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