Gees

Phi for All; Please consider my following thoughts. I did not misread your post and actually had no problem with it. You were simply trying to inject some rational thought into a topic that is fraught with the irrational and illogical. But can a person inject logic into a topic by arguing? No. One has to actually make an argument, to break it down, put it in order, and discuss the details. We can not argue that the Bible is metaphorical or that it is literal, because it is both. So I tried to start the process of breaking it down, and being the fool that I obviously am, I thought I was helping by clarifying. My first three points offered a breakdown and ordering of the Bible. My fourth point was that it is a history book (This is why all of the "begat"s are in the front. It is a Jewish history.) and history books are notorious for playing with the facts of history. My next point was that it should not be in the Philosophy forum, and we have already established that the moderators do not recognize what is and what is not philosophy. If philosophy had a speculations forum, that is where this thread should go. Then I offered a well known book that researched the life of Jesus, and has an opposing view of the events depicted in the New Testament. Are you trying to protect him? Strange is a big boy, and I am not all that dangerous. Actually, I think that Strange is very intelligent and has good comprehension. If you catch him on a subject he knows, usually science, he is very much worth listening to. He just has no respect for philosophy. I have never seen him have a philosophical position, or write a philosophical argument, although he likes to argue. He has one universal philosophic position, which is, "I am right; you are wrong, and I am going to prove it." Actually, he has one more philosophic position, which is, "Science is right; you are wrong." whether or not science actually has a position on that topic is irrelevant. People who have this "philosophy" style tend to look for something to dispute, so they are not really reading for understanding; and consequently, they miss things. This style of arguing lends itself to scanning and skip reading; a lot of people in forums use this style. Now I could be wrong. It is possible that Strange has memory problems, or is devious, deceitful, and intentionally misreads or misinterprets the posts, but I very seriously doubt this. Please note that I did not challenge Strange; he challenged me. He stated that my ordering of Books in the Bible was irrelevant, that the Bible was not called metaphorical in this thread, that the Bible is not a history book, and that Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which he did not read, is fiction. He presented no evidence, presented his statements as facts, and corroborated this with only his opinion. Is that the way science does it? No evidence, just opinion? I don't think so. Well it is personal, because I love philosophy, and resent when irrational illogical rubbish is presented as philosophy. How well is it taken when irrational illogical rubbish is presented as science? But after a while, I found the humor in it. A thread where people agree the subject matter is metaphorical, then argue about the reality of it is not philosophy; but it would make a wonderful skit for The Three Stooges. Gee

Strange; Please consider: It is relevant to my logical little mind. I like to put things in order. The Bible is a book of books by many different authors, who employ different styles of writing. It is divided into the Old and New Testaments. The OP's thoughts seem to be relevant to only the New Testament, yet the OP calls the entire Bible metaphorical. It would be like stating that a library has story books and forgetting that it has a great deal more. The three following quotes from this thread would seem to disagree with you. You might want to consider that reading a thread and thinking about it gives more information and understanding than just scanning a thread. What do you think a history book actually is, Strange? So you like movies? Try Hollywood or Disney. There is not much of that in philosophy. Did you actually read the book? Scan it? Or did you get your information from another source? Don't worry about it. Leave the sorting out to the philosophers. That is what we do -- what is real, what is not real, and why. You have heard of the logical fallacy "non-sequitur"? Well, this is the opposite: sequitur. When people marry, progeny often follow that event. The Bible does not state that Jesus was married and it does not state that Jesus was unmarried -- it is mute on that point -- but it was also unusual for a man to reach the age of 33, be a leader, be of a noble house, and also be unmarried. One would think that this unusual circumstance would be explained, but it was not. Mary Magdalene traveled with Jesus throughout his teaching, traveled with the wives, family, and friends of His followers -- traveled with his Mother for crying out loud -- and this was accepted. The Church told us for centuries that this woman was a prostitute, with loose morals, who sold her body for money, and yet it appears that all of the good women in Jesus's company accepted her in a time when prostitutes were commonly stoned. Bullshit. It had to have been a man, who made up that story. So the questions become, "Why was the prostitution story made up in the first place?", "Why did they even mention her?" Because they had to. She is mentioned in the Gospels and has been called Jesus's first disciple. There are also verses that imply that the other disciples were jealous of the time Jesus spent with her. So she was close to him . . . in what way? If she was not a prostitute, and it is now agreed that she was not, was she an unmarried female friend keeping company with an unmarried male, or was she his wife? If she were his wife, she could have born him legitimate children. He was a criminal; he was the head of a new church; he was potentially a King of the Jews, or at least a rabble rouser, in a time when the Jews were dominated; so his progeny would have been in danger from a variety of sources. It would have been much better for everyone involved if he were not married. The Church decreed that he was not married and wrote off the potential wife as a prostitute. Problem solved. imo Gee

iNow; Please consider: If you are making other people's lives better, is the underlying reason also irrelevant? Are the ideas of accomplishment, success, pride, self-worth, integrity, and striving for goals also meaningless red herrings? If bacteria causes bad behavior, then it is also responsible for good behavior. It can not be one way and not the other way, so what you are saying is that we do not deserve credit for our accomplishments -- something that few people would accept. So rights and responsibilities are both illusions? We can take the medals from our war heroes and give them instead to their bacteria, and remove the bad bacteria from people instead of jailing them. Logic dictates that we acknowledge the good and the bad of behavior with equal understanding, just as it dictates that rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin. I can not accept your explanation because there is no logic in it. Gee

