The soul exists but not as simply or with personality continuance past this plane and the limbo state associated with it.

Descartes, Locke and Hume were sadly ineffective though thought highly of in the anti-religion phase of their society. The mystics always had a better handle on these things and modern MRI/Spect research at Harvard or other brain research has proven many things along with the Quantum or what were called 'atom-mysticists'.

I do think Descartes contributed mightily to theory and existential reality and there is little room for religion and following the thought of ecclesiasts whose need for power and ignorance has been well demonstrated in the annals of history.

Here is some of what an Indian philosopher of today says from a book I have just edited (first edit of a person whose native tongue is not English). His name is Dr. Abdul Lathief and the book is Philosophical Reflections.

Rationalists are those who believe reason is the primary source of knowledge. Descartes, Leibniz, and Spinoza were known as rationalists.

a. Descartes:

Descartes believed in two eternal substances or realities. One homogenous substance underlies all forms of mind as he sees it. This is unextended and indivisible and he called it thinking substance. The second is an homogenous substance underlying all form of matter. This is extended and divisible. So he was a dualist.


Descartes started his theory from absolute doubt. According to him sensory knowledge sometimes goes wrong so they cannot be relied. But “cogito ergo sum� “I think, there for I am� means the existence of the thinking I is real. This is certain knowledge and he identified the thinking I with mind. He believed abstract ideas or universals exist in mind as thought independent of sensory knowledge. This is known as innate ideas. So mind must know itself before it knows other things.


Then he argued that there is an idea of perfect existence in our mind. This idea cannot be separated from a real perfect being. As we are not perfect the cause of this idea must be God. So God exists. Then God gave us senses and it reports the existence of an external world. So world is also real. So starting from the existential truth he was convinced about both God and world.


According to him the perception of the external world is by impressions of the objects on the mind. Mind is not only different from body but it can think and exist independently of body.


Descartes was a determinist. He considered body as a machine. According to him all non mental bodies act mathematically and mechanically. This action in the body is by the mind and in the world by God. He believed mind and body interact with each other through the pineal gland {See the Thalami in Appendix One} in the brain and this is the seat of soul or mind.

b. Spinoza:

Unlike Descartes Spinoza believed in a single ultimate reality, which he called Substance or God. So he was a monist. According to him finite human mind can understand only two attributes or aspects of this substance. One is thinking substance or mind the other is extended substance or matter. So mind and matter are two attributes of one substance. Individual particular things he called modes. Ideas are thinking modes and objects are extended modes. Now the relation between substance and attributes is like different name for the one and same thing. So mind and body are not two entities but mental and physical law describes the same event in two different and independent ways. So they are two aspects of one reality. He also divided reality in to an eternal order and a temporal order.


The eternal order is world of law and structure and the world revealed by thought. This he called natura naturans or active nature.
The temporal order is the world of things and incidents, which is perceived by senses, and he called this nature naturata (begotten) or passive nature. According to him nature exists by itself and is the cause of itself. God and nature one and the same. God is one nature many and nature is the face of God. He also believed world is in the mind of God and he was a pantheist in the sense he considered world as an aspect of God himself.


Spinoza also was a determinist. He thought everything is explicable. According to him nature and man are acting by invariable law and necessity. Nature is the inner controller of everything.
According to Spinoza will is not a separate thing. Like intellect which is a set of ideas, will is a set of volition, which produce action. Will is a form of desire and desire is nothing but conscious instinct. According to him will is the essence of man and it is due to a cause and motive. According to him we do not will or desire because it gives us pleasure or avoid pain but something gives us pleasure or pain due to our desires. So they are the result of our desire not cause of it.
According to him passions are natural and they can be only regulated by reason. There is no such thing as free will. We are free in the sense of actions being self-determined and mastery of passions through a life of reason. Reason regulates desires and passion and it is the total response to the whole stimulus. So freedom is possible only as behaviour based on necessity or freedom is recognised necessity. Even in this sense only a sage can be free.
Virtue, he identified with intellectual life and more perfection and preservation of one’s being hence having more power.
Spinoza identified highest knowledge with direct perception and immediate deduction. This intuitive knowledge is better than reason and sensory knowledge. It is perception of things in their eternal aspect which he called 'sub specie aeternitatis' means seeing everything from the perspective of eternity. According to him greatest good is also this knowledge of the union, which the mind has with the whole nature.

c. Leibniz:

Leibniz postulated instead of one or two substances, an infinite number of eternal substances. So he was a pluralist. Each substance is single and without parts and he called them monads. Every thing consists of groups of monads.


The monads are simple substances without parts and form compounds. Each monad can be called entelechy because there is self sufficiency and perfection in them. They have no extension or form and they are the elements of every thing. It cannot come into being naturally and it cannot be destroyed naturally. It came into being by creation and end by annihilation. Monads have no windows, so neither substance can enter it nor accident can go out of it. So the quality of monad cannot be altered by anything out side it.


Each monad is equal in quantity but differs in quality so every monad is different. Each monad is subject to change by its nature. There is an internal principle of change called perception and particular series of change called appetition. So there is multiplicity in every monad.
Monads are immaterial and mind consists of conscious immaterial monads and matter is unconscious immaterial monads. Material monads have only perception while souls are monads with memory.


Each monad is wound up from the beginning of its existence and contains potentially everything up to its end. Each monad is a complete concept. So from one of its state we can predict other states of it. Each monad acts to its natural end, which he called appetition.


Each monad express the whole others but they are independent and there is no interaction between them. Mind monads and body monads work by pre established harmony between them. So from the state of one monad we can infer the state of other monads.


