Month, Day: 170, Names, Mercy (Beauty)
Being, now, in the Operational times, we can expect action. And, audacity would suggest that more information (abundantly so) awaits within the Writings.
---
Consider that we need to get a better handle on consciousness, for ourselves and the future. That "handle" would be of use several ways, including pushing back the frontiers. As we wait for the world to wake up, we can have our own little musings.
Such as? Take the #11 Hidden Words (Persian): O SON OF DUST! Blind thine eyes, that thou mayest behold My beauty; stop thine ears, that thou mayest hearken unto the sweet melody of My voice; empty thyself of all learning, that thou mayest partake of My knowledge; and sanctify thyself from riches, that thou mayest obtain a lasting share from the ocean of My eternal wealth. Blind thine eyes, that is, to all save My beauty; stop thine ears to all save My word; empty thyself of all learning save the knowledge of Me; that with a clear vision, a pure heart and an attentive ear thou mayest enter the court of My holiness.
It suggests an operational framework with benefits beyond belief. In short, it separates out eyes, ears, and self (as thyself). Now, consider what the Master said about cognition (see spiritual powers - we could have a mapping seeing/imagination, hearing/thought, comprehension/self-ness) and wonder how this might apply in the modern reductionistic world where we're essentially thought of as a collection of particles and energies.
---
In other words, we can see if we desire. The Words are there for our use. Then, we can know God.
Think of an argument as consonance exemplified if it is
true (rings as such). Ears tied to rationality? The modern world has embraced dissonance (music,
for example); such movements toward the random side do not remove what messages are there for us to identify.
---
Another trend related to progress is toward enabling human efforts. And, such phenomena go beyond those things of concern to the elite view (and separatist's mindset). We like to use "savant" for unexplained talents; yet, it may very well be that latent talents will emerge more from non-elite situations than not. One case in point: numeracy (taking, for instance, STEM as the sole basis for our truth maintenance is wrongful - there are inverses of numeracy that are very interesting and potent - actually, those who bastardize mathematics have entrapped us heavily in ways that will take much effort to untangle).
---
No Luddite am I; rather, I grate at the lop-sided worldviews that have such prominence, now.
Remarks:
08/25/2013 --
Modified: 08/25/2013
Sunday, August 25, 2013
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
The Poets
Month, Day: 170, Perfection, Questions (Majesty)
Our best benefit is this Attribute, the foundation of science.
---
Earlier, we took a brief look at Either/Or. One either accepts something or not. This applies across the board; even, dear readers, in science where "faith" pertains to belief (perhaps, measured by comfort-ability with) in the system (methods, etc.), the players (credentials), and even one's own prowess (yes, the development of hubris is not uncommon). One of our 21st Century problems is that perceived effectiveness of quantitative methods (read, applied mathematics) leads toward a shroud that is appallingly deadening to the spirit (whatever that is? -- ah, audacity will cover that, to boot).
Now, given methods and their chief tendency (centralism), we see the necessity to demonstrate a broader sense of knowing (not an important issue?). These ways of knowing are accepted by some; how many of those who accept have any idea of the functional aspects?
---
So, given a Faith, one has Writings to consider. Of course, the believer accepts the Writings. The non-believer not; so, we have the need to address issues, many times, without using the Writings (to be discussed). So, given the choice, mentioned above, one would have Writings (inspired) on the one hand; on the other, it would be a matter of creativity, being clever, and other human approaches.
Now, can one obtain knowledge such that science (without some serious changes) cannot evaluate the source, the context, veracity, and more? Of course. Such really is what is behind success of the highest nature. Despite protestations otherwise, consciousness is not under anyone's thumb (that is, all materialistically motivated attempts are lacking -- and will continue to be -- that is one thing for audacity to bring out).
---
One of the Writings is the Koran. It's an enormous amount of material that was spoken for a long while. Later, there were attempts to write what was recalled in a more permanent form.