So . . . a few hundred years ago, when religion ruled, the sentence: "The Devil made me do it." was believed as being quite possibly true. Now that science rules, it seems that "Bacteria made me do it." is the new cause of misbehavior. Either way, it is not my fault. (chuckle chuckle) Gee

Agreed. If we make the decision consciously, or if we make the decision unconsciously, we are still making the decision. The question is: Which is the 'self'? Is it our unconscious mind or our conscious mind, or is it both? Many people think that their 'self' is the conscious mind. I am not so sure about that. Gee

I have never seen so many false statements and mixed topics in one thread -- before viewing this one. To even put the word "logic" in the title is an insult to the whole concept of logic. Please consider: 1. The Bible is a book of books with assorted authors written over a vast period of time. 2. The Bible is divided into the Old Testament and the New Testament. 3. To state that everything in the Bible is "metaphorical" is absolute nonsense. 4. The Bible is a history book, and as with all history books it was written to promote the authors' history. History books are notorious for having a selective perspective and rarely give the whole truth about anything. 5. Whether or not Jesus lived in that time and whether or not Jesus performed miracles is up for debate, but this should really be discussed in the Religion forum and has nothing to do with Einstein or physics. It has been a long time, but the only reference to actual research on Jesus (aside from religious studies) that I know of was in the book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" written in the 70's -- I think it was the 70's. This work started out as a BBC documentary that just kept being extended until it finally turned into a book. Although the church denied many of the findings in the book, they could not dispute or disprove any of the research. Years after "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" was written, another author took some of the information from that book and wrote The Da Vinci Code which made a fortune. Of course, the original authors were pretty hot about that because they did not make much money off of their book, but the new book was more fun and written as a story. "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" is really pretty dry. Nonetheless, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" was very informative. I learned that Mary Magdalene was pronounced a whore or prostitute about 500 years after she died -- by the church -- when it appears that she was actually a sort of noblewoman of good family that would have made a suitable wife for someone like Jesus. (It was around this time that the church admitted that Mary was probably not a "prostitute", but denied that she could have been Jesus's wife.) Of course, Jesus could not have had a wife, because then there would be a question of children. It is also interesting to note that most, or all, of the "testimonies" written by the Apostles were written 100 or so years after Jesus's death. Either the Apostles lived very long lives, or these books were written second or third hand. There were also explanations and information regarding some of the 'miracles' and a serious question of the Crucifixion, but it has been a while since I read it, so I can not specify more. If anyone wishes to argue this matter, it is as reasonable a reference as you are likely to find, and I recommend it. Gee

Andrewcellini; It is very possible that I am missing something here, but I do not see 'logic' as the other posters do, and do not see it as a 'branch' of anything. So please consider my following thoughts. ALL of philosophy works through logic and reason. Science and math are branches of philosophy that use logic and reason. So I see logic as more of a foundation than of a branch, and think it would be more correct to call it a methodology or tool for learning. Consider that science does not call the 'scientific method' a 'branch' of science -- as it is more the foundation of science. So why is mathematical logic different? Because it is a purer logic. Many people have come to the conclusion that mathematical logic is better because it is purer, but that is just arrogant swill. Mathematical logic is purer because there are parameters around math that limit what can be considered. No one will ever have to solve: 2 + pink unicorns = fairy dusters forever. Science tries to limit its studies to the objective and what works with testing or in observation. Math limits its studies to numbers and rules regarding numbers. Philosophy has no such luck and studies ALL thought, objective and subjective, so it is by far the most difficult study. Philosophy can not set parameters around thought because thought is unlimited; the only way to stop thought is to stop experience, which would be a little disconcerting for us. So philosophy attempts to break up thought into categories and branches, but it is still a difficult study and still requires reason to work along with logic. Consider what logic actually is; it is the ordering of our thoughts. We try to put our thoughts into an order that will help us to find truth and knowledge. And Cladking is correct; we did not invent logic or order, we observed it in nature, recognized the value of it, and then incorporated it into our thinking. I define something as 'real' if it can cause an effect; logic in and of itself does not cause an effect. Logic has an effect only in conjunction with something else -- even if that something else is only thought. I think that I agree with Swansont; it is the floor wax and the dessert -- when applied correctly. Gee

Seriously Disabled; It is very difficult to get a conclusive answer regarding all of nature, no matter the source, but I think that philosophy may have the best answer to your question. In studies of nature, many different things have been learned, but through all of this knowledge there is one consistency, and that consistency is balance. Science confirms this and can show the balance in matter, whether it be an atom or a solar system. We know that life is self balancing whether we are talking about an ecosystem or a body, and we know that there must be a balance in governments, societies, and economies in order for them to maintain themselves. There is also balance in the mental; the rational conscious mind works off of logic, which is a form of math, and the unconscious mind possesses an innate understanding of more and less, and of self and other. The "more and less" is obviously about math and the "self and other" can be looked at as being similar to a simple binary code, like the "1" and "0" used in computer coding. So it seems that balance is everywhere. Can balance exist without math? Without some kind of measure? Without some kind of "equal"? I don't see how. So I think that math is something that we discovered, not something that we created. Gee

