these. But I would say anyway the existence of the mind is undeniable. - We witness its existence as we do this of physical phenomena, even prior to those. - Could science escape supplying any reasoning or explanation for this actual fact we closely know? - Whichever ideas or suggestions may be brought up, - it will never supply the slightest progress toward the understanding of the phenomenon. - It doesn't matter what physical processes (chemical included) you will suppose - it will not bring forth any reason for an appearance of what we know as mind, consciousness, actual consciousness. - The tendency is to not consider this fact meaningful. Why? There is no real reason.<br />
<br />
- The matter is not to be ignored. - And if you accept views other than those so common today there is an explanation. - Other spheres existed prior to the existence of the physical plane, our physical world. Mind has existed there already. - Life means other factors entering physical elements here in our world. Different factors for plants, something added for animals, and something again added for man. - Thus the mind is an expression of a different element undetectable through our physical senses. Is this irrational? Dummies will thoughtlessly claim so. But why?<br />
<br />
Anyway, - contemporary materialistic “science” may be said to for ever not be able to do. Another explanation exists. If you accept it it again changes the whole picture. - If you accept the existence of “higher” spheres than things you may have considered as a must will no longer be so. - Influence from spheres we do not know (or at least most do not) may have taken place in the development of life on Earth too. - You know your mind. - In order to explain its existence and origin it is inevitable to accept there is something (- ! -) else than just physical matter as we know it here, - otherwise it could not have come to be. - At least this.<br />
<br />
- You need not accept what I say beyond that. But you do need to realize the existing theory here too faces a barrier it is eternally unable to pass. You must think further. The suggested explanations today supplied by those considered to be authorities are inevitably unable to create an acceptable model.<br />
<br />
4. - The fourth point is about the wing. Again it is not just something contemporary “science” has not yet found a reasoning to, - but a point which one can see could not be explained through the idea the aforementioned “science” wishes to adopt. - It is about the development of the wing. Someone has pointed to the fact that (in some cases) the development of the wing means at first degeneration of the limb off which it develops. - The arm or leg off which the is supposed to develop, - quite clearly and inevitably loses its ability to function as one, while the wing has not yet come to be. - No one would argue the process is short, - it is clear this means a situation being carried on for a very long period of time, - while the being supposed to be in the intermediate period is not only not making progress in a way which could move the process of the natural selection, - but also is in a deplorable state unrelated to this. - Two of its arms or legs are useless and fundamentally just a burden to it. - It is a being we would expect to be extincted even unrelated to the theory of the natural selection.<br />
<br />
- But not relying on this too: - Just considering the development of the wing itslef: - The wing is a flat surface needing to be wide enogh in order to be useful as what it is. - As long as it has not acquired the necessary measurements it could not be useful. How could its development begin? - The theory related to here could never suggest an actual line of progress.<br />
<br />
- The wing has appeared four times: - In pterosaurs, birds, bats, and insects too. - Each time it appeared independently. - This means of course the above repeated itself four separate times. - There is no coincidence by which it could have come to be according to the existing view in the common scientific establishment, - but even if you would wish to assume one - you would have than to assume it took place four times, or that some alternations of it did anyway.<br />
<br />
- As I said at the beginning of this fourth fascicle, - it again is not just something an answer has not been found to yet, - it is, apparently, - a proof the theory could not be valid. - And, as I already mentioned, - if we do know a different force or factor or element was active in creating and shaping the different forms of living beings here on our planet, - than all is different because there is no reason not to allow the possibility it was active elsewhere too, - unlike the common attitude assuming nothing else is possible other than mere physical random occurrences of lifeless matter first, and then through the principle of the natural selection.<br />
<br />
So far for this.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.watchlounge.com/introducing-indie-watchmaker-simon-brette-presents-his-first-and-stunning-watch-the-chronometre-artisans-live-pics-price/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2100" data-original-width="2100" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgT2R-rdRB2NHhNJ9ytTqL1RXPqkTJy2sw0TUbrD_mA0RAAXbLnp_q1AhaquB3M9jvKiyGpXFOOfKCMjvjDMi0RAtt4KQZ2L6RknkFqGah2hGtOkPDBIjB1_nd6UOCwfKkqokkbm1Y-AaI88aC17K_4TO1hihAyp_ppSimMJ5MpTuKOtl88iOlrxiE3P4K/w200-h200/Simon-Brette-Chronometre-Artisans-New-Independent-Watchmaker-Hands-on-Review-6.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>- Else I would like at the end to refer to some things off the book I mentioned at the beginning Prof. Keasar sent me. - One reasonable thing said there is that relating to odds - odds of life or particularly a living cell appearing in the ocean here on Earth, - one could not necessarily think of just our “Earth” we know alone, - but of chances of this occurring generally in the universe we know, - on any of the planets thought of as possibly suitable for such an occurrence. - One could not say this does not make any sense. However, - dealing with numbers, - this will not necessarily bring things into reasonability.<br />
<br />
- If we wish to relate to a concrete number indicating the estimated probability - it may be so low that even multiplying it by the great number Dawkins implies would still leave it far off what would be thought of as reasonable.<br />
<br />
Else, - I wanted to relate to some quotes off the book, - but I will only settle for one: - “<span style="font-family: times; font-size: 10.25pt;">To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer</span>”. - Here one might need to relate to a quote to which Dawkins relates in the title of his book:<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 45pt; margin-right: 45pt; text-align: justify;">- “<span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: 9.75pt;">In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer that for anything I knew to the contrary it had lain there forever; nor would it, perhaps, be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that for anything I knew the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone? Why is it not as admissible in the second case as in the first? For this reason, and for no other, namely, that when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive -- what we could not discover in the stone -- that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e.g., that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, of a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner or in any other order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it. To reckon up a few of the plainest of these parts and of their offices, all tending to one result; we see a cylindrical box containing a coiled elastic spring, which, by its endeavor to relax itself, turns round the box. We next observe a flexible chain -- artificially wrought for the sake of flexure -- communicating the action of the spring from the box to the fusee. We then find a series of wheels, the teeth of which catch in and apply to each other, conducting the motion from the fusee to the balance and from the balance to the pointer, and at the same time, by the size and shape of those wheels, so regulating that motion as to terminate in causing an index, by an equable and measured progression, to pass over a given space in a given time. We take notice that the wheels are made of brass, in order to keep them from rust; the springs of steel, no other metal being so elastic; that over the face of the watch there is placed a glass, a material employed in no other part of the work, but in the room of which, if there had been any other than a transparent substance, the hour could not be seen without opening the case. This mechanism being observed -- it requires indeed an examination of the instrument, and perhaps some previous knowledge of the subject, to perceive and understand it; but being once, as we have said, observed and understood -- the inference we think is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker-that there must have existed, at some time and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer, who comprehended its construction and designed its use.</span>”.</div>
<br />
- This is from a book I don't know called <a href="https://appearedtoblogly.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/paley-william-natural-theology.pdf">Natural Theology</a> by a person called <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/William-Paley">William Paley</a>. - Never mind this. - There may be the question of how stupid could a person be. - I mean Dawkins himself picked this idea. - Now suppose you find a watch on the beach, - and suppose you consider the question of how did it come to be; - and then suppose you happen to meet the watchmaker who made it - or come to know him - or come to know of him: - Does it explain nothing?<br />
<br />
- Precisely nothing?<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
- It does seem the most significant difference between quite meaningless dry intellectualism unable to actually relate to reality and true realistic thinking capturing pictures rather than just mere chains of conclusions put together mechanically is to be considered here.<br />
<br />
- Unlike what this apparently extreme idiot might say watches are not living beings. - We do not - looking at our surroundings, - wonder how did rocks and stones, sand and water, - minerals in general - come about. - Put aside what contemporary ideas might say about this. - The Appearance of plants and animals, and human beings, - is initially or intuitively baffling. - This is naturally questioned.<br />
<br />
Materialists will not deny this too. - They would assume explanations they reject will arise off this phenomenon. - However we have no immediate idea of how did living organisms come to be at first in the same way that our mineral surrounding is natural to us.<br />
<br />
Now to the main point here: - For one who is familiar with the higher spheres of existence - for one who knows them - those spheres off which our physical plane has derived its existence, - questions as harsh materialists may be troubled by do not practically arise. - The view is natural and reasonable. You need not accept this. But saying anyway even if you do accept this route it leads nowhere is not acceptable. This is dry materialism.<br />
<br />
This is the stupidity of Richard Dawkins. - By the way, - his definition of what living beings are is entirely off course. I never read his book. I do not intend to. - But I did have a look at it, and read a bit here and there. - Very little. - At the beginning he seems to define living beings including manmade objects as such too. - This might tell you of the nature of his mentality. - But I will not proceed. - He is not the subject and I am truly not familiar with him.<br />
<br />
I will end at this. There is one other point in a post I have already written which will be on on February. - I started writing this long ago. It could have been finished quite long ago too. But things happened. Never mind. I would have scheduled it to the same date anyway.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">- So far. -<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20231122072710if_/https://www.grand-seiko.com/us-en/-/media/Images/GlobalEn/GrandSeiko/Home/collections/movement/springdrive/9r86.png?mh=600&mw=600&hash=541D748353E01ADA84E5A03E91CBC48C" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="640" data-original-width="1200" height="107" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihYieaTc8uxUnYtJVyK2g8eTiqTW7jqkzZz59Bsr4mRe7kPAaxSHym5RAYaSrAyipGfF1f-fBFrmrSlA4ikcOIFAvEgvQOdDAaJLmPOttdmmaTMPyZbmZ88pfkZJurd1nHJUhfj79uZm-q7hOhPTC2urH7b6vrSnf0IWPoD_j4-EnbgDeWJb5ubyau7Srf/w200-h107/H.-Moser-Moser-Nature-Watch-sihh-2019.jpeg" width="200" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br /></div></span></div>Ran K.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17931361479329507296noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4368351372698071125.post-28058947221154414732023-04-29T08:00:00.010+03:002023-04-29T08:00:00.136+03:00Flexibilty of mind and freedom from fixed conceptions<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype;">Years ago we were in a different place. - Science, as foolish as it may have become, - has advanced. - Things most don’t doubt today might have been seen in a totally different manner in another time.<br />
<br />
- Suppose we would tell of current technology of rather recent time to a person living before electricity has become known. - Nothing similar would have been familiar to him or her off his or her life else than legends perhaps or what would have been called magic. - Suppose “magic” was not accepted as a real phenomenon there would have been nothing else left. - What would a person in such a time (not so distant if you consider the age of humanity) think of you if you would try to tell him of what you know off your everyday life?<br />
<br />
