The final answer: I don't know.

[Netti-Netti]

For many westerners, the uptake of exotic Asiatic doctrines and practices with the implicit promise of a self-serving short-cut to bliss, nirvana, satori, etc., has been described as spiritual narcissism, in fact auto-eroticisme was the term deployed.

Deployed by whom, Thomas? Where are you reading these things?

Thomas, I am not aware of any Oriental philosophies that implicitly or explicitly endorse "shortcuts" and narcissism of this kind. Buddhism in particular has a long-term view of personal discipline.

Recall that some Bodhisattvas choose not to be released because they want to come back and help the planet and alleviate the suffering of others. Now that's selflessness, commitment to virtue and compassion, devotion and surrender.

Arguably, the level of dedication reflected in such an approach is far more compelling than the taken-for-granted attitude that G-d's Grace is unconditionally available to free me from sin at all times, so now I can go and sin some more.

 

[Bishadi]

Deployed by whom, Thomas? Where are you reading these things?

Thomas, I am not aware of any Oriental philosophies that implicitly or explicitly endorse "shortcuts" and narcissism of this kind. Buddhism in particular has a long-term view of personal discipline.

Recall that some Bodhisattvas choose not to be released because they want to come back and help the planet and alleviate the suffering of others. Now that's selflessness, commitment to virtue and compassion, devotion and surrender.

Arguably, the level of dedication reflected in such an approach is far more compelling than the taken-for-granted attitude that G-d's Grace is unconditionally available to free me from sin at all times, so now I can go and sin some more.

a response of truth

 

[Netti-Netti]

a response of truth

And that's true, too !

Good to meet you, Bishadi.

 

[Bishadi]

And that's true, too !

Good to meet you, Bishadi.

Peace to any with the compassion to represent what is pure!

the pleasure of meeting like compassion is what every person can appreciate... but do they know it when they see it?

that is left unanswered

 

[juantoo3]

Arguably, the level of dedication reflected in such an approach is far more compelling than the taken-for-granted attitude that G-d's Grace is unconditionally available to free me from sin at all times, so now I can go and sin some more.

In line with what BB said, this reflects on an improper attitude, improper understanding and improper interpretation, and an incorrect application. In fact, the words of Jesus as written were; "go, and sin no more."

 

[juantoo3]

but do they know it when they see it?

Indeed. That works both ways.

 

[17th Angel]

Peace to any with the compassion to represent what is pure!

the pleasure of meeting like compassion is what every person can appreciate... but do they know it when they see it?

that is left unanswered

Get a room....

 

[juantoo3]

When discussing 'faith' — which is the context in which the question was framed, knowledge or information is then determined as either 'informative' or 'performative'. Informative just adds to the bank of stuff we already know, and that's about all its does. Performative on the other hand is not merely a communication of things that can be known — it is of the order of a life-changing commitment.

Very well, I thought I had said as much.

Going back to tradition, to Bacon, and by the evidence of my eyes, many toady (*today?*) interpret 'gnosis' to be data of the informative kind, thus we have all manner of charlatans peddling the truth of 'gnostic Christianity' which amounts to little more than intriuing and enticing exotica ... food for the modern mind and its penchant for conspiracy theories.

Agreed.

The true Christian gnosis is of the performative order ... initiation into the Christian Mysteries does not result in me knowing something you don't know, it involved me engaging with the Divine in a way I could not do before, and indeed which man cannot do of his own account.

I accept the term "man" to mean humanity, correct? I agree that of my own will and power I am helpless. But I do not need a formal order to teach me how to reach out and plug into the Divine.

So in the last analysis, the statement 'I don't know' is a sure sign that 'Faith' a knowing which in itself has the power to be performative, is reduced by man to something purely informative, and about which, when someone asks, 'can it make a difference' the only answer can be ... "I don't know."

Therein lies a great deal of the struggle, and the logical fallacy behind Bishadi's assumptions, the idea that the magisteria of logic holds any authority over the magesteria of faith. "I don't know" is a mode of understanding within "science." Whereas my experiences in spirit make the hope and trust in faith very real in practical terms (performative) for me personally. But this is a subjective truth. It is empirical *to me,* it is evident *to me,* it is real *to me,* but by the terms of logical reason do not constitute valid objective evidence. Bishadi's grossest fallacy in this discussion is the presumption that logic reigns supreme over matters of spirit, which it decidedly does not.