Petrushka; Please consider the following: Yes. I do believe that what causes these changes are a change in the mood of the public psyche. Often it is disillusionment that causes a people to reach out for a theocratic government. Just as an individual will reach out for spiritual advice after being hurt or disillusioned, so can a public. On the other hand, either complacency or a desire to end the theocracy can cause a people to quest for an agnostic government. Conquest can also play a roll in these changes. I am not sure about secular governments and sometimes wonder if we are fooling ourselves into believing that the government is really secular. Gee Swansont; Please consider the following; On the other hand, what is a nation? Can a nation exist without people? Can a government exist without people? No, but people can exist without a nation or a government. Nations and governments are derived from people, so "people" is the core concept. Philosophy looks for truth and truth begins at the core, so this thread is about the people or public that groups and forms governments and nations. You have never heard anyone talk about the mood of the nation? You have never read surveys that solicit this information from the general public? What do you think would happen to a Senator who wrote and passed a Bill that did not reflect the "thought processes" that "permeate" his constituents? Would he stay in office? Not for very long. Gee

Prometheus; Please consider my following thoughts. All that you say is true, so it would seem that there is no point to this thread -- unless the point is to "smudge" the two ideas together. Science sees us as physical beings; religion sees us as spiritual beings. The facts are that we are physical, mental, and spiritual beings -- so it appears that nature is already "smudging". Actually, nature has been doing this "smudging" since the beginning, so maybe it is time to consider where and how science and religion intersect. This is an unknown; and so, under the venue of philosophy and a very appropriate topic in this forum. I study consciousness and am absolutely convinced that the physical and the spiritual intersect, but I don't know how this is accomplished. So I do not see Petrushka as being confused; I see him as a forerunner of the people who will actually think about these connections and interactions between science and religion, so we can better understand the "smudging". I much prefer this thinking to the thinking of people who are more interested in jealously guarding ideas of science or religion. Gee Strange; Please consider: If, as you state in your first post, that "sacred" doesn't really mean anything, then what would be the point of getting a dictionary? If you disagree with my statement that "sacred" can only be about an idea, and that a thing can not be sacred, then please do tell me what thing is sacred. Before responding, please get your dictionary out and look up "interpretation" and "perspective", because I will not accept that any "thing" can be sacred unless it is sacred in and of itself without interpretation or perspective. Gee

Phi for All; Please consider my following thoughts: If I were looking for a religious interpretation, I would probably agree with you -- but I am not religious. Except when drinking my coffee -- now that is something that I do religiously. (chuckle) To me, a physical thing can not be sacred. Only an idea can be sacred, so I see the word sacred as in conjunction with trust, as in the President's Oath of Office, which is a sacred trust, or in a Guardian's fiduciary responsibility to a minor or to a handicapped person, which is also a sacred trust. I probably view the Guardian's responsibility so strongly because of my work in law. So to me, a sacred trust should never be "easily broken", should always be scrutinized, and absolutely never be "above criticism". If a sacred trust is broken, a Judge can remove a Guardian and a President can be impeached. So we see the word "sacred" very differently, which is why I called it a sort of litmus test. One can consider the word rationally with thought, religiously with faith, or superstitiously with fear. Gee

Imatfaal; Although I can understand your need to respond to my post, your following response is much too lengthy and off topic. I am not a moderator, so I can not move or split a thread; on the other hand, I can not allow such poor logic to go unchallenged. So if you would consider moving your post, I will be happy to respond to it. It would fit nicely into the thread, "What do you think philosophy is?" or maybe "What is philosophy to you?" (not sure of the name) which was started by Swansont and is on the top of the second page in the General Philosophy forum. Thank you for your consideration. Gee Petrushka; Please consider: As I stated before, I have serious doubts about the feasibility of telepathy. The problem is that telepathy is generally considered to be a power, something that we can control. This means that it would be accomplished with the conscious rational aspect of mind, or that we would do it intentionally in the same way that we direct our speech or ideas or our bodies. There is no indication, that I know of, that implies this can be accomplished, and there is no avenue or path to follow that would secure this connection. So does this mean that there is no such thing as internal synergy? No. Because the unconscious aspect of mind is reactive rather than self-directed, it works mostly through emotion. It mentally connects people through bonds forged in trauma, or familial bonds, or even temporary bonds forged in the mob/riot mentality. In the last 60 years or so, we have learned that pheromones, whether to find a mate, or to follow a trail to food, can connect us mentally. Pheromones work through an emotional need or drive and cause us to have common thoughts related to that need or drive. But all of these connections work through emotion and the unconscious aspect of mind. Bonds are forged with emotion. What you would call internal synergy, I would call recognition of a kindred spirit, which is also based in emotion. We recognize a person with similar experiences as a mental reflection or continuation of our selves. So internal synergy, or an internal connection, does exist and we have evidence of it -- we just don't have much conscious control over it. Jung introduced the term "collective conscious" and explained that species have a collective consciousness that exists, but is part of the unconscious aspect of mind, which means that it controls us more than we control it. This is where the feeling of internal synergy comes from, the unconscious. This collective consciousness of Jung's is now referred to as an "objective psyche". There are some people, who referring to monks that have learned to control the conscious and unconscious aspects of mind, believe these monks can control telepathy. But this is where Swansont's post comes in, which is why I put a + on it. Swansont noted that the conscious mind communicates with words, or at least pictures, so even if a monk could work out how to break down the barriers between the conscious mind and the objective psyche, that does not enable them to also break down these barriers in a receiver's mind. Since only the unconscious is capable of accessing the objective psyche, the sender and the receiver of telepathy would both have to be able to access the objective psyche and be able to sort through the unconscious objective psyche. In theory this may at some future time be plausible, but at present it is not. Gee