- Were you talking to people where beliefs in supernatural (so to speak) were still prevailing they might relate your ideas to those as the general appearance is rather the same. - But put this aside. - Suppose we are talking about a situation similar to the present one, - where materialistic ideas rule and materialistic attitudes are common. If you would have tried to speak of what you know as solid reality undoubted today by the great majority it might have been seriously difficult to gain serious attention. - At a time people were driving in carriages pulled by horses how could you tell them of spaceships going up to the moon? Of an autonomic car? - Of cars going at the speed racing cars can go at?<br />
<br />
- People usually are affected by their surroundings. - Quite further than they imagine. - There is a phenomenon of absorbing views or ideas off these surroundings. - It is not necessarily easy for a person to accept views in disaccordance with those among whom he lives. - Though of course this is not the only point here. Or the main point.<br />
<br />
- But still and again, - were we talking of those new things having entered our lives in the last decades, - smartphones, computers, - airplanes, spaceships I already mentioned, - TV screens, even radios, - to someone where reality had to do with carving wood or as well creating metal things and tools, nothing further than a steam engine. - What response would we gain? - What attitude would we face? - What would we ourselves seem to be in the eyes of such a person? - Depend on the person himself or herself of course, - but quite generally we might have been viewed as unwise or unhealthy.<br />
<br />
- Particularly if we would repeatedly attempt to deliver the message. - Humanity would have been unprepared. There was not really a need for such a preparation at the time, - but anyway we can say that. - This is an allegory. A parable. - For another phenomenon existing today at the blindness of so many. - The reaction of a typical man or woman at a time we were discussing when hearing of future abilities of coming technology may be quite similar, in its nature, - to the typical reaction of typical materialists when relating to the occult. To what their physical senses cannot grasp. To what they are familiar to the denial of by their friends and acquaintances. - Being an intellectual is quite close to being stupid. Many are far from any awareness of this fact. - Wisdom has to do with depth. - Intellectual consideration is by nature shallow. - I will not explain this here. Many who are aware of it (of the severe minority they are generally) would not find it easy to make it comprehensible to others.<br />
<br />
Eyes are not gained overnight. - Nor can one give his own to others. When their very existence is denied things get much harder. - Anyway, - I generally believe the general idea presented here, - of the similarity between the assumed view of one living at the mentioned time unable to accept reports of practically possible and real further advancements far from the nature of this-person’s everyday thinking - and the reaction we would find today among learned people fed with contemporary views shared by many, - could and will be easily understood. One needs to be no genius in order to get it. However, - the depth of grasping may differ. Obviously I don’t expect readers would utterly change what they think just reading this. But it would make its contribution. - So far.<br /><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">Written April 21<sup><span style="font-size: 8.75pt;">st</span></sup> 2023.</div></span>Ran K.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17931361479329507296noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4368351372698071125.post-30453603178753090952023-03-18T10:30:00.031+02:002024-01-02T09:48:57.145+02:00 Telling<div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype;">One of the differences between a clever or an intelligent person and between a wise person is that if you explain things one by one, step after step, logically, to an intelligent person - he might understand what you are saying. A wise person might understand without explanations. - One other thing is that a wise person might not be so interested in attempting to tell or explain what is the difference between wisdom and being clever. He knows what these things are, - it is not necessarily so interesting to put things in words or to create definitions. - An intelligent person who has not come to wisdom might wonder what actually the difference is.<br />
<br />
- Clearly a wise person knows what being intelligent is, you might say perhaps that every child does, - but an intelligent person does not necessarily know what wisdom is. I don’t know if it ought to be viewed as a surprise - but in practice you might find very intelligent people imagining their cleverness to imply or be the phenomenon of wisdom.<br />
<br />
Obviously an intelligent person would excel at things like exact science, but a wise one would not normally necessarily find interest in such a field. - Clearly it is not that easy to just give a simple definition of what these two are, - or anyway clarify the issue for all those who are concerned or interested, - (plus) particularly perhaps while there is another third layer, in between the two, which in English it seems would only be referred to as intelligence as well. - In Hebrew we have another word for it, - but it does not mean everyone are aware of what exactly the meaning is.<br />
<br />
- Relating to computers it might be easy to refer: - Wisdom it seems would be a quality of the “main” of a program, intelligence would rather be a quality of some particular procedure (or of some particular procedures) not running in real time and of a rather low rank in the hirarchy within the program.<br />
<br />
- Inteligence can be easily examined, logical structures can be obviously verified step by step, - also tests can be held to examine or tell how skilled a person is - while the results can even be told by a computer, - this isn’t any news. - But one can not have a computerized test to measure wisdom. There is no such thing. - It is different. But it is today to a great extent a forgoten thing. - Because silly intellectuals are much blind to it, - otherwise they wouldn’t be what they are - intellectuals; - being [an] intellectual is much like being stupid, - but today there are not even many to whom there may be a point in saying this. - And also because [as I said] one can not run a computerized test to measure it, - to measure wisdom. If one does have it than one can see it in others. Not necessarily always, but still clearly as a general rule. - Sometimes one who doesn’t have it that much would still be able to see it too. - Sometimes it can be concluded. And various levels of it could be seen as different things. - So when one talks of wisdom, - even if one is referring to a real thing, - in another way he might still not really know what the thing is.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
So far. - For now, that is.</span></div>Ran K.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17931361479329507296noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4368351372698071125.post-71499101484056424202023-02-01T00:01:00.014+02:002024-01-02T09:48:57.145+02:0010.2.22 – Free mentality in primitive organisms and divine beings<div style="text-align: left;">There are beings who do not have a brain. – We, of course, - do. – A jellyfish or a sea anemone do not. We move our hands and feet accordingly. – We can not escape our brain. – We can not escape our self consciousness too, - generally.<br />
<br />
– Regarding those beings, - their organs act independently. – Their arms are not directed off a brain, - as with us. – This would also mean they (their arms) are not dependent on each other.<br />
<br />
Our mind ever acts linearically. – Like a line, - not two lines, not three, - not a wide space, - always one thing after one thing. – Our mental existence always seems to be like a train, - it cannot go two places at the same time. – We might think of two things, - but generally speaking and as-a-matter-of-principle not actually simultaneously. – If we think of a computer the same would be true of course too, - it could jump back and forth in between two things – however quick, - but its line of course is one. These beings are apparently not like that. – Their general and fundamental mentality is different. – It seems it would inevitably have a capability of being wider.<br />
<br />
– This does seem like an extreme difference. – We are so accustomed to our form of mentality we seem to naturally assume nothing else is possible. Sadly enough, we could not ask a sea anemone or a jellyfish. – I do not know of any advanced (physical) being of this feature. – I generally assume what we call “divine” is of this feature. Our brain and mental system cage us and keep us away from it. Obviously there would be a reason, - but still this is the way things are, - as it seems.<br />
<br />
– Such a wider mind is not dependent on an ego. – An ego has to be centred. – Once you are free of this one-point origination there is no place for the sense of “I” to form itself. There is no need for it, - and the wider flow does not need to imagine it has some self anchor to start off. – For the purpose of just acting there is no need for some sort of awareness “I am acting”. Ignorance kills the secular and the materialistics. – We can be so wrong. – I am not experiencing this, - I do not know it off a real experience, - but the idea seems solid enough. – Whatever the means intended in introducing our brain and spinal system, - the narrowing it inevitably forces must at some time be broken free of. – Only then can true knowledge of what is flow freely through our being which is no longer there, - needless of any conscious affirmation or basic wish for knowing anything in a conscious mind else than as an inherent part of action carried out.<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype;"></span></div>Ran K.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17931361479329507296noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4368351372698071125.post-36267414975111405912023-01-01T12:00:00.000+02:002024-01-02T09:09:22.452+02:00As short as possible<div style="text-align: left;">Jesus speaks of his “Father in Heaven”. The father is not in Heaven. The father is what in Hindu is referred to as “Brahman”, the “Tao” of Lao Tse, the reality Gudo Nishijima - as others, - speaks about. Whatever the reason Jesus was using the expression as he did, - you might say the Heaven is in the Father, - not the other way around. - If it exists at all, - that is: - You might say nothing exists at all else than this “father” - the reality, - and all else is its dream, our dream, - but put this aside, - and I have not witnessed this last point, - if we do see the Heaven and the Earth as existing, - than they are inside of the father, - never have left its womb, - as I said in the beginning.<br />
<br />
Written on September 12<sup><span style="font-size: 7.5pt;">th</span></sup> 2001. I might wish someone else would have written it, - but as I do not know of anyone who did in an accessible manner here on the web, - I wrote <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/11TDuSExQgE8fAmTyEAuiTN9quX4y0Xec/view?usp=sharing">this</a>. So far.
</div>Ran K.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17931361479329507296noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4368351372698071125.post-47307836234651463682022-12-01T00:59:00.004+02:002022-12-01T00:59:00.164+02:00Idiots LTD<div style="text-align: left;">I wrote some daring things here, - so I might add another one.
<br /><br />
Here in Israel, and perhaps elsewhere too, - women and perhaps men too of some branch of Judaism, whatever it’s called, - believe in the idea of having women rabbis.
<br /><br />
- It may be doubtful whether Judaism could be called a religion at all, - rejecting Christ. Quite foolishly people who believe themselves to be men of faith do not think the matter of whether Jesus is the messiah or not - as a matter <u>of fact</u>, - should be cleared. They just think Jews would be Jews and Christians would be Christians as if this is not an actual thing which ought to be true or untrue. I related to that somewhat in <a href="https://thisuniverseouthere.blogspot.com/2011/05/religion-my-view-of-certain-point.html" target="_blank">this</a> post. - But here this is not the matter about which I am writing.
<br /><br />
- However, putting aside the question of the room of Judaism as a religion rejecting the main figure related to it, (as Jesus is clearly more important than Abraham or Moses or Elijah) the issue here is about the idea of a woman rabbi.
<br /><br />
Obviously the attitude reflected is rooted in some idea of equality, but it seems to reflect absence of wisdom. Not very surprising if we initially consider this is some branch where those advanced in their own view imagine they could shape their religion as they like according to secular ideas. - In Hindu or in Buddhism such an idea, - of a woman taking the place of a shephered of believers, is acceptable. Whatever the reason. - In Western religions, - Christianity, Islam and Judaism, - this is not the situation. - A woman can’t take the place as a man could after a mere qualification as the common standard is.
<br /><br />
- It is not absolutely impossible for a woman to take leadership in the relevant field, - but it is not at all the same as it is for a man, - as ignorant or foolish reconstructors of religion would imagine in their materialistic views. - If a woman has attained to the level of a saint, which means the thinking of the heart of such a person has completed its developement, - than she could lead others in the field of spirit in the relevant communities. Not to speak of course if she is a prophet. But as for lower forms of guidance, - the reality in the fields of religion and spirit is not the same as in the secular world and its institutions. So far.