There are other Sources, however we use the Koran due to its relationship with the Glory and the Master. They knew to quote from this source.
---
Now, using a nice Koran site, let's look at The Poets. In this Sura, there is a listing of earlier Prophets.
Why is this important? Well, the inspiration behind the Koran puts a strong basis behind its veracity. Okay?
So, we could match up these Prophets with the Bible; we could also take a historical view.
---
We'll get back to this, but we can list a few and their times: Moses (ca. 1391 BCE), Eber/Hud (ca. ?), Lot (ca. 2000 BCE), Jethro (ca. Moses' father-in-law), Salih (ca. ?), Noah (ca. before Lot). This list is from only one sura. There are many more Prophets mentioned elsewhere in the Koran.
Again, given their mention, we can take them as historical fact. Filling in the details may, or may not, be of interest.
---
The theme, in each case, is that the Prophet tried to get people to listen but failed, in general. There were those who listened; the majority did not (makes on think of the Return mentioned in the Iqan). Now, one could consider the repercussions of the failure, but we can go in other directions, too. Such as? How could have listening changed what was known?
Ah, in the ancient past, that is a long stretch. But, please consider. It is not hard to look at how things have unfolded with the past 200 years or so and, then, to ponder how things might have been different. In fact, one might argue that we are to do just that, using the Revelation time as a point of reflection (actually, it's more an issue of a symmetry of sorts).
Remarks:
08/15/2013 -- Abraham is not in the list? He's at the top.
Modified: 08/15/2013
Our best benefit is this Attribute, the foundation of science.
---
Earlier, we took a brief look at Either/Or. One either accepts something or not. This applies across the board; even, dear readers, in science where "faith" pertains to belief (perhaps, measured by comfort-ability with) in the system (methods, etc.), the players (credentials), and even one's own prowess (yes, the development of hubris is not uncommon). One of our 21st Century problems is that perceived effectiveness of quantitative methods (read, applied mathematics) leads toward a shroud that is appallingly deadening to the spirit (whatever that is? -- ah, audacity will cover that, to boot).
Now, given methods and their chief tendency (centralism), we see the necessity to demonstrate a broader sense of knowing (not an important issue?). These ways of knowing are accepted by some; how many of those who accept have any idea of the functional aspects?
---
So, given a Faith, one has Writings to consider. Of course, the believer accepts the Writings. The non-believer not; so, we have the need to address issues, many times, without using the Writings (to be discussed). So, given the choice, mentioned above, one would have Writings (inspired) on the one hand; on the other, it would be a matter of creativity, being clever, and other human approaches.
Now, can one obtain knowledge such that science (without some serious changes) cannot evaluate the source, the context, veracity, and more? Of course. Such really is what is behind success of the highest nature. Despite protestations otherwise, consciousness is not under anyone's thumb (that is, all materialistically motivated attempts are lacking -- and will continue to be -- that is one thing for audacity to bring out).
---
One of the Writings is the Koran. It's an enormous amount of material that was spoken for a long while. Later, there were attempts to write what was recalled in a more permanent form.
There are other Sources, however we use the Koran due to its relationship with the Glory and the Master. They knew to quote from this source.
---
Now, using a nice Koran site, let's look at The Poets. In this Sura, there is a listing of earlier Prophets.
Why is this important? Well, the inspiration behind the Koran puts a strong basis behind its veracity. Okay?
So, we could match up these Prophets with the Bible; we could also take a historical view.
---
We'll get back to this, but we can list a few and their times: Moses (ca. 1391 BCE), Eber/Hud (ca. ?), Lot (ca. 2000 BCE), Jethro (ca. Moses' father-in-law), Salih (ca. ?), Noah (ca. before Lot). This list is from only one sura. There are many more Prophets mentioned elsewhere in the Koran.
Again, given their mention, we can take them as historical fact. Filling in the details may, or may not, be of interest.