Strange; I don't think so. If "sacred" had no meaning, then it would not work so well as a litmus, or ink blot type of test. After reading this topic, I am pretty sure that the word "sacred" has a lot of meaning to a lot of people, as some people go immediately to religion in their thinking after reading this word. Others seem to become confused and mix up their ideas and topics, or they go straight to crazy speculations as in the comments below. Oaths and vows are held to be sacred, and I don't think that it matters whether or not wedding vows are spoken in a church or at the Justice of the Peace. Sacred things are simply valued above the ordinary, such as a sacred trust, which is part of a Fiduciary responsibility, or the sacred relationship between a mother and child. Is this thread about the definition of the word "sacred" or about religion, or is there possibly some other point? Gee

Members; Please consider: Because this is a philosophy forum, and philosophy studies the unknown, this is a valid question in philosophy. Personally, I do not agree that telepathy is doable and can make some pretty good arguments against it, but that is no reason to inhibit a person's ability to question. For the above reasons, I put a + on that post in an attempt to neutralize the negative admonishment for simply asking a question. Asking questions is how we learn and is at the heart of philosophy. It is interesting that you brought up the concept of "ethical" ideas. Is it ethical to limit a person's ability to question? Wouldn't that be the same as limiting a person's ability to gain knowledge? Or are we just limiting questions to the 'right' questions, which would limit the answers to the 'right' answers. It is a very short slide from limiting questions to burning books. imo Gee

Strange; We were having a fairly productive discussion until about half way down the page. You brought up some interesting points that I wanted to discuss, and I had some thoughts that I wanted to share and get your opinion on. But that all changed when the "click-it squad" joined the thread. Now there are too many off-point responses and straw man arguments for me to address. I am still very slow at writing responses, so I will never be able to explain my position or reasoning faster than people will be able to pick it apart. It is no longer a discussion, it is just picking. Since you are the only member in this thread that even has a clue as to my points, and you refuse to read one of the links, I do not believe that I can learn anything here. Thank you for your time. Gee

John Cuthber; Please consider my following thoughts: This is NOT about religion. I do not give two hoots about the author or "God" ideas, and am simply considering the history. If you can read Chapter 15 in the link that I provided from Leviticus and still believe that this is not about food hygiene, then you are not paying attention. Either that, or you can not get the "religious" ideas out of your head long enough to simply look at the facts. The question is, "What criteria was used to distinguish 'in group' from 'out group', and why?" That is an invalid assumption. If your assumption were true, then Americans would also be extinct. I remember when my Grandmother was teaching me to cook; she always stated that pork must be cooked through and never served rare. Of course, she learned to cook before we were putting all kinds of antibiotics into our food animals. But it is interesting to note that the WHO also states that cooking the meats thoroughly can mitigate the transference of viruses and recommends thorough cooking of meats like primates and bats. It is also interesting to note that chicken now comes with a warning label to cook it to an internal temperature of 170 degrees. I had never heard of that 30 or so years ago, so this is a new problem or a new solution to a problem. Maybe the Chinese also have Grandmothers, and maybe the Chinese can also learn to cook their food properly. Also consider that China is a long way from the Mediterranean and is locked by mountains and ocean in many directions, so it has its own unique ecosystem. You may want to read the Smallpox link that I put in my post to Swansont. In that link you will find that India was immunizing against smallpox in 1,000 BC -- that would be 3,000 years ago. What is silly is the assumption that because people had no science, they also had no brains. Gee

Swansont; I am going to answer your post first, so please consider the following: I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Regarding the "common cold", consider that we have been chipping away at it for years. There was a time when having a cough could mean the common cold, flu, allergies, TB, black lung, or even lung cancer, so I don't think that anyone can say that we are not working on it. If the common cold were more deadly, then I suspect that we would be working even harder. Actually, everyone seemed to for a while there. I am surprised that you have not heard it. I think that I first read it on my Homepage site in the Scientific American, but read it in other news articles also. Since I don't trust the magazine, Scientific American, because I have read too much in it that is more speculation than science, I went to the WHO (World Health Organization) site and also found that explanation there. So I thought it might be a real theory. Later I read an article that hypothesized that there was a tree in the area where the bats lived that may have been the source of the virus. Didn't trust this either, so I went back to the WHO site to confirm it. At that point, I could not find anything in the WHO site that verified either explanation. The WHO site is constantly being updated, so I suspect that either both ideas were thrown out, or I simply could not find the explanation. The only confirmation that I found, this last time, was that the virus is carried by the bats and has infected primates and humans. There was also information that some small animals had been infected, but nothing that indicated widespread infection in any other specie -- and there was nothing, at that site, on the rumor that fish had been infected. I did find confirmation that ingesting other species is how the virus transfers specie to specie. It was this idea that caused me to consider that primates and bats both eat fruit, and a shortage of food could cause food fights, which is what led me to considering droughts. No. In the original discussion, the core idea was about nature's ability to self balance. We know that nature does this because we study ecosystems. We also know that a lot of this self balancing is controlled through pheromones, bacteria, micro-organisms, and maybe viruses. This thread considers that disease may be one of the ways that an ecosystem balances, and that disease can be caused by ingesting it through various foods. This thread also considers the possibility that mass movement of species could possibly cause a local disease to become a pandemic disease. It also considers the possibility that this is not new information and has been known for thousands of years. I am not sure that "rapid" movement is necessary. Consider the history (8) of smallpox in the following link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox Gee