</div>Ran K.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17931361479329507296noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4368351372698071125.post-88424931829769524532022-10-28T12:00:00.001+03:002022-10-28T12:00:00.149+03:00טובות השתיים<div dir="rtl" style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: arial;">קיימים פסוקים י׳-יב׳ בפרק יב׳ בספר קהלת. - לפסוקים יא׳-יב׳ מופיע קישור מימין ברשימת הקישורים. בפרט קיים שם פסוק יב׳.<br />
<br /><br /><br />- ”<b><span style="color: #4a4a4a;">בִּקֵּשׁ קֹהֶלֶת לִמְצֹא דִּבְרֵי-חֵפֶץ וְכָתוּב-יֹשֶׁר דִּבְרֵי-אֱמֶת. - דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים כַּדָּרְבֹנוֹת וּכְמַשְׂמְרוֹת נְטוּעִים בַּעֲלֵי-אֲסֻפּוֹת נִתְּנוּ מֵרֹעֶה אֶחָד. - וְיֹתֵר מֵהֵמָּה, בְּנִי, - הִזָּהֵר עֲשׂוֹת-סְפָרִים-הַרְבֵּה-אֵין-קֵץ וְלַהַג-הַרְבֵּה יְגִעַת-בָּשָׂר.</span></b>“.<br />
<br /><br /><br />- עניינינו בפסוק האחרון, - השלישי. - השניים האחרים ע״מ להעמידו בהקשרו.<br /><br /><br />- לא שההקשר כל כך משמעותי כאן, - אבל אעפ״כ.<br />
<br /><br />
- ההבלים שהפרשנים המוסמכים בעיני רבים מסוגלים לכתב כאן עשויים להחשב כמהממים. מי שנחשבים לאורים ותומים בעיני תמימי דרך מלהגים בהעדר כנות מובהק לכאורה או - יתכן לחילופין - בטפשות ממשית גרידא, - בהתייחס לדברים המצוטטים. - רש״י למשל מוצא שהרועה האחד שבטקסט כאן הוא משה, אם כי אבן עזרא מציין בניגוד לכך את המובן מאליו.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Israel_road_sign_302.svg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="80" data-original-width="80" height="80" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilCWkw9-AuGpvXJDM-4zwZDoAfczfYQngOrq8wnN8OnAXbEHzx5-IV3Z6P7xL7knN8mKouTd88LyttPopTMfan63M_bcvzQnDUkLwgrV8nYDUqldePS8qiOQ0blv9yt1yqpXdWdkpGFrUhCyA_81YHjXuWJ04x5Cr3q_tVlwK--Gvx5i42aTmCJ-MASw/s1600/stop-sign-e1559645362383-+80x80.png" width="80" /></a></div>לא שאני בקי או מתעניין בפסולת הזו, - בדקתי ככלל לצרך כתיבת הדברים כאן. - האטימות של אנשי הדת עומדת למכשול אולטימטיבי כמעט אל מול הבנת האזהרה של מי שלא זוהם בתלמודם המשובש <span style="font-size: 9.75pt;">(- ראו גם בהמשך)</span> וברוחם האופיינית שאינה מתאפיינת בנקיון או בצלילות.<br />
<br /><br />
אבל, בכ״א, - מה שרציתי לכתב כאן כעקר הדברים הוא שעמנו (- עם ישראל) מוצא היה עצמו במצב שונה מאד בימים אלה, וזמן רב קודם לכן, - אילו הובנו הדברים (הפשוטים למדי) שבפסוק האמור.<br />
<br /><br /><br />קיימים גם פסוקים ה׳-יב׳ בפרק טז׳ בבשורה ע״פ מתי בברית החדשה.<br />
<br /><br /><br />- ”<b><span style="color: #4a4a4a;">וַיָּבֹאוּ הַתַּלְמִידִים אֶל־עֵבֶר הַיָּם וְהֵם שָׁכְחוּ לָקַחַת אִתָּם לָחֶם. וַיֹּאמֶר יֵשׁוּעַ אֲלֵיהֶם רְאוּ וְהִשָׁמְרוּ לָכֶם מִשְּׂאֹר הַפְּרוּשִׁים וְהַצַּדּוּקִים. וַיַּחְשְׁבוּ כֹה וָכֹה בְּקִרְבָּם וַיֹּאמְרוּ עַל־דְּבַר שֶׁלּא־לָקַחְנוּ אִתָּנוּ לָחֶם. וַיֵּדַע יֵשׁוּעַ, וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם, קְטַנֵּי אֱמוּנָה מָה־תַּחְשְׁבוּ בִּלְבַבְכֶם אֲשֶׁר לֹא־לְקַחְתֶּם אִתְּכֶם לָחֶם? - הַעוֹד לֹא תַשְׂכִּילוּ וְלֹא תִּזְכְּרוּ אֶת־חֲמֵשֶׁת כִּכְּרוֹת־הַלֶּחֶם לַחֲמֵשֶׁת אֲלָפִים אִישׁ וְכַמָּה סַלִּים נְשָׂאתֶם? - וְאֶת־שֶׁבַע כִּכְּרוֹת הַלֶּחֶם לְאַרְבַּעַת אֲלָפִים אִישׁ וְכַמָּה דוּדִים נְשָׂאתֶם? - אֵיךְ לֹא תָבִינוּ כִּי לֹא עַל־הַלֶּחֶם אָמַרְתִּי אֲלֵיכֶם הִשָׁמְרוּ לָכֶם מִשְּׂאֹר הַפְּרוּשִׁים וְהַצַּדּוּקִים? אָז הֵבִינוּ כִּי לֹא אָמַר לָהֶם לְהִשָׁמֵר מִשְּׂאֹר הַלֶּחֶם כִּי אִם־מִלִּמוּד הַפְּרוּשִׁים וְהַצַּדּוּקִים.</span></b>“.<br />
<br /><br /><br />
- גם כאן הפסוק הראשון רק לצורך הקשר הדברים. - עניינינו באזהרה של קהלת מקדם (רק הפסוק האחרון בציטוט הראשון הלכה למעשה) ובאזהרה של ישוע מאוחר יותר. הטקסט השני - מתוך הברית החדשה, - אינו בהכרח מדוייק לחלוטין כתיעוד מילולי, - ישוע ותלמידיו לא דברו יוונית כמופיע במקור שם וכאן שוב מתורגמים הדברים לעברית. - מכל מקום לא נראה שחשיבות רבה לדברים לצרך הבנת האזהרה. כמו״כ, במקום שמופיע לעיל ”אמרתי אליכם“ <a href="http://www.kirjasilta.net/ha-berit/Mat.16.html">מצאתי בטקסט</a> ”אמרתי אליהם“ ותיקנתי כאן אבל זו מן הסתם שגיאה שם. - עוד לצרך הבנת ההקשר והטעם להתייחסות לאותם למדנים הנזכרים מפני תלמודם האזהרה, - ניתן לעיין בדברים שקדם לכן שם.<br />
<br /><br />
- אבל מכל מקום ואעפ״כ ביסודו של דבר והלכה למעשה די במופיע.<br />
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://pngimg.com/uploads/poison/poison_PNG53.png" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="73" data-original-width="83" height="73" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLRcBlyS8Xf_N3T4WQl22Z3SS-Kk06auE8jncpKu6MHf64N1SXz_48bt5skrcLyLUrwHQvbMcXqtoKcmStAL5xBCKa-yRlQXqLnf9KNBDHzHb3JicG-fyoQfGgxkTlE7xUZsg11IlG9u-_Pr_ng_QUSnx6RrLsrulf7UGgxpDABgAz3wDPRZvGJFNbvQ/s1600/58d29dc1dc164e9dd9e668c1c+8373.png" width="83" /></a></div>- אילו נשמעה האזהרה הראשונה לא באה השנייה. - שווה לבדק אילו שטויות רש״י כותב בעניין הראשון כאמור. - אבל אם אמרנו (אמרתי, ז.א, - כמובן) שאילו זכו דבריו של קהלת להתייחסות הראויה אז היה עמנו מוצא עצמו במצב שונה לחלוטין בהמשך לכך, - אז ניתן לומר גם שאילו זוכה הייתה האזהרה השנייה לתשומת לב ולהתייחסות כנדרש לא רק בקרב תלמידיו הנבונים של האיש מנצרת אלא גם בקרב העם בקרבו נולד המשיח ואליו פנה בתחילה, - אז היה גם המצב בארצנו ובמדינתנו שונה מהותית משהינו.<br />
<br /><br />
ניתן להסביר, - אבל לא בהכרח רצוי. העיסוק בפרטים הורג לעיתים את ההבנה שאינה תלויה בו דוקא. - מוטב, - נראה, - להותיר את הדברים כך. אם כי כל מי שעיניו בראשו יבחין כי שנעשה בפעל הוא בדיוק היפוכו של שמנחה קהלת לעשותו. - אבל היום החולין מושל בכל, - ככלל, - העיוות עדיין חי וקיים והפח יקוש כמו״כ אמנם לרגלי הנופלים בו לעיתים, - (ובפעל גם מבין מי שהיו חברי הקרובים) אבל מרבית האוכלוסיה כמובן שאינה עונה בדברים ואין הם בראש מעייניה.<br />
<br /><br /><br /><div style="margin-left: 2.5pt; margin-right: 5pt;">- אישית, - אין הנצרות, ולא היהדות, (וגם לא האיסלם, - אם יש צרך לציין) תואמות את רוחי, נראה, - והעיסוק ב-”אב שבשמים“ לא זו בלבד שאינו מושך אותי אלא שגם נראה מבחינה מסויימת מוזר ביותר, - עניינו הראשון של כל אדם מן הסתם סביר שיהיה בשיוכל למצא בו עצמו ובשיוכל לעשות את עצמו לו, - או אם לא כן במהות הכל או במהות לכשעצמה, - כל חיפוש של אובייקט אחר או בקשה אחר כזה נראים ביסודו של דבר משניים בחשיבותם ואפילו נובעים ממידה של שטחיות. - לא בכך העניין כאן אבל יש שני שירים שכתבתי בהתייחס לאווירה דוחה למדי העשויה להמצא במקום שבו שונה הדרך מנתיבה התואם את דבריי האחרונים, קישורים מופיעים ברשימת הדפים; - במכוון לא הבאתי כאן ע״מ שלא להסיט את תשומת הלב משבקשתי להצביע עליו במופיע לעיל, - נניח את זה הצידה, - שתי האזהרות עומדות בכל מקרה, - וכלל קיים הוא שככל שאדם חכם פחות יותר כך קל יותר לשכנעו בהיותו חכם יותר. - לא תמיד אבל הכלל קיים.