The influence of one monad on another is ideal and through the mediation of God. Each monad has relations which express all. All monads unto each and each to all; which humorously could be likened to the Three Musketeers. So each monad represents the whole universe. They are limited not regards to their object but the different ways in which they have knowledge of their object. They are limited and differentiated through the degree of their distinct perceptions. A monad with matter constitutes a body. A body and entelechy (monad) constitute living being. Living being and soul called animal. In human beings souls are raised to reason (mind).


The soul follows its own laws which are the laws of final causes through appetitions, ends and means. Bodies follow their own laws of efficient causes or motions. They agree with each other in virtue of the pre established harmony between all substances. So both souls and body act as if independent and act as if each is influenced by the other. There is also pre-established harmony between physical realm of nature and moral realm of grace. So things lead to grace by the ways of nature.


Animal souls are the images of the whole universe, but human souls (mind) is the image of both God and world. So mind enters in to a type of fellowship with God. Our true happiness consists in making the aim of our will's object attachment to God.
Even though everything is hypothetically necessary due to determined monads they are logically not necessary. So according to him man has free will.


There are two types of truths Necessary (eternal truths) truths and Contingent (fact) truths. Necessary truths arrived by primary principles and contingent truth by efficient cause. Efficient cause also leads to final cause. So final resides in a necessary substance and this absolutely perfect and sufficient substance is God. So both the essence and existence of created being is derived from God. In God essence involves existence. In God there is power, knowledge and will. Power forms the ground or basis of monad, knowledge perception and will appetition.

Analysis:

Spinoza’s one eternal substance is first logos, Descartes two eternal substances are second logos and Leibniz multiple monads are eternal spirits in spiritual existence. Leibniz’s immaterial conscious monads are sentient or animate spirits and unconscious monads are inanimate or insentient spirits.


All the rationalists were determinists in the sense that everything is expressing their own nature. This nature is its internal reality or spirit. Everything can become only what is its internal nature or essential nature.


What Spinoza says is intuition is spiritual nature, which is more reliable than reason and sensory experience. And subspecia aeternitatis is the self realised state.

Chapter 5: Empiricists

Empiricism is the doctrine that sensory experience is the primary source of knowledge. The well known empiricists are Locke, Berkeley and David Hume.

a. John Locke:

Locke believed that there is nothing in the mind, which is not first in the senses, and the mind is blank at birth. Experience is the primary source of knowledge. Simple ideas are produced by sensations and complex ideas by reflections. Reflections are thought produced by the mind using sensations.


Locke identified two types of qualities in things. Primary qualities are physical or quantitative properties like weight, height, size etc. The ideas of primary qualities resemble their cause so they belong to the object.


The secondary qualities like sensory qualities of colour, taste, smell etc. are the effect of the object on our senses. They do not resemble their cause. There can be difference concerning secondary qualities because they are subjective and do not belongs to the object.

b. Berkeley:

Berkeley believed that all our knowledge is our sensations and idea derived from sensations. We have no knowledge of external matter but only experience sensations. So matter and objects really do not exist. Matter is a mental condition or imagination. The objective world is our imagination of it. To be is to be perceived by us or by God. According to him as there was no object both primary and secondary qualities belonged to the subject. According to some of his writings this does not mean world exists in individual mind but in the mind of God. His views were both of subjective and objective idealisms.

c. David Hume:

Like Berkeley David Hume also believed that we cannot have objective knowledge of an external world from our sense experience. We experience sense impression, which he called primary impressions. We form ideas derived from this sense impressions and memories. In this way simple and complex ideas are formed. These he called secondary ideas. We can have only these primary impressions and secondary ideas. From sensory experience we cannot derive cause and effect. By association of ideas we make law of cause and effect and then project it into the external world.


Not only we have no knowledge of substance or matter but only sense impressions there is also no experience of a perceiving self or mind. As matter is only external perception so mind is also only a set of ideas and internal perception. So there is neither substance nor mind. So events are without cause, effect and necessity.


According to Hume moral value has no objectivity. It is not a result of reason but feelings. Feelings are really behind all moral judgments.

Analysis:

Both primary and secondary qualities really belong to the object. All qualities are inherent in the essential nature of the object. The only difference is some qualities are derived from mental essences while others from astral essences. The primary qualities or those derived from mental essences are not entirely depends on the senses so they can be judged independent of senses. Secondary qualities are derived from astral essences so they entirely depend on the senses. As human essence contain all the essences but differs in the degree or quantity of the essences so the secondary qualities differs due to the difference in the senses of the subject. In this sense mental essence are more objective than astral essence because they are rational knowledge. Still astral essences are also objective in the sense that sweet never becomes sour or red becomes blue. Only the intensity varies from person to person.


Locke was also unable to explain the existence of substance. Sensation never informs us about substance. The thing in which quality subsists and which is independent of our senses.


Berkeley’s theory saying matter does not exist but only sensation of the subject is almost similar to our theory of world as active imagination. It is true that we cannot have the true nature of an external world independent of our senses and mind. But the notion of substances and essences in our mind itself mean there is an objective external reality. The world does not depend on our spirit for their existence. Similarly the world is not in the mind of God in the sense God is something external to it. The world only depends on their own spirits. They are the active imagination of their own spirits. What we call mind is the mental existence of the human spirit. Mind or spirit is the active thought directed towards the spirit itself. So mind and body are different aspect of the human spirit, which is a real entity. Mind is also a real aspect of this spirit like body. What Hume says is ideas and internal perceptions are spiritual and mental existence of the spirit, which are real aspects of the spirit.