Pzkpfw; Please consider my following thoughts. I take your point. On the other hand, Strange says that this is not a new virus and has been around for thousands of years, and you say that picking up food off the ground is a common occurrence. If these things are true, and this is how the virus is transferred, then Ebola should be a common problem. If Ebola was a common problem in that area, then the people there should have long ago recognized the problem and maybe figured out how to stop it, just like the writer of Leviticus figured it out. Right? Things just don't add up here. But, if we incorporate the droughts into our thinking and consider mass movement by many species, a squeezing effect, and food fights caused by food shortages, then they might add up. Gee Strange; Please consider: You mean like eating fruit bats? In case you didn't notice, your argument is not flying. This argument is not flying either. If you had read the link, you would know that they were not only required to wash their hands, but were also required to change their clothes, and required to wash their utensils, bowls, and everything that the blood or body fluid of the "unclean" meat touched. And a bucket with a rag would not do, as they were required to wash things in a large volume of water. These rules were not "broad", they were damned specific. Consider the following comment that a member of another forum, Forest Dump, made regarding this same issue in one of my threads: "Edward Jenner invented the smallpox vaccine around 1790 by noting that people who got cowpox were more likely to survive smallpox. So he injected a kid with cowpox and then smallpox and when the kid survived, he was a hero although many still strongly protested compulsory vaccinations (and still do). 'Germ theory' came much later in the late 19th century after the increased use of the microscope. Joseph Lister started washing his surgery instruments in carbolic acid as well as the rooms and wounds but still didn't wash his hands or change his clothes. Edward Koch, again very late in the 19th century, did more experimental work such as growing TB cultures in Petri dishes and doing a statistical analysis." So your argument that knowing about germs would make them act more hygienic is invalid, since they were more fastidious than the scientists, who did know about germs, in the 19th century. The argument about cooking food properly is not much better. Remember, these people did not run down to the local grocer to pick up packaged meat. They had to kill, bleed, skin, and process the meat, so germs and viruses could transfer well before cooking it. Also, I am not sure that they knew how to read a meat thermometer -- internal temperature of 170 degrees is recommended. So their only options were to wash everything carefully and to avoid meats that could facilitate a transfer of illness. What I am looking for are the diseases that are contagious after the original person is infected and can cause an epidemic. Which of the above do that? By not reading Leviticus? Mostly you have missed the right to speak intelligently on the subject. I found the link, scanned/read the whole damned book, actually two of them, noted the chapters that applied to this thread, and stated in this thread which chapters were relevant and why, so it would be easier for you. I can't make you read it. The first six Books of the Bible are not relevant to "where the rest of the stories" came from. These are the books that were purportedly handed down by Moses, who was purportedly from Egypt. The rest of the Old Testament is a history of the Jewish people written by various authors. The Books of Law are some of the ones handed down by Moses, and are the only Books in the Bible that I study. It is interesting that you mentioned plants. Many plants are poisonous, so one would think that they would be in the Books of Law, but I don't remember much mention of plants. Another oddity. Thank you for the link. I learned a lot about the flu and epidemics. So it seems that we are in agreement that the mass movement of people/species can turn a small problem into an epidemic. Since the Jewish people were a nomadic people, it is possible that they would be interested in this information and wary of the results that mass movement could present. I noted in your link that there was bird flu, canine flu, equine flu, and swine flu, but is there a flu or pandemic disease connected to animals that "have a cloven hoof and chew the cud" or fish that "have fins and scales"? It may be worth noting that these are species that can be eaten rare or even raw. Also are there any pandemic diseases that are associated with plants, where the disease becomes contagious between people after infection occurs? Thank you again for the links. I await your response. Gee

Strange; Thanks for that confirmation. I did not really think that it was a new virus, but was not sure. Science people are really cool when it comes to getting information. Of course, this information also supports my ideas. So mass transit has a down side? Well I tried. I was trying to give the impression that many species are now 'living in the pockets' of other species. I think that the causes are deforestation, desertification, over population by humans, and then the recent droughts had some serious effects. The droughts of 1968 to 1974 and then the 2010 and 2012 droughts all caused death and mass movement by humans. It seems likely that these droughts also caused movement of other species, and these droughts came a few years before each of the known outbreaks of Ebola. So I think that these droughts, when considered with all of the other factors, caused a "squeezing" of species. You did not read Chapters 11 or 15, did you. Don't worry, Strange, reading a few chapters in the Bible will not make you "see the light" or "get religion". It is perfectly safe. It did not cause me to go religious, so you will be OK if you read them. Where is it that you think the rules originated? Gee