<br /><br />עד כאן. - היה מי שהזהיר אותי מפני ה-”חזרה בתשובה“. אני לא מניח שהייתי יכול ליפול בפח הזה אבל בכל מקרה נחסכה רעה מובהקת. - מפתה מאד לנסות ולהבהיר את השיבוש העמוק שביהדות הנוהגת כמחרשה שראשה טמון באדמה ומשכך עיוורת לאור השמש, - ומנגד כמו״כ זרמים מתקדמים בעיני עצמם המדמים בנפשם שניתן ליצור דת כבקשתך ע״פ אמות מידה של חולין; - וכאמור כמובן ברקע הדברים החילוניים הגמורים שבעיניהם הכל הבל מוחלט ואינו ראוי לתשומת לב או להתייחסות כלשהי מצד בן אנוש משכיל ע״פ דרכם. אבל לא. עד כאן, כאמור.</div></span></div>Ran K.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17931361479329507296noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4368351372698071125.post-37919847058689302232022-07-15T12:00:00.062+03:002023-02-10T22:55:54.949+02:001.10.2021<div style="text-align: left;">Just a thought which has occurred to me right now, - <span style="font-size: 7.75pt;">(see date above)</span> just a question as said: - There is the story of Moses going up on Mount Sinai, there was some other post I wanted to write related to that but I just started and never got it finished, - (if I finish it I’ll add a link) but as for the matter here: - When Moses was up there his brother had the gold calf mask made and people who had been waiting for Moses to come down were worshiping it.<br />
<br />
Was this at the will of God or was it not?<br />
- Was this in accordance with the will of this one or was it not?<br />
It is said all is at his will, - is it not? So how about this? Was this incident seemingly raising his fury at his will? - If so - what kind of fury is that?<br />
<br />
- It is not complicated. - It is not a matter of many details. Is it refined? You judge. - Never mind. - But what might be said? - Either not all is at his will, - as some apparently claim and believe, - or this anger and disapproval may be quite ungraspable. Or maybe there’s a third answer. People generally believe, as it seems, - that “God”, and “the Lord”, and the “<a href="https://thisuniverseouthere.blogspot.com/2023/01/as-short-as-possible.html">Father in Heaven</a>”, - are one and the same, - merely synonyms expressing the same thing. Perhaps it is not so? All is in accord with the will of the Father, - provided there is any such thing, - but as for the others perhaps it is different.<br />
<br />
Anyway, I did not intend to get into this wondering of the third possibility, - I did only intend to present the initial wondering referred to here. Plus I’d mention the wonderings of secular, of materialistics, - here in this issue, - are worthless. - This is not intended for those who think the whole issue is bullshit from the start, - though they might rejoice it in their stupid way.</div><br /><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eA7SMt7WycUZlMjyU_9yQzzg3rvFwuzT/view" target="_blank"><span style="color: #222222;">Wtf</span></a>.</div>Ran K.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17931361479329507296noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4368351372698071125.post-11224123399803637442022-06-15T12:01:00.146+03:002022-06-16T11:21:59.930+03:00the Four Elements of the Social Relations of the Bodhisattva<div style="text-align: left;">Chapter 45 in the Shobogenzo <span style="font-size: 7pt;">(in the Nishijima translation)</span> is entitled “<i>the Four Elements of a Bodhisattva’s Social Relations</i>” - <i>Bodaisatta-shishobo</i>. Master Dogen lists them as free giving, kind speech, helpful conduct and cooperation. In the English translation that is. - “Free giving” is according to the footnotes the Sanskrit <i>dana</i>, - same as the first paramita, - that is just “giving” as it seems. - The “free” is quite clearly added by the translators just in order to clarify the meaning, to avoid some possible mistake in grasping what exactly it is about, - but essentially you might say the “free” is as if in square brackets. - Where the translation gives “kind speech” it says <span style="font-size: 7.75pt;">(in the footnotes)</span> the expression Dogen was using is “<i>loving words</i>”. Helpful conduct is said to originate in Sanskrit where it was “useful conduct”. -<span style="font-size: 7pt;"> <span style="color: #2a2a2a;">(</span><span style="color: #464646;">Also regarding the Japanese itself I got the impression “<i>beneficial conduct</i>” is a bit more exact in itself but has been altered to fit the text</span><span style="color: #2a2a2a;">)</span></span> As for “cooperation” - in Japanese <span style="font-size: 7.75pt;">(- that is in the text in the <i>Shobogenzo</i>)</span> it’s “identity of task” and prior to that in Sanskrit “identity of purpose”.<br />
<br />
<br />
- Fundamentally, - as it seems to me, - these would be <b>giving</b>, <b>consideration</b>, <b>assistance</b> and <b>unity</b>.<br />
<br />
<br />
- “<b>Unity</b>” would be equal to love in a way perhaps, - but what has made me write this post was thinking of the fourth element as unity, - which seemed to have been better defined, - in the context at least.<br />
<br /><b>
Giving</b> - as it seems to me, - would originate with not being too severely attached to things. - Not seeing possessions as too rigidly founded. - Than things would more easily be able to pass back and forth in accordance with necessities. - Their being “<i>yours</i>” or belonging to others has less weight and subsequently they can more freely shift in between different owners – who still, then, would not be holding them too tight.<br />
<br />
- <b>Consideration</b> seems to be rooted in noticing the pain of others. - Then consideration would naturally follow. – Obviously you don’t go around inspecting in search of pain in hearts of others, - a natural tendency has to appear or be developed.<br />
<br />
- <b>Assistance</b> seems to be on the path to unity. - It must originate with some sense of unity, - though not necessarily conscious or aware; where the needs of others in themselves are inevitably also notices - obviously, - otherwise how are you to assist them? - It is inevitably a form of giving, - and is motivated by consideration. - It is a more whole form while the other two may be somewhat of more preliminary factors. - Plus, if I said consideration is related to pain of others, - here joy too would take a more significant part in the process. Or so it seems.<br />
<br />
- <b>Unity</b> may be only in the hands of Buddhas. The common phrase <span style="font-size: 7.5pt;">(- appearing repeatedly in the Lotus Sutra)</span> of “a Buddha alone, together with Buddhas” might be in place. - It is what assistance is aimed at and inspired by, - and - you might also say - <span style="font-size: 6.75pt;">(if you don’t mind being corny, that is)</span> its perfect and ultimate culmination. - “Love” is what us ignorant beings would observe as the outcome.<br />
<br />
<br />
It would be about non differentiation, - about treating others equally as we would treat ourselves.<br />
<br />
- Master Dogen also relates to a notion related to the aim <span style="font-size: 7.75pt;">(- purpose)</span> rather than to the means: - “<i><b>The sea does not refuse water</b></i>”.<br />
<br />
- Where a natural tendency of coming near the situation is attempted to be described.<br />
<br />
But that is still just coming near. - Though it is not just about being concerned with the conduct, - as I referred; - it is about a fundamental notion of not being separate: - The sea not refusing water, - mountains not refusing earth, - and the enlightened rulers not having a remote dislike for the masses; - where the natural tendency brings about further progress of unity-having-been-come-closer-to, and actual submergence would be - even if slightly, - taking place.<br />
<br />
<br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: white; font-size: 7.75pt;">(Written 31.8-10.9 2021) </span>So far for this post.<span style="color: #3f3f3f; font-size: 7.75pt;"> (</span><span style="color: #6e6e6e; font-size: 7.75pt;">Written 31.8-10.9 2021</span><span style="color: #3f3f3f; font-size: 7.75pt;">)</span></div></div>Ran K.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17931361479329507296noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4368351372698071125.post-79786734818616809782022-06-01T12:00:00.021+03:002022-06-01T12:00:00.169+03:00Buddhism as it is (18.7.2021)<div style="text-align: left;"> I did not relate to that earlier, - but it could explicitly be said, - that one who imagines that homosexuality of both males and females or what is referred to as “transgenderism” at the current time are healthy phenomena as fine as normal heterosexuality, - that there is no fault with these, - as the opinions evidently spreading most successfully throughout contemporary society - does not have the “eye”.</div><div><br /></div><div>Only this. Now. Written at the date noted above.</div>Ran K.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17931361479329507296noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4368351372698071125.post-60234931407746492682022-01-31T00:00:00.250+02:002024-01-02T08:59:55.915+02:00A remark regarding the Shōbōgenzō<div style="text-align: left;">We know Master Dogen intended to rewrite the Shobogenzo and add new chapters (as far as I understand) as to come to 100 altogether. It is obvious that chapters such as Kesa-kudoku and Den-e, or both chapters titled “Shin-fukatoku”, - or Hotsu-mujoshin and Hotsu-bodaishin, - would not be included both in his final editing.<br /><br />
- Obviously he did not have such an intention. - He would only choose one of each of such pairs. - And, as I said, - would write this one again too. - (Koun Ejo writes this in addition to the last chapter - Hachi-dainingaku, - listed 95 in the Nishijima-Cross translation, - after the end of the chapter itself) Also he did not include Bendowa, though of course it is not possible that he did not know of it.<br /><br />
But my main intention is to his intention of rewriting all of what was to be included in what was apparently to be the final version of the Shobogenzo. Beside that there were to be new chapters and also it follows that the order was not going to be (as far as I understand) just the chronological order of the 95 or 96 chapters edition which seems to be most popular today.<br /><br />
- I generally thing the rhythm according to which such chapters may be arranged is important, - I guess it would be lost if you just arrange it all according to chronological order, - plus include these double chapters I mentioned above. What I wanted to say here is that realistically, - it seems wrong to relate to all we have in writing ignoring the facts. It was not a perfected work. - One example which seems very clear is in Sanjushichi-bon-bodai-bunpo.<span style="font-size: 9.25pt;"> (- Chapter 73 in the translation I mentioned)</span> I was looking for what Dogen would say about what “right action” <span style="font-size: 8.5pt;">(- known as the fourth lane of the <a href="https://thisuniverseouthere.blogspot.com/2011/11/eightfold-path-according-to-steiner.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: #222222;">eightfold path</span></a>)</span> would be. - What he says there generally is just that right action is becoming a monk. <span style="font-size: 7pt;">(- Paragraph marked 46 in the Nishijima translation)</span> At the end of the chapter it says “<span style="font-family: Palatino;">Preached to the assembly</span>”, not “<span style="font-family: Palatino;">written</span>”. - I think at the time there must have been monks in his order, or maybe has been just one monk in his order, - who were or was getting ideas, - perhaps off the Vimalakirti Sutra, or perhaps some other text or texts I don’t know, - of leaving the order and becoming laymen. - I think Master Dogen saw a necessity to relate to that and have these ideas get off these people’s minds. - So, - the chapter may reflect, - in this place I am referring to here, - <span style="font-size: 8.75pt;">(which I do consider particularly important, - I mean right action may not be viewed necessarily as the no. 1 possible topic, - but it could not be viewed as unimportant. - Particularly I think we could say it would be what Master Nansen is talking about in his </span><span style="font-size: 8.25pt;">[second]</span><span style="font-size: 8.75pt;"> answer in the story recorded in Shinji Shobogenzo 2/54.)</span> a condition or a situation which may have occurred at the time and place when the things were preached, - and not necessarily the actual and exact view we might see of what the lane of right action would be in the field of the teaching of our Master Dogen. - I don’t know if this is the situation, but it does seem more than probable.<br /><br /><br /><br />
- So, I think, - particularly in the right spirit of the teaching of this unique teacher, - that when studying the Shobogenzo we ought to be aware that things may have not necessarily been expressed in the way he that would have ultimately wished had he had the time to complete his work, and subsequently be more cautious in reading, - if at times things might not seem exactly as we would expect, - being clear that this is no disrespect to him but rather an actual following of a realistic attitude.<br /><br /><br />