There are two causes. One is the primary cause, which is inherent in the essential nature of the thing itself. The secondary cause is other beings, which are responsible for initiation of change in the primary being. But this secondary cause is relevant only if the essential nature of the primary being yield to its influence. In this sense the real cause is the being itself. Hume is right that we cannot predict cause from sense impression. This is mainly because cause and effect are mental essences or primary qualities. As human spirit contains all essences cause has also an a priori element independent of sense impressions.

this is a nice concise intro to some rationalist and empiricist philosophy, but I don't see the connection with soul vs soul-less. What do you think MRI/Spect studies say about the soul or mysticism? What can it say?

The Logos or Hrmonic of Light and the vital essences in all things are part and parcel of the soul and collective state (JUng) some might call at-one-ment.

MRI/SPECT proves the mystics were right - have you read the research Mr. Neuroscientist?

I have only read reviews of the book oon the study by Harvard. It is out there - look further and you will see it. Also check out the University of Illinois work with Hank Wesslmann on an evolving brian state.

Here is one of many studies being done that relate to the kinds of things done at Duke or the J. B. Rhine Institute (FRNM) where a woman I once dated was one of the top six control subject researchers.


I can see there is litttle chance that people who have closed minds will do more than ridicule and attack. On the Third Eye thread I put someone else's words but I can assure you I have many personal experiences and I was offerred my own radio call in show in the mid 70s when I lived in Virginia.



http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/inter...onalitystudies/

'Personality studies' - never mind the euphimism, as home page states the following:

General Information

The Division of Personality Studies (DOPS) is a unit of the Department of Psychiatric Medicine at the University of Virginia. Utilizing scientific methods, we investigate apparent paranormal phenomena, especially:

Children Who Claim to Remember Previous Lives (reincarnation)
Near-Death Experiences
Out of Body Experiences
Apparitions and After-Death Communications
Deathbed Visions
We welcome written accounts of experiences of these kinds. See What We Study and Contacting Us.

guys like 'bruce' are the ones who create 'new-age' pseudo-science that is then taken as actual scientific fact by the less critically-minded. I am always impressed with the complexity of the arguments regardless of their pseudofactual basis, although ultimately I am merely amused at the spectacle of it all

'Merely amused' or bemused and clueless?

I have a confession to make: I was very amused!

'bruce', all I know is you came into this place and started calling Shawn some kind of fake in the field of neuroscience. Either you were making knee-jerk assumptions due to a poor sample of Shawn's knowledge or you have no sound basis from which to make any such judgment. I'm guessing a combination of both, as it seems that you have developed a 'defense mechanism' against people who question your knowledge base by simply assuming them to be 'closeminded establishment-ites' and dismissing them offhand

He attacked me without even reading the post (by his own admission) and arrogantly stated he is an expert. Then he used words (which he has admitted now are convention) and acted as if neuroscience is the only field or discipline which has the necessary insight. Then he and others called me pseudo-scientific. I have provided TOP accredited scholars from many disciplines that address the points.

he also went back and reread your post and, based on his real expertise (he is completing a Ph.D. in neuroscience), reiterated his initial reaction. I am a 'keep it simple, stupid' kind of guy, and hate reading lengthy tomes, so I generally despise wading through seas of information in order to locate the salient points of an argument. I would much prefer if you could just simply state your assumptions and conclusions rather than giving a thousand pages of reference and expecting me to wade through it. You can still reference what you are saying, but only as a way to validate up your argument rather than to generate it.

Dan says

he also went back and reread your post and, based on his real expertise (he is completing a Ph.D. in neuroscience), reiterated his initial reaction. I am a 'keep it simple, stupid' kind of guy, and hate reading lengthy tomes, so I generally despise wading through seas of information in order to locate the salient points of an argument. I would much prefer if you could just simply state your assumptions and conclusions rather than giving a thousand pages of reference and expecting me to wade through it. You can still reference what you are saying, but only as a way to validate up your argument rather than to generate it.

Yes, keep it simple and proclaim your guru who is still a student knows more that Dovtorate people who were Ph. D's before he was a glint in his father's eye.

My initial post does indeed include much of my premise on the functioning of the mind-brain-universe. But of course to answer all questions and deal with debunkers in fields which are many requires addressing each of those fields. Microbiology and Morowitz is salient to say the least. In fact if I could do a half-assed job in a thousand page book I would have achieved more than any have done so far.

But you can accept sound byte input of self-proclaimed experts from one field of endeavour alone - that is your perogative. We are all able to exclude thinking and the real work of study - but we should not engage those who do the work and ridicule them.

I think you really can't do it, that's why you rely completely on authority and argue that only reference to such authority can do the subject justice. All I'm asking is that you lay down the logical framework of your argument directly without deluging me with needless speculation and hyperbole. Is that asking for 'soundbites'? I think not, I think it is simply asking for you to generate an original explanation that is distilled to the salient points of the argument.

I am a great proponent of 'wuestioning authority' as were the sages I am connected with through what schoold of thought has been my honor to be recognized among. Long before you were born I was questioning authority of all sorts. You are projecting the paradigm and doing it in the clinical term oriented manner - check projection in the paranoia definition of the nosology according to psychiatry.

But Yes, you have ridiculaed the Nobel Laureates and other disciplines that I have quoted (in full knowledge that you are what you are) because I know how the debunking process or educational milieu operates.

I bet you did a lot of drugs in the 60's, too, and probably believe in all sorts of strange 'new-age'-style mythology

don't get me wrong, I've had a good time with new-agers in trying to understand the meaning of their intent, I've just come to prefer the ones who are more interested in understanding and dealing with the truth of reality rather than simply generating large amounts of 'intuitively determined' pseudoscientific claims that instantly gratify their need to feel competent

Wrong again - looking in the mirror are you?