Members; Ebola, Dinosaurs, and Deuteronomy -- is there a connection? Maybe only in my mind, but there seems to be some coincidence that may warrant further scrutiny, so please consider my following thoughts. Like most people, I followed the news articles about Ebola -- a frighteningly efficient killing disease. From what I understand, the virus that causes the disease, Ebola, is naturally carried by fruit bats, but does not infect them or turn into disease until ingested by another specie. It is thought that half-eaten food was dropped by fruit bats, then monkeys and apes picked it up, ate it, and became infected. Humans were then infected by eating the bats, monkeys, and/or apes. When I first read this explanation, I thought to myself, Are bats getting careless with their food? Why is this happening now, why not all along? Or is this truly a new virus? Why would the monkeys want the old half-eaten fruit on the ground when there is fresh fruit in the trees? Monkeys and apes are not generally considered to be scavengers, are they? On the other hand, when there is a shortage of food, most species can become scavengers. Was there a food shortage? Maybe. Between encroaching civilization, deforestation, and the droughts that have plagued the area, the different species are being squeezed into sharing smaller living spaces. It seems feasible that a monkey or ape would be sitting in a tree protecting its hoard of food while a group of bats start buzzing around, so in defense, the monkey/ape might grab a bat and bite it -- not to eat it -- but in defense of the food supply. To me, this seems like a much more likely scenario and would infect the monkey/ape immediately. But no matter which scenario is more accurate, it seems that a food shortage and the sharing of a smaller space may be behind this transference of the virus and the ensuing disease. We have long known that famine seems to trigger disease, and that disease can come from many sources. What I have been wondering is if disease is another way that nature self-balances. Is it possible that there are mechanisms built into different species that can be triggered by a food shortage and a fight for food? Is this one of the ways that nature uses viruses? If this is so, then it would have to attack the larger specie, because the larger specie would consume more food. When cataclysmic events or overpopulation causes a shortage of food, the specie that consumes the most food would have to be neutralized or diminished in order to re-balance the system in nature. Disease could do this. Of course, if this were true, it would have happened before. Did it? Maybe. Since we have only had science for the last few hundred years, it would be difficult to know for sure, but there have been theories. I am reminded of the extinction of the dinosaurs and the theory that disease played a part in that drama. No one disputes the cataclysmic events that preceded the extinction of the dinosaurs, but because of the way that they died and the time frame involved, there is a theory that disease played a part. The events that preceded their demise were world wide and would have seriously diminished the food supply -- this is not disputed. If this diminished food supply caused a change in behavior and eating habits, which is likely, then it could have also triggered the transference of viruses not unlike the Ebola virus. If this happened, then we might find that many dinosaurs died together en mass, which we found, and is what prompted the theory in the first place. It would also be likely that the larger species would die if this was a re-balancing of nature, which is also what happened. Because this event was world wide and long lasting, it would cause the extinction of most of the dinosaurs -- or at least the large dinosaurs -- which is what happened. I could not find the original theory that I read years ago because I am too dumb to remember the author's name, but the following link is close and considers disease, so it may be helpful. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080103090702.htm But there is a lot of time between the extinction of the dinosaurs and now, so is there evidence of this idea in that time? Well, a lot of civilizations came and went, but there was no science for most of that time, so the few records that we have come to us from religion. Most religions seem to have ideas of foods that we should not eat for various reasons. Since there is no evidence of "God", space aliens, or time travelers, I have to assume that these reasons are based on experience and observations. If eating some things seemed to trigger bad things happening, or disease, then it would be important to remember and keep that information. The food restrictions would have accumulated over thousands of years, in good times and bad, during feast and famine, then passed down from each generation in the same way that our parents teach us about poison ivy. It must have been thought to be rather important to be incorporated into our religions and remembered. Maybe life threatening? Deuteronomy and Leviticus, the Books of Laws, in the Bible have fascinated me for many years. Once you get past the religious terminology, there is a tremendous amount of information that still has value today. I first read these Books decades ago and was fascinated by the laws that seemed to deal with hygiene in a time when germs were virtually unknown. The Middle Ages would have been much more pleasant if someone would have opened that book. Years later, after studying law, I again read Deuteronomy and was surprised to discover that our Common law, moral law, is deeply rooted in Deuteronomy. But I have never understood the laws regarding food and why certain species are acceptable to eat. Considering that the laws regarding hygiene and social regulation, are so very valid, it seems unlikely that the laws regarding which species we are allowed to eat, were selected willy-nilly. There was a reason, or maybe reasons, why we are not supposed to use certain species as food. Deuteronomy clearly states that we are not to eat species with a "padded" foot, and that we must limit our diet to animals that have a "cloven hoof and chew the cud". We are also required to limit our seafood diet to those that have "fins and scales". So monkeys, apes, and fruit bats are all out. One of the first ideas that struck me was that the more intelligent species were not to be used as food, along with scavengers. Most religious diets exclude scavengers, so this was not unusual. The more intelligent species, the ones that are likely to be self-aware, were out, which led me to ideas about consciousness. Predators seemed to be out, whereas what are considered prey animals were OK. Most, if not all, of the allowable food species are swarming, flocking, herding, or schooling species, but some of these are excluded like honey bees and bats. What I found most interesting is that the "cloven hoof and chew the cud", and the "fins and scales" requirements look very much like DNA type classifications. Is it important to eat species that are less like us? Or species that do not have the same food requirements that we do? We did not have science thousands of years ago, so these restrictions are the people's "best guesses", but it remains true that if the food restrictions in Deuteronomy were followed, Ebola would not have happened. And if it did happen by some freak circumstance, the only preventative to its spread, at that time, would have been the careful handling of body fluids and hygiene, as dictated in Leviticus. These are facts. This implies that they had some experience with dangerous diseases. Although Deuteronomy has the food restrictions listed, Leviticus has the food restrictions and the hygiene restrictions. Most of the relevant information can be found in Chapter 11. Chapter 12 deals with a woman's blood issues after birth, Chapters 13 and 14 deal with diagnosing diseases like leprosy, then Chapter 15 deals with more ritual cleaning or purifying. So this is all about health, and it is interesting to note that a person was required to wash after touching "unclean" meat, but was also required to change their clothing and also required to wash or dispose of anything that the "unclean" meat or blood touched. These are the same procedures that we would use today to prevent disease, except that we now have better equipment and cleaners. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(King_James)/Leviticus As the world becomes smaller and humanity fills in more spaces, there will be food shortages for us and for other species, so will there be more of these diseases triggered? It seems possible. Please offer your opinions of the above. Gee