- And, at the bottom line, - he said - “<span style="font-family: Palatino;">there are no innovations to be added to the Dharma at all</span>”, <span style="font-size: 7.25pt;">(- Shobogenzo Butsudo)</span> and I also linked Matthew 5:18 as the first link <span style="font-size: 6.75pt;">(list on the right)</span> here at the blog; - <span style="font-size: 8.5pt;">(though the meaning there might be somewhat different)</span> Master Dogen does not create the Buddha Dharma, - he expresses it, - as all teachers. - There aren’t two of these. - So we ought to aspire to understand the universe itself, - or the reality itself, - not cling to the words of anyone in a blind manner. True teachings are never dead, - and ever inexpressible, - so they say. - So we ought to try and figure out things ourselves, - as Master Gensa <span style="font-size: 7.25pt;">(- Shobogenzo Ikka-no-myoju)</span> not finding himself eventually able to be deceived by others, as he says.<span style="font-size: 7.5pt;"> (Paragraph 97 there, the first paragraph in the chapter)</span></div>Ran K.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17931361479329507296noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4368351372698071125.post-55135013809036518502022-01-01T00:00:00.001+02:002022-01-01T00:00:00.150+02:00Nobility vs. External Sensitivity<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Buddhism is a religion of wisdom. Christianity is a religion of love. I am not interested in love generally. Some people are interested in love, altruism, morals, and possibly in things like grace or compassion. Some people are interested in truth and essence. Some people have an internal tendency and some people have an external tendency. - Obviously balance is necessary or at least useful and it may be natural for different abilities to complete each other. At the same time different people find different things appealing and have different qualifications they might follow in a natural way.<br />
<br />
- My tendency has never been relating to the social facet. But this is not what the issue here is.<br />
<br />
- It has been said that planets reincarnate like humans. Not just like humans but they generally incarnate. It has been said that in the last previous incarnation of our planet wisdom has developed. That its development has been completed there. On our present Earth love is to be developed. - It seems it still has a long way to go.<br />
<br />
- In relation to this, Christianity is viewed, by some, who do seem to have a point in their ideas, - and that too may be an understatement, - as having an advantage over Buddhism. Kalo says in one of his books, about enlightenment, - “by means of the redemption it attains it is capable of attaining love and becoming its very self”. It seems to me only an enlightened could understand his words here. But in general his idea is that the phenomenon he is relating to only occurs in Christianity.<br />
<br />
However, - as I said, - I find other things interesting. - In Buddhism, - absence of good and bad is revealed. - In Christianity it has no mentioning, - it is not emphasized, never it seems. - What makes you see one thing as better than another? Happiness is nothing. What is left then? An existence of an ability may be better than its absence. But here too, - it may be viewed as having no difference, - where one is not better than the other. I don’t think this ability, - to view this phenomenon of emptiness of any quality of goodness or its contrast, - is equally gained in Christianity.<br />
<br />
- Certainly not in the same inherent manner. Acquiring this, not merely as an ability to be able to witness and be able to say it is so, - but as an inherent grasp going down to your most natural and spontaneous sight, - is a thing I would certainly like to gain. - It is not worthless. - Having been able to inherently and fully incorporate this understanding into your mind and being, - your action is different. - While in Christianity love is developed, - external sensitivity is valued and considered, - a person having been able to gain the virtue I am referring to here would act in a more refined manner, - more noble, - while still acting, still doing, - his natural behaviour would be freer of unwise concerns - his understanding relating to the absence of goodness and badness would naturally make his action more harmonious, more elegant, no doubt, - and this elegance is not devoid of value, as I tried to refer. I don’t know if it balances out love in its value, - but it is certainly more interesting for me, more appealing. No doubt more beautiful, but this is not necessarily the point to judge by. So far.</div>
Ran K.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17931361479329507296noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4368351372698071125.post-57539456009383889202021-12-01T06:59:00.667+02:002021-12-01T06:59:00.162+02:00Knowledge<div style="text-align: left;">Normally in our day to day life today we seek knowledge. - We learn and we study. You are even reading this right now. - People are practically as if stuffing their head into a tube.<br /><br />
- It is very easy to <a href="https://thisuniverseouthere.blogspot.com/2012/03/inscription-above-internets-gate.html" target="_blank">ruin your mind with excessive study</a>.<br /><br />
But my intention here is not about this extreme.<span><span style="font-size: 6.75pt;"> (- Btw, - if you check the link do note it was written back in 2012)</span></span><br /><br />
Idiots would always think the more things you know the better. Which is of course true in a way. Idiots are not always wrong.<br /><br />
- But there is the question of what it does to your mind.<br /><br /><br />
- One other thing: - Back in the 80’s I studied math. I didn’t much want to, but this is how it was. It took courage to leave the university. Though I knew it was a place of idiots before I got there. - Not all of them though, and not in every way, of course, - but anyway this is just by the way. - In math of course, - you prove stuff. - Step by step. This is the nature of what you do there.<br /><br />- Calculation. Proving theorems too has the nature of calculation. - This is limited. This is a proof, or an evidence, - of the limitations of your mind, - or our mind. - The inability to see things as a whole.<br /><br /><a href="https://thisuniverseouthere.blogspot.com/2018/03/a-note-regarding-intuition-and-false.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: #222222;">Intuition</span></a> today is put aside in mathematics. I mean obviously one has to use it, - but in a way it is in principle ignored.<br /><br />- Looking at the ancient Greek, - their attitude was that what they called “axioms” were to connect their practice to reality. It is quite simple, - they can not start off nothing, - so they pick up some of what they could see as undeniable truths, - ones they could peacefully assure themselves are true and correct, - and questioned what could be then constructed subsequently.<br /><br />
- I think every child in primary school knows that. - Though not in such an explicit manner.<br /><br /><br />
- It seems about a 100 years ago a group of mathematicians adopted a different attitude: -<br /><br />
The Greek’s adoption of axioms is based on intuition. - But they say “fuck intuition”. They don’t give a shit if axioms are true or not. - Their attitude is we just pick up whichever set of axioms and see what comes up. - Does it reflect reality? - Does it not reflect reality? - These are not mathematical questions in their view.<br /><br />
- I had some correspondence with a professor (emeritus) of math in an American university and she explicitly had expressed her opinion that math is <i>not</i> about exploring reality. This is the way things are seen today. - But my point <span style="font-size: 8.5pt;">(- here)</span> is about the view in which intuition is considered a thing to be put aside. <span style="color: #292929;">- <b><i>Actual seeking to develop our mind would to a great extent take an opposite course</i></b>: - <b><i>We ought <u>to aspire to be able to view things in an integral manner</u></i></b>.</span> - In Math, as long as you have a proof, (or a solution, or a calculation) it doesn’t matter at all whether you are able to see the entirety of the different steps - in your mind, - in one integral picture. - Of course one who does have such an ability might sometimes at least prove himself capable in fields noticed, - but the ability itself is never considered as one which has to be developed.<br /><br />
- Still this is not the subject. - But the point indicating the inferiority of our step by step manner of thinking is essential.<br /><br />
- We should always aspire to see the whole picture. Of course step by step thinking is practical, - but this might mean our <span style="font-size: 9.25pt;">[human]</span> mind is not in the best state. I’m not saying we should abandon it. But as a matter of principle we would be more than considerably wrong if we imagine this is what we should look up for.<br /><br />
- What made me write this piece, or start writing it, - is - the thought of what would be the manner of thought of the reality itself. - In order to come to the best we can hope for we ought to let go. - it is quite the opposite of what we do in math, - or - quite clearly, - in intellectual study at all. - This manner of thinking ties our mind. This may be quite irrelevant to most people, - but if you relate to meditators, - or to those persevering in treading the path, - this is not a thing of no interest.<br /><br />
- In a way, it is just letting go, - learning how not to hold on to those bits of thinking we are accustomed to grasp like a monkey grasps a tree, - or like having our shirt being caught in the thorns of a bush or some other plant, - which is essential for getting our mind developed.<br /><br />
- It is these unclear and unclean graspings which interfere with the possibility of our mind’s eye seeing things otherwise. I am not saying I got to that. - But the situation does seem clear. - Being unable to see that pursuing immediate possible easy to reach details as a matter of course and continually unaware of the eye lying within you capable of a view independent of that, - hinders - quite clearly - the integral ability which might otherwise come to be and function, - however so slow, - within you - again. It is the contrast between an unclear vision and a clear one. - For the need existing all the time in everyday life for most people it is inevitably, practically, - impossible to follow what I say; - but as a matter of principle I believe the understanding standing at the root of this post, - has a significant meaning, - where we live in a society running the opposite direction. Completely blind - in general, - to such ideas, - and ever ready to mock at them with the full confidence of the herd of intellectuals herding in the dry deserts of shallowness of mind. - There is further <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1khpqlVkZQcBBYp4rdQPrPkNFWY7plKjW/view?usp=sharing" target="_blank">this</a> I wrote about three months ago. - It might add to what I said here. - There is the ability to see things undisturbed far beyond what we are accustomed to, - as it seems, - untroubled and relaxed, - with an actual minimum of an intended effort, - putting aside our so-common desire to assure and double-check things in our conscious mind, - and there is the degraded state we are presently in <span style="font-size: 8.75pt;">(- most of us that is)</span> grasping as-if-by-hand wherever-we-can in-the-most-untidy-manner every bit of information or data, - <span style="font-size: 7.75pt;"><span style="color: #333333;">[- </span><span style="color: #444444;">thus</span><span style="color: #333333;">]</span></span> disabling our mind to come to its potential through natural functioning.
</div><div dir="rtl" style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family: "TopType Soncino";"><br /><br /><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P9_mf1T9Fgcy1qbS3alGSvx8Ynd2eP9z/view?usp=sharing" target="_blank"><span style="color: #222222;">בסיעתא דשמיא</span></a>.<br /><br /></span><br /></div>Ran K.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17931361479329507296noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4368351372698071125.post-70997608087675648282021-07-01T00:01:00.089+03:002021-12-19T11:23:21.233+02:00[the] LGTB community today and earlier<div style="text-align: left;">It seems to me if it has not been for the AIDS, the current views of the LGTB “community” could not have come to be. I mean the manner of life of these people, - or just of the homosexuals – or “gays” if you like, - as it was before the appearance of this disease, - was quite clearly not the most convenient ground for making the popular claims that their different tendencies are just as good as the normal ones.<br />
<br />
– I am no expert on the issue, - but it seems the fact that continuous relations among the same couple – as in the heterosexual society – was not really a common phenomenon among the aforementioned before the appearance of the plague, - is no secret and was not earlier too. It seems it was the AIDS which forced them to change their habits, and perhaps their culture too. The attitude toward sex seems to have been different – at least for a considerable number of those, - at the time the AIDS broke through, - than the exhibited normality apparently presented today as a matter of course. – That is to say quite obviously now it can much more easily be said that there is no fault with the way they live, or with what they are.<br />
<br />
– I have referred to the general issue before twice on the blog, once on a blog post and once on a blog page. – The common view prevailing today is one of the harshest phenomena to come across.<br />
<br />
Without referring to its severity, - it is just about picking up just what is untrue, - and flagging it as if it was a supreme ideal. I cannot think of anywhere else where the stupidity of humanity is more clearly brought about even in a similar manner. And this is while contemporary society in general is may be said to be quite remote from wisdom in the first place; - unlike what some typical intellectuals would say of course. – Anyway, still, - I brought here a particular point which has crossed my mind.<br />
<br />
So far.