---
The theme, in each case, is that the Prophet tried to get people to listen but failed, in general. There were those who listened; the majority did not (makes on think of the Return mentioned in the Iqan). Now, one could consider the repercussions of the failure, but we can go in other directions, too. Such as? How could have listening changed what was known?
Ah, in the ancient past, that is a long stretch. But, please consider. It is not hard to look at how things have unfolded with the past 200 years or so and, then, to ponder how things might have been different. In fact, one might argue that we are to do just that, using the Revelation time as a point of reflection (actually, it's more an issue of a symmetry of sorts).
Remarks:
08/15/2013 -- Abraham is not in the list? He's at the top.
Modified: 08/15/2013
Thursday, August 8, 2013
Octaves?
Month, Day: 170, Perfection, Perfection (Majesty)
By having the yearly congruence, we can see a little closer. Earlier, I mentioned sevenths (and other groupings) in the sense of chords. However, the grouping went along only one axis in the discussion. That way, one might see Light/Knowledge/Loftiness, for example.
---
Seven is an interesting number. The week's length gives us work and rest days; of course, we got that from Genesis.
Today, I was thinking of going along the other axis. In that mode, one finds that Perfection would start the second group. As follows:
Why ask? Well, we have two mappings, which would depend upon the choice. Light/Knowledge/Loftiness, as mentioned above. And, Light/Knowledge/??. Ah, like that?
You see, audacity would say that the models need to change to allow something like this, Great Undecidable (characterize it, or name it, as you wish -- at least, be respectful of the choice, if not for yourself, for others -- the choice? yes, a fundamental right for everyone to make for themselves).
However GU works, it has already led our technical prowess to a stalemate. That is, the technical, mathematical framework has come back upon itself. Well, as we can argue, people have to be central to a proper working of that framework. For some reason, modern hubris has chosen to throw out intuition and to allow computers to reign (many times).
All arguable, yet the whole issue is whether doing the above-suggested would have operational effects (note, please, that measurability would be subsumed under this, not drive it -- to rephrase, the change would be toward a mode in which mathematics participated but did not own the principle views). The key thing now would be to set up the proper experimentation.
And, that would not be within the context mentioned by the Master (miracles, where the Glory challenged the mullahs to ask for a miracle which, as we know, is only for those there). For such, those not there, either because of space or time, have the right to play the doubting Thomas.
Too, science's basis is public, repeatable, and several other things. It turns out that we do have something emerging that would provide the platform for experimentation (the web, in a very broad sense). This platform would, for one, break the barriers related to elitism that is so rampant in modern thought.
That last statement? Consider, please, the imperative nature of the autodidact's contributions.
Remarks:
08/08/2013 -- Perfection/Perfection.
Modified: 08/08/2013
 |
| 4 Attributes, 5 Groups |
---
Seven is an interesting number. The week's length gives us work and rest days; of course, we got that from Genesis.
Today, I was thinking of going along the other axis. In that mode, one finds that Perfection would start the second group. As follows:
- Splendour, Glory, Beauty, Grandeur, Light, Mercy, Words
- Perfection, Names, Might, Will, Knowledge, Power, Speech
- Questions, Honour, Sovereignty, Dominion, ??, Loftiness
Why ask? Well, we have two mappings, which would depend upon the choice. Light/Knowledge/Loftiness, as mentioned above. And, Light/Knowledge/??. Ah, like that?
You see, audacity would say that the models need to change to allow something like this, Great Undecidable (characterize it, or name it, as you wish -- at least, be respectful of the choice, if not for yourself, for others -- the choice? yes, a fundamental right for everyone to make for themselves).
However GU works, it has already led our technical prowess to a stalemate. That is, the technical, mathematical framework has come back upon itself. Well, as we can argue, people have to be central to a proper working of that framework. For some reason, modern hubris has chosen to throw out intuition and to allow computers to reign (many times).