S1eep; Wow. Thank you for sharing that experience. Schizophrenia runs in my family, so there are people that I know and love, who deal with this disorder. It is so difficult to understand them, probably because when they start talking, I have a tendency to flinch at some of the things that they say, so they quit talking. But there was a great deal in your post that I recognized from the few conversations that I have had; the symbolism, the idea that different body parts had abilities that don't make sense, the basic geometric shapes, the feeling of empowerment, the feeling of being connected to others and famous people, and the need to fight evil are just some of the ideas that I recognized. You have offered a tremendous insight into the mind of schizophrenia. There was a movie that Russell Crowe starred in, A Beautiful Mind, which was about schizophrenia, but that movie was clearly whitewashed to make it more palatable to the general public. Although it had some basic insights into this disorder, it skimmed the surface. One of the things that it did address is the idea that most schizophrenics have a much higher intelligence than the average in the population. So it is also true that many families that share a higher IQ than average, have a tendency to have some schizophrenics in the family tree. I don't think anyone knows why this is so, but there does seem to be some correlation between high IQ and schizophrenia. You seem to be doing reasonably well, and I am happy for you, but here in Michigan, most people with schizophrenia are not treated properly because of our policies and laws. Our prior governor, Governor Granholm, was a better prosecutor than a governor, but she did get one thing right; she stated that the way we treat our mentally handicapped in Michigan is criminal. She is correct. I would like to print out your post and distribute it to a few family members and friends, so that they can have a better insight into this disorder. Would that be acceptable to you? Again, thank you for sharing. Gee

Strange; Please note the underlined homogeneous identifiers in your quote. No. No. No. You are thinking like this is science. It would be absurd to "think that all Americans would make the same choice" -- we are people, not sheep. When I stated that my choices would seem to support the OP, I was talking about the criteria I would use to make the decision -- not the decision itself. You are looking at this idea backward. This is why I don't open threads in this forum, because people here do not have a clue as to how to do philosophy or find truth. People seem to think that if they can find an exception or irregularity in the "theory", then they have proven it false. Bullshit. If we followed that line of thinking then it would be false that water puts out fire. Since barn fires start because the hay is moist, then water is required to start a fire, so it does not stop a fire. This is how one makes nonsense. Short Lesson In Philosophy What is it that causes the formation of nations? Well, we can probably come up with about a hundred different answers to that question and give examples for each of them. Then we can argue it until the end of time and find no resolution at all, while wasting our time and energy and ticking off a lot of people. OR We can look for a truth that relates to nations, because philosophy looks for truth. So what is the common truth? If we delete all of the people from one nation, will the nation still exist? No. The land will still exist, and the declarations and evidence of that nation will still exist, but the nation will not exist. Ergo, people make up a nation. If we knew that the Earth was going to explode, so we took 10 people from each of 5 different nations and put them on a spaceship bound for a new planet, would the 50 people still have nationalities? Yes. After Earth blew up and all the nations came to an end, would the 50 people retain their nationalities? Yes. After they arrived on their new planet, would the 50 people produce families and then tell their children and grandchildren about Earth and their heritage? Yes. They would promote their history and culture, which after many generations would blend with other cultures, but also keep a distinction which would eventually lead to the grouping of peoples. We know this is true and people do this, because we have watched it happen over and over. So the common truth in this thread is that people group under a common identity and call it a nation. This identify is part of each of the individual persons. The questions are what causes this grouping? What gives us identify? Anything else is irrelevant. Swansont; I have reviewed this thread and do not agree. I would think that it is all three. The development of a nation and national identity is fluid and takes time to mature, so it goes through stages and processes. Gee

Strange; Read the OP again. You will find that the only thing that it states that causes the forming of nations is "ideas". Then he states that these ideas are formed around a commonality, which he calls homogeneous. Then he states that "some or all" of the listed examples "contribute" to this commonality -- language, race, religion, or political philosophy -- not and . Nowhere does he state that these things cause the forming of nations; only that they contribute to it, and nowhere does it state that they have to be enmass. He was very careful with his word usage, like any good philosopher. What I think he is looking for is why people group and how they determine who to group with. Gee Swansont; Agreed. But does that mean that they will always be alike? Does it assume a permanent likeness? We are talking about ideas here and people, so it would be a great assumption to assume any permanence. Every person's perspective is uniquely theirs, so there is no real likeness in their thinking, and change is always relevant. On the other hand, we do tend to group around ideas, and sometimes these ideas are lifelong beliefs. If you don't like the word, homogeneity, then suggest another word that would qualify while considering the above. He did ask for opinions. It is also homogeneous. Yes. And the fact that we are xenophobic would seem to support the OP's ideas about race and ethnicity. America has been called the great "melting pot" and it is in many ways, but as the Japanese Americans learned after Pearl Harbor, it is not a complete "melting" away of all ethnicity. I am American, born and raised; this is where my home and my heart is; but if America were lost and the Stars and Stripes came down for the last time, where would I go? Probably Canada or Ireland, because that is where my people came from, and that would be my second choice. I would be comfortable with the ethnicity, the language, most religious beliefs, and close enough with the political philosophy, so it would be familiar enough for me to adapt. This would seem to support the OP. Homogeneity is part of grouping, and grouping ends up making nations. The really odd part of this whole ideas is that I am beginning to suspect that striving for "less diversity" may be what actually causes diversity. If we take people, who have different ideas from ours, and separate them from us, then we are setting the stage for two different political philosophies to evolve, or for two similar, but different, religions to evolve. Consider the OP's ideas about a borderless world. All people who speak the same language and have the same religious and political beliefs. How long would it last? Life is change, so peoples in different areas on the Earth would invent different things, develop different products and procedures, have different experiences that would question their religion, and develop language to support these ever changing ideas. If you add topography to this world so that the people are physically prevented from interbreeding, then race and ethnicity would develop also. Striving for less diversity may be the cause of diversity. Gee