</div>Ran K.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17931361479329507296noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4368351372698071125.post-89727587832979464122021-05-31T12:59:00.115+03:002021-06-01T05:25:34.671+03:00The Worst<div style="text-align: left;">Perhaps it would have been natural that I would have written this in a “<a href="https://thisuniverseouthere.blogspot.com/2020/10/thoughts.html" target="_blank">Thoughts</a>” post. - <span style="font-size: 9.75pt;">(See <a href="https://thisuniverseouthere.blogspot.com/2021/04/thoughts-ii.html">here</a></span> too) But I don’t write these anymore.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">- Regarding Donald Trump’s presidency, - today, on 15.1 2021, - the time I am writing this, - it seems the worst thing about the whole deal, or the whole issue, - is that even now people, - I mean many, - of course not all, - do not understand how bad the whole thing is.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">- I mean I could not imagine him winning the elections next time, in 2024, - or even being a serious candidate then. - But the thing is, the issue, - that so many may still support him. I mean how blind can people be? This seems to be the phenomenon which may signify the worst toward the future.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">- More than all that happened, I think. - If the minds of a significant percentage in America (I mean in the US) can be so disappointing, - so poor, so miserable, - the hope may be scant and the danger evident. No one has foreseen initially Trump would become president, or could become resident, - or even be a serious runner. It all seemed like just a joke at first. But Trump proved the system sucks. - Than again, - On January 6<sup><span style="font-size: 6.5pt;">th</span></sup>, - no one, basically, - figured out what could happen, - or what was going to happen. - Else than some things the FBI figured out, - <u>but this was based on concrete communication among extremists who were communicating among themselves</u>. - No one could tell off the surface. Including Nancy Peloci who seemed to later assume (among others) Trump was seeing things in advance. - So this should be applied ahead. Surprises are to be expected. Actual surprises. Not today. Not tomorrow. But with time in an unclear timing. - You can tell people anything. Some will believe some strangest things. - And it’s not about <a href="https://watchkin.com/714e409cd9" target="_blank">loving the alien</a>. - It’s a bit like a monster slowly awakening in a horror film. - And things could get worse. If people now believe <span style="font-family: Open Sans;">x</span>, next they might believe <span style="font-family: Open Sans;">y</span>. It’s no unified belief, - of course. There would be different levels and different views. - Some worse than others. But this should be followed. Should be noticed. Should be monitored. Education is not easy since people might pick up whatever they like on the web. But the United States of America should be aware that a monster may be growing within its guts and care of it may not be easy anyway, - particularly if time is wasted and awareness is insufficient.<br /></div>Ran K.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17931361479329507296noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4368351372698071125.post-45234841234635890572021-05-01T12:55:00.007+03:002021-06-02T20:32:43.058+03:00Common sense IIThere is <a href="https://thisuniverseouthere.blogspot.com/2016/06/natural-choice-examined.html" target="_blank">this</a> post I have written some time ago. - I did not relate to the point then (there) but there is also a very significant point which - as it seems, - follows what is pointed out there.<br /><br />
(Do note, - as for the post itself, - there is there another point added in the comments section strengthening the idea referred to there)<br /><br />
- If you accept what is said or brought up there - in the post linked - that is, - it means life on Earth did not develop as most assume. - Obviously it had to appear somehow. - If you reject the common explanation following the attitude appearing there it would obviously mean you are supposed to come up, - generally, - with some idea of how things came to be, - some other idea.<br /><br />
- If the theory of natural selection is viewed or seen as almost (- <a href="https://thisuniverseouthere.blogspot.com/2016/06/natural-choice-examined.html?showComment=1620197768016#c5714870911586208258" target="_blank"><span style="color: #222222;">generally speaking</span></a> practically not just almost) void, useless, stupid, - unrealistic, - than it would naturally follow that all living things on Earth have appeared some other way, - plants, animals, humans. - How?<br /><br />
- As it seems in the absence of this theory we are unable to find another reasoning making sense which would replace the existing idea most of humanity follows at present. - Other than if we accept the idea of higher spheres responsible for the development and appearance of existing species here on our planet. This has a more significant value even! - I mean the very acceptance of the fundamental idea of higher - occult, - spheres and beings - an idea most intellectuals today would not even find worthy of [generally] relating to. If you follow common sense it practically leads you to the conclusion. Not easy to accept, for so many accustomed to see things otherwise. But if a majority will accept others will too, - easy to see. - And if the scientific establishment will admit its mistake (quite a ridiculous actually, - viewed retroactively) than it will be corrected, - though as you can see [in the post] it doesn’t really take academic education or great proficiency in order to be able to tell, - just free thinking and an unbiased mind.<div style="margin-left: 250pt;"><span style="font-size: 8.25pt;"><br /><span style="color: #4b4b4b;"><span style="color: #464646;">(</span>- Written - 8.1.2021 -<span style="color: #464646;">)</span></span></span></div>Ran K.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17931361479329507296noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4368351372698071125.post-23570850096114706322021-04-15T00:00:00.221+03:002021-04-15T00:00:02.613+03:00Perfection<div style="text-align: left;">This is about a thought I had for some time and now <span style="font-size: 6.75pt;"><span style="color: #232323;">(</span><span style="color: #454545;">Feb 22 2019</span><span style="color: #232323;">)</span></span> I am bringing it as here. - It is quite a simple idea. Perfection is determined or defined according to our expectations. That which accords with our expectations we call perfect. The idea is rooted there. - The situation in which we find the existence of expectations natural, even without explicitly recognizing them or being able to see them for what they are or noticing them as an independent phenomenon, - is where the birth of the idea or notion of perfection takes place. - No expectations, - no perfection. So it seems.<br /><br />
- Expectations originate when we conceive what we would view as faults.<br /><br />
A faulted thing is imperfect.<br /><br />
- When we see one thing as better than another faults could be conceived. - If we have no view seeing <span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype;">A</span> as better than <span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype;">B</span> than there would not be a thing we would consider faulted.<br /><br />
- Why do we consider one thing as better than another? One situation as better than another? - Whichever the reason this is where it begins. - Then we could observe one running of things as better or worse than another route and then we might view one as faulted.<br /><br />
- And then we might consider a thing perfect or imperfect. We define it, - though not intentionally or consciously. - Truly, - as it seems, - as I said in the beginning, - it is our expectation which practically determine what would be called perfect and what would not. - If our view is freed of such “faults” than we would not see this difference of perfection and imperfection.<br /><br />
- So at the bottom line it seems it is just the issue of good and bad.<br /><br />
- Things apparently have a natural route to them. Sometime simpler, sometimes more complicated. - That which follows this route or is closer to it we call “good”. So it seems. - Why? Perhaps it has to do with the way we are made. - Why do you find one thing painful and another thing joyful? - It may be rooted there. However, - as it seems, - again, - our division into what we might call “perfect” and what we might call by a contrary word is based on our inner wrongness; - you might say the way is of zero width, - and when we view it as wider than that, - such phenomena occur. So far for that. I was wondering about whether this idea <span style="font-size: 6.75pt;"><span style="color: #4b4b4b;">[</span><span style="color: #545454;">of perfection</span><span style="color: #4b4b4b;">]</span></span> could be transcended, - or perhaps you might more accurately say dug under, - proven to be empty of <span style="font-size: 7pt;">[real]</span> meaning, - and quite clearly I came to an answer; - though the root of good and bad is not yet necessarily equally clear.
<br /><br /><br /><div style="margin-left: 160pt;"><span style="color: #262626; font-size: 8.5pt;"> (- </span><span style="color: #484848; font-size: 8.5pt;">It seems I only wrote the first paragraph here on Feb 22<sup><span style="font-size: 7.5pt;">nd</span></sup> 2019 as said above</span><span style="color: #262626; font-size: 8.5pt;">, - </span><span style="color: #484848; font-size: 8.5pt;">the rest I completed on March 25<sup><span style="font-size: 7.5pt;">th</span></sup> 2021</span><span style="color: #262626; font-size: 8.5pt;">. </span><span style="font-size: 8.25pt;"><span style="color: #484848;">(- </span><span style="color: #4e4e4e;">and deleted a bit of other stuff I wrote earlier</span><span style="color: #484848;">)</span></span><span style="color: #262626;"><br /><br /> - </span><span style="color: #484848;"><span style="color: #484848; font-size: 8.5pt;">A PDF file is <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dG6s9k_w0fOMf9IJx5_XV7vtckgWXcIs/view?usp=sharing" target="_blank">here</a></span><span style="color: #262626; font-size: 8.5pt;">.)</span></span></div></div>Ran K.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17931361479329507296noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4368351372698071125.post-81512480548980353862021-04-05T12:31:00.027+03:002021-04-05T12:31:02.934+03:00Thoughts II<div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Candara;"> <span style="color: #990000;">–</span> 10.11.2020 – The computer seems to have become man’s best friend.<br /><br /> <span style="color: #990000;">–</span> 11.11.2020 – One of the troubles of humanity in general and of materialistic individuals in particular is that when coming across severe mistakes of humanity in the past where existing norms [of the relevant past time] are such that would be understood today as ridiculous or almost unbelievably unreasonable – those individuals would imagine themselves altogether different than their old predecessors and fundamentally think they have come beyond such miserable attitudes rooted in baseless confidence devoid of wisdom – which they are fundamentally unable to recognize.<br /><br /><div style="margin-left: 42.5pt; margin-right: 5pt;"><span style="color: white;"> – </span>(That is to say – if you take for example what the inquisition did – burning people alive and using severe torture as part of their interrogations, certain of their righteousness in quite an unbelievable way, - or interpretations of various religious stories in different parts of the world accepting them as valid facts where they might not necessarily be very distant from legends, - (while I am not saying other religious narratives may not be true reports, but one should be able to tell the difference) contemporary views and attitudes may be no less stupid)</div><br /> <span style="color: #990000;">–</span> 12.11.2020 – One of the most important things for people to understand is that contemporary science is selling them shit.<br /><br /> <span style="color: #990000;">–</span> (This may be much like the story the Buddha told about the blind men touching the elephant)<br /><br /> <span style="color: #990000;">–</span> About 15-20 ago I became unable to sit Zazen due to a bodily weakness. It seems there is nothing like it, - no substitute, - nothing similar for one who knows it. – Humans, - apparently, - in a way at least, - are very weak on the side of the will. They do everything through thought, - everyone are accustomed to that, - so practically no one sees it – generally, - as strange. – But as it seems fundamentally we might expect the situation would be quite different, - that abilities would not be so dependent upon thought. It might be quite more natural for the will to be able to directly act upon things, - but we have almost no such ability. Rather we always have to think how to use existing circumstances for which ever purpose we might need or want to achieve. It seems to be the consequence of some sort of deep sinking into the physical plain, - a degenerated situation where our being is severely incoherent and imperfect off being as-if soaked into where we live at present.<br /><br /> <span style="color: #990000;">–</span> The very idea that mental illness could be treated by mere chemicals is amazing.<br /><br />14.11.2020 – It seems to me one is unable to understand spirituality without understanding Jesus’ words referring to religious leaders of his time as “blind managers” or generally understanding what was he talking about using these words.<span style="font-size: 8.75pt;"> (– <span style="color: #757575;">Off my memory</span>: – “<span style="color: #7a7a7a;"><i>Let them be</i></span>”, <span style="color: #757575;">or</span> “<span style="color: #7a7a7a;"><i>leave them alone</i></span>”, - “<span style="color: #7a7a7a;"><i>blind managers they are, - will the blind lead the blind? – And they both fell into the pit.</i></span>”)</span><br /><br /> <span style="color: #990000;">–</span> An old thought I had is that what characterizes the spirit is that business men <span style="font-size: 9.75pt;">(and women)</span> are unable to take it over and use it for their own purposes.<span style="font-size: 8pt;"> (<span style="color: #2c2c2c;">As they do with practically almost anything else</span>, - <span style="color: #2c2c2c;">i.e.</span>)<br /></span><br /> <span style="color: #990000;">–</span> 16.11.2020 – The view of materialistics of religion may be quite correct, - religion has become degenerated, - this may even be close to an understatement. – Most (in western religion) may believe “God” exists simply because they have been told so, while the spirit of things may be to a great extent suitable or appropriate for a considerably earlier period when old scriptures have appeared.