All arguable, yet the whole issue is whether doing the above-suggested would have operational effects (note, please, that measurability would be subsumed under this, not drive it -- to rephrase, the change would be toward a mode in which mathematics participated but did not own the principle views). The key thing now would be to set up the proper experimentation.
And, that would not be within the context mentioned by the Master (miracles, where the Glory challenged the mullahs to ask for a miracle which, as we know, is only for those there). For such, those not there, either because of space or time, have the right to play the doubting Thomas.
Too, science's basis is public, repeatable, and several other things. It turns out that we do have something emerging that would provide the platform for experimentation (the web, in a very broad sense). This platform would, for one, break the barriers related to elitism that is so rampant in modern thought.
That last statement? Consider, please, the imperative nature of the autodidact's contributions.
Remarks:
08/08/2013 -- Perfection/Perfection.
Modified: 08/08/2013
Saturday, August 3, 2013
Audacious comment
Month, Day: 170, Perfection, Beauty (Glory)
I did not expect to be back to this until 8/8 (Perfection squared; here's another type), however a comment left on the Baha'i Faith and Science Talk page provided an unexpected motivation. Rather than respond to the comment on the Talk page, I decided to do so here.
Firstly, the comment (in part - see discussion, below) from Anonymous (from Texas): ... But I also believe in prophecy. I have my own interpretations of Baha'i prophecies on science. I believe that what this page says about creation and nuclear power is true.... As for ether, I believe that Abdul Baha was referring to the Higgs boson. Transmutation of elements? I believe that refers to picotechnology and femtotechnology which are orders of magnitude smaller than nanotechnology. ...
Secondly, there are many things to discuss, in an audacious mode. Whether or not the topic gets attention by those doing "scholarly" work can be immaterial. I can put my finger on several examples where the peers did not understand some person who turned out to be right. But, more, it's a matter of concern for the individual (no group will stand in your stead when it's your time). This is brief, but we can say this: science, and knowledge, are far beyond what the current-day cohorts (of talent, drive -- in other words, on the largely-gifted side -- see the little thing about gallons, cups, handfuls) have wrapped within their mathematically-flavored sense of reality.
Thirdly, we have the Wiki policies to consider. That is not the platform for discussion or creatively expressed ideas. So, where is there such? Well, we could have a page off the BF&S to allow such. The Talk page has gotten a lot of use.
---
I like the use of "prophecy" and am assuming some notion of other ways of knowing. One onus for those of the BF'ers (or any who honor spirituality) would be to counter yokes that are all the time trying to encompass being (restrain it) into a bounded state. Mind you, an individual very well may constrain itself; that is a matter of choice (actually, it is counseled - but, against whose judgment is one to reflect for value?). It's more than a matter of constraints; any autodidact would easily show something to his/her peers, if they would listen (unfortunately, that is not the way of the world whose principle value resides within a committee who offers prizes -- we can discuss this, at length).
Yes, the BF&S page mentions a lot more than it did in 2005. That denotes progress. But, some of the words seem to dance around (almost tautological view of minerals being everywhere - as if this were life in the larger connotations), so as to not get dinged (?) by those who are virulently supportive of their modern views (some of which are more scientism than not - sometimes noted as Brights, here). So, the comment's take on the items is nice to see. We'll get back to this.
Ether? Yes, that is a problematic area; it's almost a litmus test to see if someone falls into hubris with their knowledge. Consider, too, psyche-ether's use, to boot. One thing that grates, frankly, on the BF&S page was the almost apologetic explanation of what the Master meant. Granted, language is temporal and situational. Yet, that to which the Master alluded did not fade away (just as God did not die). So, see the next item, please.
Higgs? Yes, a lot of money has been (is being) spent to find out what we already know (there is something from the Bab about the new-born babe today knowing more than all of the scholars of His time --- applies today, given time, I'll explain). Again, it gets back to private versus public knowledge. The former is not illusory, by nature (in fact, it's more real than the latter). The latter is artifact-based (including language being used as a tool), as in, does not deal with essence.