Strange; Hi. You are very welcome. If you check back, I think that you will find that I also had a problem with the word, homogeneous, and asked the Original Poster for clarification of his interpretation of that word. I didn't get it. Consider the following definition that I got off of Google Search: "Homogeneous is a term in physical chemistry and material science that refers to substances and mixtures which are in a single phase. This is in contrast to a substance that is heterogeneous. The definition of homogeneous strongly depends on the context used." Homogeneous is a term that works in specific contexts, and I suspect that those contexts are usually static, or at least stable. Life is never static and rarely stable; so although, some of the other definitions could be applied to life, they would have to be from a specific perspective, and perspective in life is always changing. It could be argued that identical twins are homogeneous, but it could also be argued that they are heterogeneous, depending on what you are looking for. It can be argued that the USA is not homogeneous, but Americans are Americans. No, I like the rose tint. It does nice things for brown eyes, and I am a brown-eyed girl. Or you may have missed this paragraph in my post: "There was one exception to this camaraderie, and that was if you looked asian or oriental. It did not matter if you were born in the US, or if your parents and grandparents were born in the US. It also did not matter if you were Japanese, Chinese, or Vietnamese; if you were of asian descent, you were suspect. Many people were put into camps, who did not belong there." The shock and fear of the Pearl Harbor attack caused a division that had more to do with ethnicity than nationality. Thankfully, we were civilized enough that we only detained most people, instead of resorting to ethnic cleansing. Maybe so, but the OP did not say anything about people being in agreement. Maybe this is why he chose the word, homogeneity, because it is difficult to find a word that describes what he is trying to relate. Gee Petrushka.googol; I have been thinking about the psychology of your idea, and will post when I think I have sorted out my thoughts and have something to offer. Gee

Strange; Please consider my following thoughts. I am not sure that it is that simple. In 1776 we declared ourselves free from England, although we were a British colony and most of us were British; then we had a war. Prior to that the English and French fought and allied with different American Indian nations. In 1812 we were again fighting the English, and France was our ally; although, I am not sure if they were actually for us, or if they just wanted to tweak England's nose. (chuckle) So it appears that England was the enemy, but is it? At this time, many of the English still think of America as the "colonies", and many Americans think of England as the mother country. It is also worth noting that our Common Law in the continental United States derives from English Common Law, with the one exception of the State of Louisiana, which derives from French Common Law, so we have a very close connection to England. So who was the enemy? Then consider that 50 years after the War of 1812, we were embroiled in a Civil War where we were our own enemy. This war was to prevent a forming of a new nation, and somewhere around there Texas decided to become its own Republic. Then the Mexican and Spanish influence that spread from Texas to California caused Texas to rethink its position and join the United States. So who was the enemy? It took a hundred years to form the nation that we see today, and during that time there were many enemies from without and from within. It is like that old story about two soldiers meeting: The first soldier stated, "But you are the enemy.", and the second soldier responded, "No. That was last week. This week I am your ally." So what changes a person from ally to enemy? What makes a person friend or foe? At the root of these groupings, we find language, religion, ethnicity, and political philosophy, so I think that the OP has a point. Gee ACG52; Please consider my following thoughts. No. But on the other hand, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, every American was brother to every other American. This philosophy was so strong, it even blurred the racial black and white issue, which was probably the root of the cause for the Civil Rights movement 20 years later. (It would be difficult to fight for your country, then be told that you do not have full citizen rights in that country. It would be more difficult to look at your father's medals of honor and think of him as a war hero, then be told that your father was not good enough because of the color of his skin.) There was one exception to this camaraderie, and that was if you looked asian or oriental. It did not matter if you were born in the US, or if your parents and grandparents were born in the US. It also did not matter if you were Japanese, Chinese, or Vietnamese; if you were of asian descent, you were suspect. Many people were put into camps, who did not belong there. When it comes to people, homogeneity can be rather flexible. I suspect that if the Earth was attacked by aliens from another planet, like in the movies, humans would become as homogeneous as the homogenized milk in my refrigerator. Gee Petrushka.googol; Please consider my following thoughts and let me know if I am close to understanding you. So your theory is about what causes people to group, to identify themselves with others, and eventually create a nation. Yes? We draw borders on our maps and say that these lines delineate nations, but this is not really true. Individual people make up nations, so what causes them to do this? One of the first things that I noted was that there is no topography in your "border less world". Topography has a great deal to do with the grouping of peoples and the forming of nations. An island people would be more isolated, so they would be more homogeneous in their race, religion, language, and philosophical beliefs. But they also tend to develop and nationalize more slowly. People who live along trade routes tend to be less homogeneous, but develop more quickly because of the influence of other religions, philosophies, and races. Then there is the land itself which dictates a style of living, as low lands tend to produce farmers, mountains tend to produce hunters and miners, oceans, seasides, and large rivers tend to produce sailors. The different products produced by these different lands tend to produce trade. This leads to economic problems that tend to produce alliances and wars, which leads to the development of nations. Yet you mentioned none of these things. All of the things you mentioned are individual and psychological reasons for people grouping. So it is my guess that what you are looking for is the psychology of a nation, or the psychological reasons why people group and eventually form nations. Am I close to your thinking on this? Gee