<br /><br /> <span style="color: #990000;">–</span> 24-26.11.2020 – In the moment of the present there isn’t room even for the slightest thought. Usually (as it seems to me) people think – not necessarily consciously – of the moment of the present as something lasting something like two or three seconds. That is enough to raise at least a simple thought. It is not. Of course. – It has no length. – There is no time in it to think of anything. Do notice. – You can not think anything in there. It doesn’t seem anything one could imagine. It is different from what one might in most cases think or imagine when it comes to mind. (I actually thought of that quite earlier, <span style="font-size: 8.25pt;">[than the date here]</span> but it came to my mind again and seemed to fit here)<br /><br /> <span style="color: #990000;">–</span> 28.11.2020 – We imagine ourselves to be moving in time all the time. But actually, - as said before in various places I guess, - in the present moment, - we only remember the past and estimate the future. – We do not and can not [directly] see the past or future in the present moment or from the present moment. But this means we practically don’t know whether we are <span style="font-size: 9.75pt;">[actually]</span> moving in time. – It may be that we are forever stuck in one “present moment” with the constant-illusion-of-this-notion-of-being-in-motion-through-“time” we are never – of course, - able to examine.<br /><br /> <span style="color: #990000;">–</span> The situation of religions today (not where there is a transmission independent of conceptual understanding) may much resemble the children’s game known as “broken phone” <span style="color: #555555;"><span style="font-size: 6.75pt;">(“<span style="color: #6e6e6e;"><i>telefon shavur</i></span>” in Hebrew)</span></span> in Israel.<span style="font-size: 7.75pt;"> (– Simply “<i>telephone</i>” in the US, “<i>Chinese whispers</i>” in the UK)</span><br /><br /> <span style="color: #990000;">–</span> 30.11.2020 – It is quite obvious that a society which neglects education would pay the price, - but the practical situation may be that subsequently in the coming situation the norms would change in a way so that the fact of the damage done would not be detected by a considerable portion of the people there. This too is no secret but it makes the occurrence irreversible to an extent which is not negligible in itself. I mean it creates blindness the cure of is prevented by a taboo.<br /><br /> <span style="color: #990000;">–</span> Since the “I” by its very nature requires certain time for its construction, - that is is not ultimately direct, - the present moment is inaccessible to it.<br /><br /> <span style="color: #990000;">–</span> 1.12.2020 – The place where religions degenerate is where people are unable to understand that occasionally things said are meant or intended to express what can not necessarily be expressed. (Among other things, - sometimes things are expressed in a manner intended to suit a certain stage of development of humanity and later when we have become more mature or more awake the old manner of expression is clung to ignoring the fact)<br /><br /><div style="margin-left: 42.5pt; margin-right: 5pt;"><span style="color: white;"> – </span>As it seems to me, - the second story of creation in the Bible <span style="font-size: 7.75pt;">(Genesis 2:4-25 <span style="font-size: 6.75pt;">(plus the whole next chapter)</span>)</span> was never originally meant to be expressing an actual occurrence as described in it by whoever has presented it at first, - but the fact has been forgotten and lost.</div><br /> <span style="color: #990000;">–</span> 7.12.2020 – According to common materialistic views the existence of mind is unexplainable. – Whatever technical explanations one may present or think of they would never create a ground for reasoning the existence of mind. – Common materialistics take it for granted that matter <span style="font-size: 10pt;">(physical matter, practically)</span> existed first and later, - subsequently, - mind appeared. Following such a view the situation is as said above. – Actually, - mind is prior to matter. Though in the physical world apparently matter appeared first. This is misleading and the cause of the mistake. </span><span style="font-family: Candara;"><span style="font-family: Candara;">– </span>Joint by the confidence and the stupidity of the materialistics. – I have related to this in <a href="https://www.blogger.com/#">a post</a> I had on about three years ago. – You might check things there if you are interested. Practically the situation may be said that mind was there first <span style="font-size: 7.5pt;">(– if you would say the reality is mind, some might say it is and some might say it is not, and both are correct)</span> and matter have appeared only subsequently, - if you would see it as existing at all, - that is.<br /><br /> <span style="color: #990000;">–</span> 14.12.2020 – Among those sitting in the court of law there seem to be quite a few whose god is the procedure.<br /><br /> <span style="color: #990000;">–</span> An excessive attempt to avoid mistakes could result in severely poor outcomes.<br /><br /> <span style="color: #990000;">–</span> 22.12.2020 – Democracy is fundamentally a rough arithmetic mechanism. – Emotional people imagining themselves wise attribute all sorts of other things to it. All sorts of balances and safety measures may be important or valuable in themselves, - but it does take an idiot to be blind to the simple fact they are not part of what this system <i>is</i>. – Those emotional guys mentioned apparently see it as a must it has to be some lofty and elevated ideal, - their attitude is quite – or somewhat, - religious like. – Practically it is just a rough mechanism suitable for the-current-time-we-are-living-in which in no way could even come close to manifesting the highest possible virtues of man.<br /><br /> <span style="color: #990000;">–</span> 23.12.2020 – The practical fact any number close to 50% of the American people voted for Donald Trump means there is a sickness there. – The ridiculous situation is just because the sickness is so deep you can not speak of it. If it was just 5% or 10% it might have been quite fine, - you could call things what they are, - but through the great number the phenomenon gains legitimacy and it’s not OK if you speak the truth of it. – There is a similar situation in France with Marine Le Pen gaining legitimacy though not winning elections, - but coming close is enough, quite reasonably. Even if it would be only 25% voting for Trump it would be rather the same, - as for the sickness I mean. – People should be aware that what they categorize as politically correct or not politically correct or as acceptable or appropriate could lead them eventually to where they wouldn’t want to get to, - because of their stupidity. They ought to awaken now and fight those who will claim such ideas should not be expressed.<br /><br /> <span style="color: #990000;">–</span> Had democracy prevailed in the Sinai desert in Biblical times it seems the people of Israel would have returned to Egypt rather than continued on their journey and arrive at the Promised Land.<br /><br /> <span style="color: #990000;">–</span> 24.12.2020 – Regarding the path, - people usually would seek success. – It’s quite natural, - obviously. – And they may judge it by the measure by which they get it. Quite foolishly, - actually, in practice, many times. – It would make more sense to first come to know what aims should we seek, - which would be a right purpose, - meaningful. – The actual situation may be much different than the common views. – This is the place to start, fundamentally.<br /><br /><span style="color: white;"> – </span>– It is not that we should divide it all it this manner, - but this is the right way. One does not need more than common sense in order to tell. – First you <span style="font-size: 7.75pt;">[come to]</span> figure out what is important, - what is right to do, what is right to seek, - than you can <span style="font-size: 8.25pt;">[perhaps]</span> measure or estimate things accordingly, - not the other way around. It’s quite simple, - it makes sense, it doesn’t require spiritual understanding, - but obviously this isn’t the way most people go. Though it could be otherwise.<br /><br /> <span style="color: #990000;">–</span> I believe democracy has gone bankrupt on November 8<sup><span style="font-size: 7.75pt;">th</span></sup> 2016, - but fervent adherents will not see. – Partly because their attitude is emotional.<br /><br /> <span style="color: #990000;">–</span> 25.12.2020 – Not so long ago, - 200 years ago, - was someone to claim that diseases we have and suffer from are caused by very small being we are unable to see (germs, bacteria) the reaction among most learned men and women would have been similar to the reaction today amongst such individuals to serious references to the occult.<br /><br /> <span style="color: #990000;">–</span> 1.1.2021 – Wisdom is much abandoned these days because of seeking objectivity. – What one who has attained it is able to know or understand not necessarily others will be able to verify independently. – When it comes to “science”, - physics for example, - ideas are basically able to be examined in order to verify their reasonability. Same in <span style="font-size: 8.5pt;">[<span style="color: #2a2a2a;">some</span>]</span> other fields. – But these merely depend on the intellect. – Wisdom is different. – You can’t test it through IQ exams. You are not necessarily able to convince those devoid of it of its validity. Today many might imagine this would be a reason to put it aside, - since they doubt its outcomes and practically perhaps its existence too. (Many intellectuals may be unable to understand what the difference between intelligence and wisdom is) So in practice it’s neglected and does not contribute to humanity and its progress. – Which means some further materialism as a result. Somewhat of a vicious circle that is, - too.<br /><br /> <span style="color: #990000;">–</span> There is a practical influence which means modern technology is causing people to be less mature.<br /><br /> <span style="color: #990000;">–</span> 2.1.2021 – I have long thought that the worst issue with humanity was that people think society is capable of conducting itself.<div style="margin-left: 195pt; margin-right: 5pt;"><span style="font-size: 7.25pt;"><br /> On 12.11.2020 it seems there were some thoughts I intended to write but are not there.<br /> It seems the first is missing. – Also where said “<i>it seems there is nothing like it</i>” it refers, - of course, - to Zazen.<br /> Having checked later, - the quote on Nov. 14 <span style="font-size: 6.75pt;">(2020)</span> is from Matthew 15:14.<span style="font-size: 6.5pt;"> (– The expression itself mentioned there appears in various places elsewhere too)</span><br /> On some places the texts have been changed later than the date they were at first written. – On 7.12.2020 I could not complete writing because I had no Internet connection and so could not see my earlier post linked there. – In some other places I also made changes but not altering the original idea. – Sometimes very slight, - correcting grammar mistakes or changing capital letters to small ones or vice versa. – Sometimes things look better here on the blog differently than on the “Word” file.</span></div><div style="margin-left: 195pt; margin-right: 5pt;"><span style="font-size: 7.25pt;"> This remark may be in general quite unnecessary but anyone interested could check the file <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vKaQH6TuZDRrC9qeGE1mKUeLi5e0F3HM/view?usp=sharing">here</a>, though some changes have been made there too.<br /> (– If necessary to mention: – On December 23<sup><span style="font-size: 6.25pt;">rd</span></sup> 2020 “<i>such ideas</i>” means ideas saying you can’t call people like Donald Trump or Marine Le Pen and their supporters what they truly are.)<br /> Obviously after the January 6<sup><span style="font-size: 6.25pt;">th</span></sup> occurrences some things may look different. The thoughts relevant to this (perhaps) from 30.11.2020, <span style="font-size: 7pt;">(– first)</span> 23.12.2020 <span style="font-size: 7pt;">(– first)</span> and 24.12.2020 <span style="font-size: 7pt;">(– second)</span> still seem as true as they were and anyway had no real changes. (I changed “PC” to “politically correct” and added an “a” somewhere where it was missing)<br /> There is also a post I wrote (after the incidence) which should be on on May 31<sup><span style="font-size: 6.25pt;">st</span></sup> unless anything goes wrong.<br /> I completed this post (including these remarks here) on Jan 17. (2021)<br /></span></div></span></div>Ran K.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17931361479329507296noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4368351372698071125.post-80993238466154267262021-04-02T00:10:00.001+03:002021-04-02T00:10:02.635+03:00Nihilism<div style="text-align: left;">Some may say nothing matters. Does the concept of “matter” actually exist? - Are there things which matter and things which do not?</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><div style="text-align: left;">- Wtf.<br /><br />- Many would think if you accept the idea nothing matters, - it would mean reasonably one should not make any effort in any direction. - Roughly speaking, - just lay flat on your back. Some would point that just laying flat like this would lead to suffering, - and they would usually take it for granted that one would wish to avoid it, - so they might present this as a reason for diligence.<br /><br />- The point here is different: - Why do many initially have in mind that if nothing matters it would mean we ought to give rise to laziness? - Why do they imagine it must mean, - or would mean, - we ought to do nothing, - try nothing, - or lay flat as I said? - The reason is quite obviously, - laziness is so inherent in them, - and this is definitely no rare thing, - that they subsequently have this view. - Actually, - I would say, quite clearly, - if nothing matters, - it would mean nothing either way! - This means you could lay flat on your back, - or make the utmost effort in any craziest manner, - or anything in between. <i><span style="color: #440000;">But it clearly and explicitly <span style="color: #1a0000;">does not</span> mean the first is better than the second!</span></i> </div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><div style="text-align: left;">- The mistake is very easy.</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><div style="text-align: left;">Almost everyone falls in it.<br /><br />- There is not much to explain. The point is simple. - But so easily overlooked. - There is an inner false notion people are not aware of-the-real-nature-of, - just assuming reasonlessly they should actually satisfy laziness if no other contradicting cause is apparent.</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><div style="text-align: left;">- The root, I believe, - is harmony.</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><div style="text-align: left;">It does seem like the harmonious situation is the best situation.