And, the models that motivate the money being spent get re-inforced by the intelligent cosmos (small "c" used purposely). That is, what was found out was precisely what we were led to find out. Yet, the large truth is still there, ready for grasping. The main question is how this might come about. Consider: a future model, where the Great Undecidable nestles within and surrounds the computational - essentially, a wisely attuned quasi-empirical framework as the operational basis. Again, just a brief statement here; can discuss this ad infinitum.
Now, two paragraphs above, I suggested that we already know. Yes, that pertains to bringing back intuition into the equation. How this might be done will be a whole area of study and practice in itself. Perhaps, our main hope is that the BF, using the Master and more, can demonstrate efficacy (such as we will need) in establishing such (more than cognition).
---
So, considering that futurists can be listened to (with a grain of salt and more), why not have a section on the BF&S page dealing with the future. After all, the cosmologists have run amok already far beyond what their model can support (ah, how to explain this to them?). Perhaps, a more tempered viewpoint deserves some attention.
Remarks:
04/03/2015 -- This is a popular post. See NDEers for a bit of audacity.
09/30/2013 -- More of a technical nature.
08/08/2013 -- Perfection/Perfection.
08/04/2013 -- This is not to be construed as an off-site area for discussion of Wikipedia content. Rather, it's a blog with a Science/Religion flavor within the contexts mentioned in the Title written and maintained by the blogger representing only his viewpoint. There just happened to be a recent overlap of interest with an entry on a particular Talk page. Hey. In truth, this blog started since Wikipedia is not the platform for the content that this blog attempts to bring forth for discussion.
08/04/2013 -- Forgot to mention the Great Ether. Incidentally, the list of things to discuss is very long. Here is one thrown out in good spirit: Virgin Mary. But, once opening the door, it's hard to stop: Apple of the Eye of the Bab.
Modified: 04/03/2015
I did not expect to be back to this until 8/8 (Perfection squared; here's another type), however a comment left on the Baha'i Faith and Science Talk page provided an unexpected motivation. Rather than respond to the comment on the Talk page, I decided to do so here.
Firstly, the comment (in part - see discussion, below) from Anonymous (from Texas): ... But I also believe in prophecy. I have my own interpretations of Baha'i prophecies on science. I believe that what this page says about creation and nuclear power is true.... As for ether, I believe that Abdul Baha was referring to the Higgs boson. Transmutation of elements? I believe that refers to picotechnology and femtotechnology which are orders of magnitude smaller than nanotechnology. ...
Secondly, there are many things to discuss, in an audacious mode. Whether or not the topic gets attention by those doing "scholarly" work can be immaterial. I can put my finger on several examples where the peers did not understand some person who turned out to be right. But, more, it's a matter of concern for the individual (no group will stand in your stead when it's your time). This is brief, but we can say this: science, and knowledge, are far beyond what the current-day cohorts (of talent, drive -- in other words, on the largely-gifted side -- see the little thing about gallons, cups, handfuls) have wrapped within their mathematically-flavored sense of reality.
Thirdly, we have the Wiki policies to consider. That is not the platform for discussion or creatively expressed ideas. So, where is there such? Well, we could have a page off the BF&S to allow such. The Talk page has gotten a lot of use.
---
I like the use of "prophecy" and am assuming some notion of other ways of knowing. One onus for those of the BF'ers (or any who honor spirituality) would be to counter yokes that are all the time trying to encompass being (restrain it) into a bounded state. Mind you, an individual very well may constrain itself; that is a matter of choice (actually, it is counseled - but, against whose judgment is one to reflect for value?). It's more than a matter of constraints; any autodidact would easily show something to his/her peers, if they would listen (unfortunately, that is not the way of the world whose principle value resides within a committee who offers prizes -- we can discuss this, at length).