I was an officer in the military and I did not do drugs. I also am not New Age as I have explained - New Age is a plagiarization of a far more complex system which I am into and in that manner I have exposed the abuse of the ancient knowledge by those who program you to be the knee-jerk fool-ower you are.

well I am surprised, that's for sure. I was assuming your 'unorthodox' mentality was due to 'chemical intervention' considering your ideology, but maybe you're just organically disposed. As for the comparison to 'new-age'-types, I'll let the evidence speak for itself

Robert Baird,

Do you believe that the truth will be seen regardless of context, tone, and attitude. As such no attempt need be made to relate, respect, or address your audience properly?

Nice to see us on the same side for a change Joe

You still take sides?

They are called Sages and Philosophers and are humanists like Socrates. The paradigm has purposefully whitewashed their system and told lies about the system but they include Aristotle, Da Vinci, Socrates and many more that you might be surprised to hear about. I have already said what I am and what my last name is - a Baird. But few in history of the last millennium would know what they are. I only learned it in the last dozen years through many serious researches. I had been studying it long before that.

If you look at an anthology of Aristotle you will not find one of his books about the system that some categorize me as - it is not a belief system or a following. That book is The Secretum Secretorum. And I assure you Socrates and his like have indeed confronted people with the other side of what they think they know.

I believe that political correctness and back-slapping is not LOVE. I think we have been asked and raised to think respect is lying and now we see War on Terra or Terror. The questioning of people's ideas or thoughts should not be a personal thing and people must learn to get over themself.

A reasonable response - for a student or beginer who has not tried all the modalities of psychology. I have lived with Doctors of Psychology and I outperformed her on all occasions. She was a top expert and had an agent setting up large convention hall attendance to listen to her speak about Stress Management. She was many other things, including a 'twin' of mine who I decreed into my life.

I can hosestly say that being a punk in a pack of dogs or being PC and nice - will only get you what you think you want and friends that are real will not be found that way.

quit the psychobabble guest!

Dear G

Not that it is any of your business or important to what I am doing.

I was married twice since living with her. I had a lady who wanted to marry me last year that had to leave Canada to get away from a abusive person like you and take her kid to safety far away.

I am not looking to marry because I have a purpose and committment to change the world before your generation ends all life on earth.

When I lived in Las Vegas less than a decade ago - I was quite the personality. There was one 6 month period when 200 women hit on me overtly (There were 50 men who did the same). When it comes to been there done that -it could be my epitaph.

Apart from enlightenment, right?

The bibliography of God incarnate

Yes, 'Ye are all gods' - see John 10:34.

I know nothing. That is why I am wiser than all of you.

<-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 -I+ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >

'A fool thinks he is a wise man, a wise man knows he is a fool'.

This quote is taken from Restak's The Brain has a Mind of its Own. I can and will be explaining the way to achieve these things the 'experts' do not understand.

PROVOCATION OR BIBLIOMANCY:


“Burgess confirmed that he did use this method and that he believed aleatory composition freed up certain creative tensions that would otherwise remain unexpressed. He suggested that if I had any doubt about the method’s effectiveness, I should try it myself. He was pleased, as well as surprised, by my inquiry, because it was based on a comparatively obscure reference he had made several years earlier in a review in the 'Times Literary Supplement'.


Some months later I encountered a second reference to the aleatory approach. Edward de Bono, a physician and expert in creativity, called the process ‘provocation,’ the introduction of a random word. {See ‘Unsheathing the Soul’ from earlier herein.} ‘The word can be picked from a dictionary with a table of random numbers so that no unconscious selection takes place. Does this mean that any word whatsoever may be used as a provocation with any problem whatsoever? It does. There is no connection (logical) at all between the random word and the problem.’ De Bono referred to his method as ‘lateral thinking’; its purpose, he said, was ‘to produce ideas that are logical in hindsight.’ {Absurd relating in the style of Camus might also apply in a similar construct but we will delve into this ancient techniques or what these ‘experts’ in all their grandiose plagiarization are not even coming close to understanding. If neurosis is defined as ‘abnormal’ and they are ‘normal’; I think it is wise to be ‘crazy’.}


Burgess’s and de Bono’s emphasis on chance and serendipity turns the process upside down. {No it does NOT. Serendipity and synchronicity or other realities just are not fully understood and these people are not aware of much at all. In fact the whole field of psychology still has a lot to learn from Yogananda or other Eastern thought and attunement arts or disciplines.} The writer or the problem solver no longer functions as a master technician, consciously aiming the thinking process in a certain direction for a certain set purpose. {Not unlike the scientists that develop theories and try to fit the results into the pre-conceived notions which is called reductivism or direct inference. This is just one approach that can be useful in the observation of ‘what is’ but when tenured ‘me-too think’ is all the rage it is no wonder people are out of touch with reality.} Now the role becomes that of a gambler who, being dealt a certain hand, must decide on a creative course of action with those cards and only those cards. Both techniques aim at altering perceptions and concepts via the introduction of unexpected, bizarre, and even disorienting associations.


Studies of patients who have undergone ‘split brain’ operations (the separation of the right and left hemispheres) reveal the right hemisphere is superior to its counterpart {The right hemisphere controls the left side of the body and thus when one is left-handed or ‘sinister’ one is more able to integrate.} on the left when it comes to coping with the novel and unfamiliar. This is especially true when there are no clues how to respond. Both aleatory composition and provocation shift the emphasis from the logical—verbal—linear processing style of the left hemisphere to the more holistic style of the right hemisphere, in which logical analysis plays a much smaller part. The right hemisphere may thus be viewed as a ‘jack of all trades, a generalist that addresses new problems until it finds one that fits,’ according to one summary of right and left hemisphere functioning.