Spirit cannot be proven, therefore it does not exist. Or so say those who have not experienced spirit.

The schism between denominations in pre-Reformation times was of a different order, they turned on the objective apprehension of the truth.

In this we could not agree more.

 

[juantoo3]

Quote:
What is the nature of time?

Between all measurement.


Quote:
What is gravity?

entangled energy


Quote:
What is the relationship of matter to energy?

Mass is energy (light) affixed in time.


Quote:
What is light made of?

Electric and magnetic field at perpendicular planes; see the cross!


Quote:
Why do flags wave in the wind? All of these are simple physics questions...without answers.

Until now!

I'm afraid these answers are as lacking as those you seem to object to. They are certainly not universally accepted physically valid explanations, which means they are not truth according to your conditions. They are your beliefs.

 

[Bishadi]

I'm afraid these answers are as lacking as those you seem to object to. They are certainly not universally accepted physically valid explanations, which means they are not truth according to your conditions. They are your beliefs.

Do you read to know how to use the keyboard you are typing into?

Does it work?

Then a set of equations is unknowlingly what defines how the key board works.

So in china, unless someone understands the same language, they could not use the same reading material that you have but the math is the same.

In suggesting the line items of science; the math is universal.

May not be accepted, probably because it is not published but in reality quite universal.

Point is when the items of conveyance are suggested they are backed by the universal language.

 

[juantoo3]

Gibberish.

You are attempting to validate your opinions as reality and calling it truth. I am calling your bluff, using the same ground rules you claim apply to everyone else. What is good for the goose, is good for the gander. Either truth is universal, or it is not truth.

Mathematics does not apply to your opinion, ergo your opinion does not carry the same authority as mathematics.

 

[Bishadi]

Gibberish.

You are attempting to validate your opinions as reality and calling it truth.

No need to believe me. If the truth does not ring true than roll over.

I am calling your bluff,

Are you capable?

using the same ground rules you claim apply to everyone else.

Good, then honoring the knowledge of the globe will mean it might take you another 20 years to study but if you are paying attention now, the summary of the truth is in simply observing the opinion of this nut.

What is good for the goose, is good for the gander. Either truth is universal, or it is not truth.

I agree! and in math, no matter what the valley to cross, the bridge can be built. So true math to describe existence is universal to all language.

Mathematics does not apply to your opinion, ergo your opinion does not carry the same authority as mathematics.

Sorry..... the whole 'opinion' is based in math and the reality of 'how it works.'

And since current math as taught retains 'entropy' as a law (planck's constant) then of course no where in today's teaching could you validate what is being said by this goof ball, who has spent most of his life in the closet doing the very work needed. A man made a choice; you so happened to have bump into him.

And nothing in the world will ever make this fool, sell, publish or release that math until the people (not the science community, governments) are prepared to understand. Meaning; guys like Einstein knew when they published without responsibility to what mankind will do with the knowledge; that a grave error can occur.

ie.... with a simple radio, a soldering iron and a little math, things can be made that could kill a person within proximity.

Heck before I was 14 I made a TV jammer and on sundays, used it to interfer with the football games the Dad's of the neighborhood were all watching as us kids were getting into mischief.

And then when PNC (photo neuron conduction) was authored (1982), you should have seen the toys that were created. one parabolic device was like a sound 'ray gun' that is just now being used in military devices.


I published then and no one understood; so a promise was made to learn over the course of life to retire at 40 and prepare for the unfolding so that the children will never have to go through what 'we all' have; not understanding what life is upon mass.

All I ever wanted was for understanding to exist; and never has a return or need of things been a reason. Otherwise you could be reading about it now and I could be on some island with all the possessions of a king.

Maybe A mistake was made by not conforming but that is hindsight; as the magnitude was never comprehended back then. I never cared for the namesake or the grandeur all I ever cared about was the truth and now that I can see what these last thirty years has done to our world I would gladly give up my sight to go back and bleed for the people; the children.

to know life, then to know that what we do is our ever lasting and care of nothing for this short physical period most adore so much!