Yes, the BF&S page mentions a lot more than it did in 2005. That denotes progress. But, some of the words seem to dance around (almost tautological view of minerals being everywhere - as if this were life in the larger connotations), so as to not get dinged (?) by those who are virulently supportive of their modern views (some of which are more scientism than not - sometimes noted as Brights, here). So, the comment's take on the items is nice to see. We'll get back to this.
Ether? Yes, that is a problematic area; it's almost a litmus test to see if someone falls into hubris with their knowledge. Consider, too, psyche-ether's use, to boot. One thing that grates, frankly, on the BF&S page was the almost apologetic explanation of what the Master meant. Granted, language is temporal and situational. Yet, that to which the Master alluded did not fade away (just as God did not die). So, see the next item, please.
Higgs? Yes, a lot of money has been (is being) spent to find out what we already know (there is something from the Bab about the new-born babe today knowing more than all of the scholars of His time --- applies today, given time, I'll explain). Again, it gets back to private versus public knowledge. The former is not illusory, by nature (in fact, it's more real than the latter). The latter is artifact-based (including language being used as a tool), as in, does not deal with essence.
And, the models that motivate the money being spent get re-inforced by the intelligent cosmos (small "c" used purposely). That is, what was found out was precisely what we were led to find out. Yet, the large truth is still there, ready for grasping. The main question is how this might come about. Consider: a future model, where the Great Undecidable nestles within and surrounds the computational - essentially, a wisely attuned quasi-empirical framework as the operational basis. Again, just a brief statement here; can discuss this ad infinitum.
Now, two paragraphs above, I suggested that we already know. Yes, that pertains to bringing back intuition into the equation. How this might be done will be a whole area of study and practice in itself. Perhaps, our main hope is that the BF, using the Master and more, can demonstrate efficacy (such as we will need) in establishing such (more than cognition).
---
So, considering that futurists can be listened to (with a grain of salt and more), why not have a section on the BF&S page dealing with the future. After all, the cosmologists have run amok already far beyond what their model can support (ah, how to explain this to them?). Perhaps, a more tempered viewpoint deserves some attention.
Remarks:
04/03/2015 -- This is a popular post. See NDEers for a bit of audacity.
09/30/2013 -- More of a technical nature.
08/08/2013 -- Perfection/Perfection.
08/04/2013 -- This is not to be construed as an off-site area for discussion of Wikipedia content. Rather, it's a blog with a Science/Religion flavor within the contexts mentioned in the Title written and maintained by the blogger representing only his viewpoint. There just happened to be a recent overlap of interest with an entry on a particular Talk page. Hey. In truth, this blog started since Wikipedia is not the platform for the content that this blog attempts to bring forth for discussion.
08/04/2013 -- Forgot to mention the Great Ether. Incidentally, the list of things to discuss is very long. Here is one thrown out in good spirit: Virgin Mary. But, once opening the door, it's hard to stop: Apple of the Eye of the Bab.
Modified: 04/03/2015
Friday, August 2, 2013
Gift of Perfection
Month, Day: 170, Perfection, Splendour (Majesty)
We close the Teleological and get ready for the Operational and beyond. What better gift than that? With Questions in each month, as well as a Motivational assist?
---
So, we'll now have 19 days of congruence with which to ponder how audacity ought to unfold and many other things. We'll be back on eight of eight (Perfection of Perfection) for a few more words.
Remarks:
08/08/2013 -- Perfection/Perfection.
08/01/2013 -- Gift? Yes, let Teleological, and the concept's wide variety of connotations, be the clue.
Modified: 08/08/2013
We close the Teleological and get ready for the Operational and beyond. What better gift than that? With Questions in each month, as well as a Motivational assist?
---
So, we'll now have 19 days of congruence with which to ponder how audacity ought to unfold and many other things. We'll be back on eight of eight (Perfection of Perfection) for a few more words.
Remarks:
08/08/2013 -- Perfection/Perfection.
08/01/2013 -- Gift? Yes, let Teleological, and the concept's wide variety of connotations, be the clue.
Modified: 08/08/2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