At the anatomical level, the right hemisphere is uniquely suited for creativity, {And nurturing and all the things considered feminine as part of the ancient understanding of this in concepts like Yin and Yang.} since it occupies a larger volume in the ‘association cortex,’ where the most complex levels of information processing and integration are carried out. Second, the right hemisphere contains many long fibers that connect widely separated regions; the left hemisphere, in contrast, contains shorter fibers that provide richer interconnections 'within' a specific region.


Innovative drawing and writing techniques and suggestions for improving one’s productivity in business and finance are only some of the fields influenced by the introduction of ‘right-brain thinking’ over the past decade.� (5)

an interesting "lateral thinking" approach, Robert. So you're suggesting to pick up a dictionary and randomly pick a word?

this 'lateral thinking' approach sounds suspiciously similar to my 'bullshit-ology' approach. I simply assume that I know what I am talking about, and blow and blow and blow. Usually people believe me, which can be very satisfying

Dear Unknown

No. A dictionary has been prepared by logical linear focused mindset paradigm thinkers or 'stinkers' and will not serve very well the purpose of this process those neurologists and creativity experts know so little about.

I have finished my part of the section with this heading and will put it here shortly.

This neurologist is talking about something near and dear to the heart of the Bardic Tradition which sought to develop the whole potential of the human being. I think he does not know much about the subject. Those who develop modern theories without study of the ancients who had an education system that understood how to develop all potential learning styles as well as how to augment the lesser talent or styles within each of us are without doubt some of the most sorrowful examples of our modern education and science. It was no mere whim that caused the Kelts or Druids and the Bardic education system to focus upon language and performance or oratory skills early in life. They had observed the creativity that enhances the development of the mind in their people for millennia.
Today we have Howard Gardner seeing there are eight separate talents or learning styles including the linear which the bulk of our education system tests to enhance. That enhancement is a deprecation of the other learning styles as well as a marginalization of the ability of the linear or left brained people who can also learn to develop spatial and creative or psychic attributes. Yes, I dare say the psychiatric profession or neurology is not open-minded about the soul, psychic things they call paranormal or nuts, and all manner of ways we can develop to become Divine as Jesus said in John 10:34.
It crosses my mind that there is a group of priestly manipulators or sorcerers who keep this real knowledge to their own families and put hurdles in the way of others to gain access to that knowledge. That knowledge includes but is not limited to the Kaballah. One reason it crosses my mind is the fact that I have studied history and esoterics to the point where I can identify when they made these decisions in the Mediterranean world with its focus on Empire and Divine Kings. They were afraid of the women who had these intuitive attunements which allowed the women to know and act with greater wisdom so they made it so women became second class people or worse. Eighty per cent of women are now shown to be right brained and yes, that reflects in men who are only twenty per cent left brained. One of the enduring parts of the program to manipulate the average person was to teach against left-handedness which my father had to stop the teachers from doing to my older brother as it had been done to my father.
One of the techniques to center oneself and get meaningful input or what yoga might call soft focus is breathing and positive thinking or decreeing with INTENT. I capitalize that word ‘intent’ because it is the important integration of all aspects of the human potential including the mind, body or solar energy, soul and spirit, as well as what these things can connect with as illustrated earlier from The Wonder Child when we referred to the Cosmic Thought Field.
I often do this and books almost write themselves. It can be like a Tarot reading too. There are certain books I can hand a person and ask them to think about a question as they hold the book between their hands. Then I ask them to open the book to a page and hand it to me. In many cases I can look at the page and tell them the answer to their question without even hearing the question. In some cases they have to state the question and then I show them how the book answered that question. I call this bibliomancy.
Sinister People:
What is aptitude? Why must people work within a social framework that values following 'norms' of intellect and has questions on tests rather than judgments of soulful and ethical actual behavior? The book 'Emotional Intelligence' makes a good case for EQ rather than IQ. Kaoru Yamamoto of the University of Colorado describes the making, coaching, and taking of tests seem like all our teachers are learning. He correctly identifies the flawed ability to maintain or generate effective learning by turning the process into unwilling students being force fed by uncharismatic automatons without authority. Most teachers know they are little more than 'glorified baby-sitters' and so they don't want to be held accountable. Accountable to tests that value regurgitation is not accountable to real value. They have lots of good arguments on all sides of the issue because the fundamental premises are hugely flawed.
Some social scientists make a very good point about the purpose of education in our recent history when they note the Industrial Revolution sought workers to punch time clocks and follow the bosses and their minion's orders. The homogenization of memorization being the key to learning assumes something worse than what isn't in evidence. It is not evident that linear logical processes or competency in memory skills is paramount to the functioning character development of productive people. In fact we have ample reason to limit these skills now that hand held or wristwatch sized data bases are able to connect to near total knowledge networks. Forgetting that important point, we must understand what education and teaching really is supposed to achieve. Simple common sense alone would indicate a high priority should exist in the augmentation of interest in learning and the joys it may offer a person throughout their life.
Co-operative and social integrational skills teaching are well enough developed in the science of education and should be given more support. In Canada the word ‘co-operative’ is used but the purposes of learning style (Take a look at H. Gardner's work which now has eight distinct learning style proficiencies.) and personality differences aren't known by the teachers who think co-operative learning means some kind of teamwork between teachers, students and parents. Group dynamics within the student’s core appreciation of purpose and relating to each other is more the point. Seeing the benefits of a good creative spatial competency in another person within the group and learning the most important things are useful creative outputs rather than some goal established by someone outside the group, might have more merit. The compassionate diplomatic and purposeful ethic of net additional value rather than homogenized adherence to hypocritical unquestioned pablum with frequent prejudicial or egoistically infused judgement needs support.
Celebration of relevant new approaches that offer explorations of new perspectives without a sense of black and white answers are seldom found and the character seems to be judged according to how well we imitate or fit the prevailing 'norm'. How can we maintain a desire to explore that is born into the human core courage to know something more than the personal? When will knowing how to cope with sexual, sensual psychological nurturing and other life skills including how to make each other healthier become valued? The old emphasis on individuals enjoying each others different character becomes lost in a maze of peer and social structure. Is it possible that people will learn to read and communicate at different times in their life? Recent research shows that men learn math best, later than women. Language and communication engages the young brain more fully and should be focused upon at the ages before seven. The Bardic schools knew these things and had young people work as jesters and minstrels early in the process.