I question myself each moment but always return to a true reality; if the bowl is dirty, wash it. meaning, now all choice is simply to do what appears to be needing and forget what I want. So in these forums, none have a clue of who, but just the same I can give until I need sleep and food, then give a little more.....

Each moment of experience; all that is chosen is the pursuit of good.

The 'good' will continue! Life will continue!

 

[bob x]

And since current math as taught retains 'entropy' as a law (planck's constant)

Entropy is not a law of mathematics. Planck's Constant has nothing to do with entropy. Planck's Constant is not mathematically derived (it is an empirically measured quantity). You are taking three completely unrelated buzzwords and throwing them together to pretend like you know something, when the truth is: You don't know.

 

[Bishadi]

Entropy is not a law of mathematics. Planck's Constant has nothing to do with entropy. Planck's Constant is not mathematically derived (it is an empirically measured quantity). You are taking three completely unrelated buzzwords and throwing them together to pretend like you know something, when the truth is: You don't know.

maybe read a bit

19th Century physicists became adept at dealing not only with matter, and heat, and entropy, but also with electricity, and magnetism, and light. Here they were also making rapid progress as the turn of the century approached. It is relevant to our story that they had developed a good, fundamental electromagnetic theory of light allowing them confidently to predict how much light energy an oscillating charge of a given frequency and given average energy should emit in a given time period, and how readily it should absorb light that was incident upon it. A key feature of this theory is that the rate of light emission is proportional to the amount of excess energy in the oscillator and to the square of the oscillation frequency, while its rate of light absorption is proportional to the amount of light at the relevant frequency but independent of the value of the frequency.

Max Planck and the Beginning of the Quantum Theory, Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 1. 459-479 (1962)
Planck, Entropy, and Quanta, 1901-1906, The Natural Philosopher, 1. 83-108 (1963)
Thermodynamics and Quanta in Planck's Work, Physics Today, 19. 23-32 (1966)

at least I can share a few references for EVERY line posted

Need we quote Planck or do you wish to retain a little integrity and read a bit yourself before tapping keys with statements before knowing what you say?

If you are going to doubt; then please use something with truth to back it up.

 

[Bishadi]

try a little reading on 'who is max planck'

Planck - Who was Max Planck

The first instance of an absolute in nature that impressed Planck deeply, even as a Gymnasium student, was the law of the conservation of energy, the first law of thermodynamics. Later, during his university years, he became equally convinced that the entropy law, the second law of thermodynamics, was also an absolute law of nature. The second law became the subject of his doctoral dissertation at Munich, and it lay at the core of the researches that led him to discover the quantum of action, now known as Planck's constant h, in 1900.

and do we need to define the 2nd law (newton) for you as well?

Or can you see for yourself 'h' ...... planck's constant is based on entropy....

 

[bob x]

Are you aware that physics and mathematics are not the same subject?
Are you aware that empirically measured quantities are not the same as mathematical constants?
Are you aware that the Newton's Second Law has nothing whatsoever to do with the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

 

[Bishadi]

Are you aware that physics and mathematics are not the same subject?
Are you aware that empirically measured quantities are not the same as mathematical constants?
Are you aware that the Newton's Second Law has nothing whatsoever to do with the Second Law of Thermodynamics?

it seems you have the same mind as thread opener is geared for; the

'i don't know' ..........People

Physics are descriptions in math

Planck's constant is the foundation to most all constants in physics; including the so called speed of light as Einstein himself said he did not make it, it was a consequence of planck.

Newton; Cause and effect (conservation of momentum).....

Another important implication of Causality in physics is its intimate connection to the Second Law of Thermodynamics (see the fluctuation theorem). Quantum mechanics is yet another branch of physics in which the nature of causality is somewhat unclear.
The treatment of the concept of causality within the Second Law of Thermodynamics yields a loss in the translation. The statistical basis of the maintenance of the exchange of entropy confines the subject to an extent such that the observer loses perspective. The 2nd Law states that "in a closed system, disorder increases".

Seems like a science 100 class revisited