</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><div style="text-align: left;">- How could I say that if nothing matters? - I could not.</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><div style="text-align: left;">- But if you do want to see anything as a thing that matters, - harmony is of course no doubt better than laziness.</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><div style="text-align: left;">- And the notion for seeking what-is-actually-derived-by-laziness does seem to originate through its relationship with harmony. It seems like - somewhat, - a primitive way of seeking harmony. - However, - as for our point here, - I believe, - that if we are able to remove this false notion, or otherwise at least see through it, - somewhat at least, we could (hopefully) notice that nihilism does not mean abandoning any attempt to get anything, - practically.</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><div style="text-align: left;">- I could guess one could only understand the real meaning of nothing having any meaning - so to speak, - if one is enlightened. - Which is <span style="font-size: 9.5pt;">[of course]</span> very rare. But otherwise too one can understand my words.<span style="font-size: 9.25pt;"> [- here]</span><br /><br />- So far.</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><div style="text-align: left;">- The reason spiritual teachers avoid (sometimes) the point of no meaning or no value is - I would say, - that the point referred to here is missed. Otherwise is ought to be possible to speak of it.</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><div style="text-align: left;">So far.</div>Ran K.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17931361479329507296noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4368351372698071125.post-65863938959561196352021-04-01T23:22:00.002+03:002023-11-29T18:05:44.899+02:00What Man is<div style="text-align: left;"> It has been said, some time ago, - that the difference between man, the human being, - and animals, - is his ability to create tools. (And use them)<br /><br />- Later I believe this idea has been dropped.<br /><br />- I think after chimpanzees have been observed making a simple tool.<br /><br />- Now, I think, - it is thought man is different in his ability to think. I do say, - if a dog is able to find his way back home in a neighbourhood it knows this inevitably reflects thinking processes.<br /><br />- So obviously thinking processes exist in other beings too.<br /><br />- Therefore, - what is the difference? - Man is able to disconnect himself from a situation he is in. - Man is able to think not only as a natural process involved in the situation he is in at the moment but also to stop and have things run independently in his “mind” not in real time.<br /><br />- To consider a situation not only while it’s running as an outcome of the stimulus coming through right then but to think of it in a way similar to watching a movie filmed earlier or seeing a view in a mirror. - To bring up things relating to the past or future as off the computer’s hard disc and relate to them then in a way similar to the way of thought in real time.<br /><br />- This is the difference. Animals are unable to do that. They are slaves of the present moment.<br /><br />So far.</div>Ran K.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17931361479329507296noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4368351372698071125.post-46062387589506713572021-03-31T00:00:00.007+03:002021-04-03T16:29:23.978+03:00the Aim<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
As I happened to send a link to <a href="https://thisuniverseouthere.blogspot.com/2020/04/dogens-structure-of-presentation-and.html">this</a> post to <a href="https://www.pdharma.com/%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D" target="_blank">someone</a> I came across <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20200919081914/https://www.pdharma.co.il/%D7%91%D7%95%D7%93%D7%94%D7%99%D7%96%D7%9D-%D7%9E%D7%91%D7%95%D7%90/" target="_blank">some things he’s written about the four principles of Buddhism</a> (known as “the four noble truths”) and subsequently I made this reference to another facet of the four world views as referred to <a href="https://thisuniverseouthere.blogspot.com/2011/04/our-mind-second-post.html">here</a>: -<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 42.5pt;">
On the materialistic plain one wishes to avoid unpleasant things, pain, suffering. - Perhaps seek happiness, but mainly, as it seems to me, - first, - to be free of the unenjoyable, - that is - I mean, - of what causes what he experiences as a negative experience - as said here first.<br />
<br />
On the idealistic plain it is the attachment to a self image which determines the direction. - This would mean one seeks self improvement. The field in which one would seek this could vary a lot from person to person. - It could generally be any field, any sort of improvement, - any way of becoming better.<br />
<br />
One may wish to become wiser, one would wish to become brave, some value moral virtue, - the point it is rooted in the wish to become better, to see yourself as better, - but I am not referring to self deceit, - but to the actual wish or attempt to make oneself better for the sake of making oneself better. If it is about gaining an ability for the purpose of getting some outcome, given that this outcome itself would be of the materialistic plain, - than this would be of the materialistic plain, and not of the idealistic.<br />
<br />
- In the realistic plain things are different. - You might say there one seeks [to come as close as possible to] an ultimate “good”.<br />
<br />
- What this would practically mean is extension of abilities. - Being more capable is “better” than having less abilities. <a href="https://thisuniverseouthere.blogspot.com/2019/03/happiness-is-misery.html">Happiness, pleasance, - is nothing.</a> - They have no value of themselves and so would count to nothing. - But it is not about one’s personal abilities, - rather it is about the abilities of all. - This would be the aim sought in the realistic plain. - While there is no reason why all possible routs of gaining any qualification should be considered equal: - Naturally some would be more valuable, - as in our everyday life. - But the most valuable ability would be the one leading us to understanding we have no reason to actually to prefer one thing to the other, - being capable to being incapable, - this would be the most refined one; - not seeking to become almighty, - though we might gain this too if we do come to this understanding.<br />
<br />
The fourth phase Nishijima calls “the ineffable” or “reality”. It is essentially different from the other three. - We can not speak of what one wishes or seeks or aims for in the same way we did so far.<br />
<br />
- Here I would say action is not different from no action. - All is an integral whole. - So we could not speak of this wish (we have discerned for the other three phases) one has. All action is completely natural, - there is no separate motive or intention or inducement separate from the action itself. The aim, if any, is so inherent it doesn’t exist. - There isn’t any mind either. - So, I mean, - there isn’t any place to accommodate the wish or aim. But this is not the primary point, - the primary point is in my view here that all is one, there is no separation between mind and matter or perceived objects, - there is no separation between perception and consideration (or thought) and action (or will) and the “external” results left as objective facts in the world which could [then] be perceived again, there is no separation between inside and outside. - So there is no aim which could be isolated or even traced, - there is only one way, if any, one route, - one line, - so to speak, - perhaps extremely complex, perhaps simple, - along which everything goes. Or not. But there is no need for a motive. Nothing is exhausting, harmony is maintained, - the universe is a perpetuum mobile.</div>
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">Written on May 4<sup><span style="font-size: 5.25pt;">th</span></sup> 2020.<br />
<br />
(- Plus a few minutes, - as it seems, - into the next day (- May 5<sup><span style="font-size: 5.25pt;">th</span></sup> that is))</span></div>
</div>
Ran K.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17931361479329507296noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4368351372698071125.post-9006551525237054162021-03-02T23:01:00.000+02:002023-11-29T18:05:44.898+02:00Questions<div>I wrote the following after having a look at Master Dogen’s “Maka-hannya-haramitsu”. (Chapter 2 in the 95 chapters Shobogenzo)<br /></div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">- Fwiw. -</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;">For more convenient reading click on the picture below where the text is.</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoFChE8_XynI_uN97ev96M6O-cpFRHgUyJYTc0FbpmRsmZJh1eSFhFO9jfsSPK1pkMN_V-sW7LDLKk_V19nEOC0RdhVa39cXrd7SLOkSUfoT5myRU7nRfu4GkR_57lTFmJn5TO-2y92c42/s1403/Questions.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1403" data-original-width="992" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoFChE8_XynI_uN97ev96M6O-cpFRHgUyJYTc0FbpmRsmZJh1eSFhFO9jfsSPK1pkMN_V-sW7LDLKk_V19nEOC0RdhVa39cXrd7SLOkSUfoT5myRU7nRfu4GkR_57lTFmJn5TO-2y92c42/w283-h400/Questions.jpg" width="283" /></a></div>Ran K.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17931361479329507296noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4368351372698071125.post-48341303170357825382021-02-01T00:30:00.054+02:002021-02-01T00:30:04.008+02:00Ridiculousness<div style="text-align: left;">There are forged works of art. If they may be so called.<br /><br />- There may be a work worth <span style="font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype;">x</span></span> millions in case it real, - that is in case it is the work of some particular person, - and practically nothing in case it is not.<br /><br />- And, - the ridiculous situation is, - that collectors of such pieces and adherents of these may be unable to tell which it is.<br /><br />- I mean it is fine in itself that they are unable to identify the forged piece, as such, - but the value of a work of art explicitly depends on the artistic experience it might supply. - Everything relies on this. - A piece of art is not a drag, - not candy, - art is not entertainment, - not mere entertainment, - a thing being joyful does not make it into a piece of art, - <i>but</i> art begins with the artistic experience. It is the very foundation.<br /><br />- Next may be the question of whether the experience is an actual <i>artistic</i> experience or whether it is not. Some may claim there is no such difference. Arguing with such [people] is of very little value.<br /><br />However, - one reasonably engaged in the field ought to be able to tell the difference, - to a varying extent. - That is, I mean, - to be able to [fucking] identify an artistic experience, - that is, - (!) to identify a piece of art.<br /><br />Back to where I began: - If one is unable to experience the experience the work of art has to offer, - if one is not able to enjoy it - What [tf] is the worth of it for him?!<br /><br />- The point, the issue, - is not limited to that. People will pay enormous sums for paintings or drawings just because some particular person has painted or drawn them even if they carry <i>no artistic value of themselves</i>. This is idiotic. Practically idiotic. - Nothing less, - as it seems.<br /><br />- Standards are set and humans follow. This is the way of the world. Couldn’t be otherwise, - these days. - Still, - such stupidity should not be viewed as a necessity. - But the example brought in the beginning here seems to make things more obvious. - The value of art, - is, - in the experience one can not miss. I mean one can miss but than he missed the art, - altogether. - Then one may be able to tell of the value <i>of this experience</i>. - Even if he is unable to analyse the experience does not lose its value. - But if he is unable to experience what is built in into the artistic thing, - what is inherent in it, - what has been worked into it, - he does not have to do with it, - but if he chooses to buy it, - it is like a blind man buying a book. <i>Now do notice</i>, - (!) in case it would be <i>one</i> person blind to the quality buying it for someone else or for the worth someone else may be willing to pay for it subsequently, it might have been able to make sense; - but it’s not what we are talking about: - <i>There is the situation where <b>no one</b> is able to detect or see the actual value of a picture <u>as a piece of art</u></i> - <i>and as it seems no one is even expected to</i> - <i>fucking idiots would just try to investigate who <span style="font-size: 6.75pt;">(!)</span> made it</i>, - <i>and if it is <span style="font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype;">a</span></span> or <span style="font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype;">b</span></span> than they would find themselves satisfied and that’s it</i>.<br /><br />- Holy shit. Rather explicitly. So far.</div>Ran K.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17931361479329507296noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4368351372698071125.post-74572943886736977332021-01-15T12:31:00.001+02:002021-01-15T12:31:02.511+02:00Sameness<div style="text-align: left;"> When asking if two things are the same, - there is the question of what you call “the same”. Ultimately, - since one thing which is not one other second thing, - is not that second thing - it is not the same as it. - No two things can be the same since initially by what you naturally define as “same” you want these two things to be the same in <i>everything</i>, - which practically includes the fact that one of them is not the other one.<br /><br />- Even if in any and every other aspect there will not be any difference, - the very fact that one thing is one thing and the other one is another, - not the first one mentioned, - <i>is</i> a difference in itself.<br /><br />Beside that we better remember, as it seems, - that we are talking about <i>phenomenal</i> things. Had we been discussing the Reality itself, - there is only one, - so there is nothing to compare it to. All else is said to be delusion. - The phenomenal world. The phenomenal worlds. - Where nothing is perfect and nothing is complete, - as far as I understand. All is partial, - unless you just observe everything, - as it seems. – But if we still wish to compare things there, - the above will apply, - we can only compare <i>choosing certain particular characters</i>, - not otherwise. Though otherwise we know too, - apparently, - that no two things will ever match completely, - otherwise their past and future have to match too, - and it will not be easy to expect this.</div>Ran K.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17931361479329507296noreply@blogger.com0