Physiologically we can say there are 350,000 neural connections possible that become atrophied to the point most people use only half of them. What about thinking? It isn't dumping of data - it requires integrating and making judgments. Perhaps we are encouraging a lack of judgement as an over-compensation against old racial ideologies or because authoritarian religions sought faith-full 'followers'. Maybe it is because the armies of feudal lords wanted hateful and macho murderers; and parenting became a castle for power ‘over’ rather than nurture FOR the children. Children are not the property of parents as much as they are rightful and important members of the tribe, clan or larger social unit. These things were known in the pre-Christian times when women weren't the property (Hammurabi's Code specifies and Biblical baby-factories enforced) of men.
There may be eight physiological or neurophysiological different core learning style competencies with numerous variations but each of us is capable of learning to augment all of these attributes and appreciating other strengths and weaknesses. Building brotherhood rather than competing against each other is an excellent character-building alternative to established fences or hurdles to jump over. If at the end of five years of school a person still wants to learn and yet has learned little - is that better than a person who has learned 'reading, writing and arithmetic' but thinks they know all they need to know. There were initiatory stages available for lifelong education and soulful growth (The Australian aborigines still have this; and many others do as well.). Beyond seeing what one ‘can do’; we do need to establish what one should do. The decision about what we should do is hard to make at some far away central administration center. Beyond teaching the ethical constructs (woefully lacking especially without comparative religion) we should support or enable purposes beyond what generates occupation-oriented proficiency. There is reason to believe that students learn to read and write or compete without a structure to ensure it. Technology exists to allow students to learn much of what is taught in their own time away from the sense of right or wrong and ridicule.
Do I think we should create groups and movement between groups as a key focus on working together and helping each other? Do I think music and performing creates an environment of learning language and communication as well as improving self-esteem. Would I encourage rhetoric and diminish early writing initiatives that force failure through unwarranted structured thinking. Would I hold writing back until the person is able to feel they can do most anything and their brain has fully grown after the age of eight? Would I have lots of schools where students chose what to learn and when? And at the end of some period of time would I make the challenge become how much they can achieve as a unit, group or school against another such unit? If I did want all these things and was seen as 'primitive' because this is the kind of thing the ancient Kelts did: what would I say to those who laughed.
I'd say these schools taught specific memory techniques rather than memorization of unimportant data. This created a skill rather than a mark on some test relating to some often propagandized history. With this skill the memory almost never was an issue and asinine regurgitation of trivia passing as knowledge seldom occurred in people's day to day lives. I'd say the creative urges to perform according to disciplined use of musical instruments, dance and song or other acting skills and craftwork made secure citizens who felt they could help and be useful in their societal group. How would they respond when I told them the clans taught a group responsibility that made it impossible for a child to work their blackmail of emotion on a loving parent, through extended families; and that this led to lawful and respectful behavior? How would they respond when I made it clear that worship was real and that people were encouraged to know the ever-increasing insights that the soul may offer.
How would they respond when I challenged them to find a more egalitarian and nurturing group of people who truly valued the inputs of women and knew they were biologically superior to men or were at least the equal? Yes, women have more endurance, don't faint when wounded, are better diplomats because they use their whole brain and don't get carried away on ego as much. Endurance was a key thing amongst warriors. The child-rearing was shared in a whole family unit and the woman was able to be the leader in all fields of endeavour rather than simply thrown into a one-dimensional role as care-giver or ornament.
Clearly they wouldn't be able to point to a more gifted group of scientists and teachers than the Druidic hierarchy produced. We are still learning or re-discovering what they knew. The 'Lost Chord' and harmonics or the healing techniques of shamans and dream-dancers, is worth our investigation. The wholistic appreciation for nature and all the majesty of love and beauty we have lost through the ministrations of macho models of greed and power, must be re-kindled. The creeds of the present power-oriented churches versus the Keltic Creed must be considered.
HOW AND WHEN DID WE GO WRONG?
There are many events in history to choose from but Sparta is my choice. It rose to become a real force in the Milesian/Phocaean alliance alongside its neighbor Lesbos. The sexual proclivities aside, one can see the desire to maximize the total productivity of the state didn't include making women sexual slaves or preventing them from having an education like Athens and what I consider the real classical Greek legacy. The Kelts were home in Northern Europe and women were safe there and Carthage had been established in 814 BC by the dynamic woman Dido, as a Tyrean outpost to watch over the trade routes to the Americas. Carthage was still democratic years later in Aristotle's time, although it had bowed to the inroads of aristocracy and male dominance by 350 BC. So here are the words of Michael Grant again, as he tells us about Sparta.
"The nucleus of the system, therefore, probably existed at Sparta since the earliest Dorian epoch {Hard to say what they interpret this to be. I would say 2,000 BC. in Greece and going back to pre-Ice Age Crete when trading settlements existed on Greece back to 13,000 BC and even before.}. However, the discipline was presumably tightened, and enforced on all Spartiates, during or after the emergencies of the Second Messenian War. For these crises imposed a heavy strain on the political and social structure, necessitating, for example, a repressive intelligence system, involving the notorious secret police, the 'krypteia'. This police network became an integral part of the 'agoge', since Helots may have outnumbered citizens by six to one - and were feared as potential rebels.
Every Spartan infant was examined shortly after birth by the 'elders of the tribesmen', who rejected weak or deformed babies and ordered them to be thrown over the cliff. By way of contrast to the emphasis on the family ('oikos') found at Athens and elsewhere, those who passed the infancy test at Sparta were taken away from their families at the age of seven or eight, and enrolled as members of a 'herd' (like herds of horses or cattle, requiring domestication) under the control of a senior Spartiate. At thirteen they passed into another series of herds, and for the next fourteen years (characterized by year-groups with curious archaic names) {Like our grade schools, the Spartans had become nationalized into militarists knowing a constant need to fight.} they worked their way through state-controlled, state-oriented training curricula of an increasingly brutalizing nature.
Sinister {A word reflecting prejudice against the soul and left-handed creative 'witches'.} details of these programmes are recorded. In no other city were boys so completely deprived of their homes and relatives. They were enrolled in a squad ('bua') - part of a troop ('ila') - commanded by and 'eiren', a youth serving as a prefect under a camp commandant ('Paidonomos'); and later, at the age of twenty, they themselves reached the status of 'eiren' {Is 'Eire' a Keltic spiritual place?}, devoting their days to military service but not yet in possession of full citizenship.{The Keltic ideal had become focused on lack of fear and ferocity of commitment, so much a part of the freedom loving Kelts, but the freedom was no more.} It was at this stage, perhaps, that they became eligible for one of the famous or notorious Spartan messes or dining-clubs ('Pheiditia', 'sussitia') - on which the entire social and military organization of the state came to depend. Each mess was about fifteen strong, and a single blackball was enough to postpone or veto election. For the wretched food that was provided (including a sort of haggis), each member was debited with a mess-bill, and failure to pay this - or, for that matter, to complete the training schedule - resulted in demotion from the Spartiate ranks to the status of Inferior, which involved a loss of political rights.
At the age of thirty they were admitted to the Assembly, but their lives continued to centre round the mess. These taciturn ('Laconic'), unquestioning and ruthless young men did no work, except training, athletics and fighting {Chivalric orders, anyone?}. They lived and fought with their mess-mates, and the grim, one-track, cohesive system, 'like an army camp', in which they were submerged {And some would say there had been no standing armies before Napoleon.} - aiming at the single end of the national interest and survival - made them, for a long time, far the best soldiers in Greece.
Inevitably, however, the system produced a special brand of homosexuality. As elsewhere, there was a recognized relationship between the lover ('erastes') and the younger loved one ('eromenos'). But in Sparta the role of the lover was almost official, for he was held accountable for the performance and behavior of his loved one (6) - a system which Xenophon described as 'the perfect form of education.’ (7) However, he rather surprisingly adds that any carnal relationship between the two was illegal. This was evidently the story spread from Sparta, (8) probably in an attempt to provide moral justification for the city's strange customs, but no such law is likely to have been respected in practice, though homosexual pairing among Spartans was not so exclusive as it became, for example, at Thebes.
Despite the prevailing homosexual ethos, a Spartan was expected to marry at about the age of twenty (late for Greece); bachelors were ridiculed, and suffered legal disabilities {Looks 'good' on MEN! Just kidding.}. But the barrack-room life of these citizens meant that their women were left a great deal to themselves, and in consequence enjoyed a freedom not experienced at other cities. They suffered, it is true, from vetoes on jewellery, cosmetics, scent and coloured clothes. The nature of the marriage ceremony, too, was startling. For the custom was for a Spartan bride to have her hair cut, and put on masculine clothes, {Even the Victorian puritanical Western tradition of recent times makes this seem oppressive and manipulative.} whereupon she was carried off by force and laid on a hard bed in a room where she was left alone. Then in came the bridegroom, who had sexual intercourse with her briefly, {Did they specify the position, or number of strokes? Was it meant to have babies?} before returning to the men's quarters. (9) Thereafter, the pair were only allowed to see each other in stealthy secrecy, often until the first child was born.
However, apart from such aberrations - indicative of a society more at home with all-male relationships - the Spartans treated their women unusually well, since with the state constantly at war their biological role as bearers of Sparta's all-important children was seen to deserve as much respect as that of the father. So they, like the men, were permitted and encouraged to undergo physical training {Vassar was still debating if the women should be allowed such exertions not so long ago.}--perhaps in the nude, or perhaps not - and they engaged also in musical activities, but were spared the domestic chores and weaving and woolwork customary elsewhere among the Greeks. Athenians considered this freedom shameless, and criticized the costume worn by these ladies, the 'peplos', with slit skirts which showed substantial portions of their thighs.
Spartan women also enjoyed unusually ample property rights, remained free for a long time to marry late and whom they liked, enjoyed exemption after marriage from the crippling laws restricting the rights of wives, managed their absent husbands' affairs, spoke up freely, and were believed to engage in husband-sharing and to take on other lovers as well (including young men, when their husbands were old, and Helots when their husbands were away fighting, according to the foundation-story of Taras). Such adultery is not unlikely, owing to the continuous and urgent need to maintain and increase the Spartan birthrate.� (10)
My interpretation may seem obvious already. We see a degradation of people and their freedom throughout all of Greece and since the time of Ariadne on Crete (1400BC.) there was little real potential for the kind of egalitarian ethic that allowed many places to go unfortified. In far earlier times on Malta, for example, the archaeological digs show a period of 2800 years without weapons. We can safely say the warrior macho creed somehow lost its balance and women became worse than mere chattel and baby-factories or temple prostitutes. They were allotted to the poor men as reward for supporting the egregious social order. The families were all a man could rule and there was little education for women even if they tried. That led to men being able to get by on less knowledge and character, the degradation continued and worsened and then the holders of any knowledge (little as it became) were the rulers. When women had once been the elite of spiritual practices and allowed full and equal participation in all facets of society things were better by far. Thus we can say the result we exist with today, indicates a successful war on women occurred.
Was Sparta or any of the thirteen other city-states of Miletus in Naucratis part of the Phoenician group that still favoured equality to some degree? Certainly they had more freedom for women and Lesbos was still ruled by women. Was the Trojan War a battle between theses forces? Did it begin earlier in the Hyksos era? Yes, and maybe to a lesser degree it began when the Old European Kelts went along with patristic Uighur changes to their culture, some of these changes may have made sense, at first. At some point the women were part of the aristocracy and willing to go along with the changes and enjoyed the increasing power and wealth, they kept the lineages and importance of the hereditary rights of Pharaonic or kingly position in Egypt and other colonies established by the earlier Hyperborean/Keltic/DNN or 'children, of the Don' (to take part of a title from another book I've done.). We are now able to pierce the veil of pre-'his'-story and look to the time before 2,000 BC with a view to seeing advanced cells of civilizations and what Isis and Osiris were all about. We will continue to find more and report it to you.
Mr. Grant is relatively aware, and willing to consider the oligarchy part in all of this more than most scholars. Yes, trade and power are the major bedfellows of sexual dysfunction in history of all people. The Miletus/Egyptian pro-equality forces made lots of concessions to other arguments in the period before Greece was permanently settled. The corruption of the Keltic Creed that placed primary emphasis on equality, freedom and 'brotherhood' was lost by the time Jesus was born. It became a lot worse after the Council of Carthage in 397 AD when women weren't even allowed to speak in the temples they once led or created.
Today Western women are living a far better life thanks to valiant and courageous women like Annie Besant and Margaret Sanger but I'd like to see a lot more recognition of the great heroes of the past like Dido, Boadicaea and Ariadne or Isis. Hypatia of Alexandria gave her life and limbs in one last dying effort to fight the Pauline scourge of women-haters who still rule the Catholic Church through groups like 'Opus Dei'. Tomorrow could see a return to ethics of domination and slavery through disproportionate rights given to abusive and unethical people. It has happened many times throughout history of late. Any man worth his human potential would not wish to see women (his equal and loving mother and sister) treated as LESS! All of us have a duty to help each other to become the best we can be, and make it possible for new participants to join the crusade for purpose and creative growth of soul and togetherness.

Robert the Bruce,

Thanks for the first posting and the hyperlink. I would like your permission to use your summary of rationality for my students. How do I acknowledge you.

It seems that sciences such as NDEs offer proof of the continuation of consciousness.

Regards,

Peter Bruce

Dear Peter

My name is Robert Bruce Baird. Many of my books (and excerpts therefrom) can be seen at World-Mystries.com where I am a guest writer/expert.

My recently published book Diverse Druids and all those books at World-<ysteries in e-book format and soon in CD compilation need lots of word of mouth and promotion. I think the posts in this thread indicate how important my purpose and quest to help build a new ethical approach to learning and helping each other truly is. I should love to have your comments on my work or a review on the on line retail sites and I am willing to freely answer any questions or be interviewed by anyone for any publication.

Thank you for any usage or spreading of the message of Brotherhood you may choose to offer.

OOPS!

That is World-Mysteries.com and you can see excerpts and reviews of the bok Diverse Druids at http://www.invispress.com/DRD.

This is as I see the thread, and the length of posts without conclusion. Sorry moderators ...
%49%66%20%74%68%61%74%20%69%73%20%6E%6F %20%63%68%61%6C%6C%65%6E%67%65%20%69%73%20%61%6C%6C %20%79%6F%75%72%20%65%67%6F%20%66%6C%61%74%74%65%72%69 %6E%67%20%61%6E%64%20%61%73%73%75%6D%70%74%69%6F%6E%20 %6F%66%20%69%6E%74%65%6C%6C%69%67%65%6E%63%65%20%74%72 %79%20%6E%6F%74%20%75%73%69%6E%67%20%74%68%65%20%6E%65 %74%20%61%6E%64%20%79%6F%75%72%20%62%72%61%69%6E%20%66 %6F%72%20%74%68%69%73%20%6F%6E%65%2E%20%D0%A0%D0%A0%52 %6F%62%65%72%74%20%74%68%65%20%42%72%75%63%65%2C%20%73 %61%64%6C%79%20%79%6F%75%20%75%73%65%20%61%20%77%6F%6E %64%65%72%66%75%6C%20%6E%61%6D%65%20%6F%66%20%61%20%64 %69%72%65%63%74%20%64%65%73%63%65%6E%64%61%6E%74%20%6F %66%20%6D%69%6E%65%20%61%73%20%49%20%61%6D%20%4D%75%72 %72%75%79%20%6F%66%20%41%74%68%6F%6C%2E%00

Robert do you believe "The Da Vinci Code" is true?

There are many truths in The Da Vinci Code. I have referenced research from top scholars to show the issues of the Priory and goddess worship religions. The Druids either left Roman domination or sold out like St Columba. Dan Brown is a mere lightweight in terms of understanding the intrigue of the Hibernians.