Heaven and Hell [Archive]

Lawdog

05-15-01, 02:06 PM

With the resurrection of the Body into Eternity we must ask: Could Heavan, Purgatory, and Hell be physical or quasi-physical realities? Could such a horrific place be in the center of the Earth, to our utter chagrin and amazement? Are such "medievalisms" so removed from reality? Can we really stand and look down upon former men with our Science, saying we know better?

Malaclypse

05-16-01, 09:54 AM

Maybe.

Possibly.

Hell no.

Tiassa

05-16-01, 03:07 PM

The problem with relating Eternity, Heaven, and Hell, as such, is that we pare off a number of religions from the bulk and begin to focus on the redemptive and apocalyptic religions.

* To limit ourselves to Christianity, we find that two-thousand years of research, argument, and speculation have not provided this answer from the perfect Book.

But in grander terms, there are questions of Eternity, and of resurrection. On a strictly objective view, I have no problem with eternal life: I am not qualified to define life outside my own living experience; furthermore, with a ratio of matter and energy generally respected, we can say definitively that the effect of your energy will remain in the Universe long after the conscious spirit slips away. However, to declare Eternity to be something so natural seems to offend most redemptive religions.

Can the soul (ever) be quantified? Does it transcend the living experience that we humans recognize, from birth to death?With the resurrection of the Body into Eternity we must ask: Could Heavan, Purgatory, and Hell be physical or quasi-physical realities? Part of my problem offering a more definitive response is that I disagree with what appears to be the a priori condition of the question. I may, however, be reading that boldfaced segment outside your context, and at least one other reading of the phrase eliminates the problem. This, however, is my own interpretational issue to work out.

The writing on the wall says it's time to be along.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

pragmathen

05-16-01, 05:40 PM

tiassa has a point about the a priori (given) assumption that there is a Heaven and Hell waiting for their respective souls.

One thing that is sometimes overlooked when considering Heaven or Hell is the possibility that neither exists. Or, to take it further, that one man's heaven (oblivion or ceasing to exist) is another man's hell (no such thing as heaven--ceasing to exist). In this instance, a Christian would be highly disappointed (assuming it were possible for conscious thought in this scenario) to discover that there was no reward system (heaven) awaiting them on the other side; and, that there was no punishment awaiting the unbelievers and sinners (hell). So, as to the question of a quasi-reality I would say that most of the time it seems that Heaven is what we would imagine an afterlife to be like for ourselves. Meaning, that if we were to compare our thoughts of an afterlife with others, there would be great discrepancies between respective accounts. Some might envision eternal loafing on clouds, plucking stringed instruments; great landscapes and vistas populated with all kinds of animals and vegetation (in short, sparsely populated by humans); a bearded God that sits upon a throne casting benevolent glances here and there, inspiring others with his godliness; endless mounds of ice cream to surf through and eat at will. The point of this is to show that, given the opportunity to any type of (un)believer, there would be vastly different accounts of what Heaven would (had better) be like.

Atheists would like something rather simple, I believe. Either nothing or at least some kind of continuance where past friends and relatives could somehow congregate. The parameters would be defined loosely, and perhaps as things went on.

Agnostics would prefer some kind of a sit-down discussion with Whomever was in charge of things. A lot of questions would necessarily need to be answered. The fact that a God would, in essence, exist would be enough to spur agnostics to question the justification for that deity's existence. As far as particulars, probably more along the lines of atheists, but with a tint of the Christians.

Christians would not expect anything less than a very detailed structural blueprint of Heaven. Crossroads, appointments, and the like would have to be scheduled. They would prefer one-on-One interviews with God and Jesus Christ and would probably prefer the ubiquitous presence of the Spirit (depending on the varying beliefs within their respective sects, of course). They would also feel rather comfortable in heaven if they were aware of certain designatory areas where Christians were welcomed and others were somehow intervened. A file and rank system would make sense to them, with the Truly Devout at the top, while the slouchers would need to be at the bottom. If this earth life is a school, then it would make sense for the A students to reap more benefits than the D- students. And there would need to be a clearly defined line between the two. Endless distinctions would abound. As Christ taught that his doctrine was divisive, and as Christ's subsequent offshoots of religion (churches) have become devisive to say the least, it would make sense to Christians that their Heaven was divisive as well.

Christians are so concerned with who's going to hell and heaven because that's how they've been taught to think. Even Christ said, "Judge not, lest ye be judged" and then he went on to judge others almost indiscriminately. Which is what his followers have done, but much worse. It makes more sense to a Christian to be devisive about where others belong in relation to themselves. You won't see too many Atheists or Agnostics declaring where people should or will go after they die. Especially if the consideration is about how religious those people were in this life.

It is in my opinion that, should there be a God, and should that God be the Christian version of God, then Heaven is the Christian version of Hell. So, in quasi-reality, heaven and hell become entwined into one version. I say this because it is impossible to excuse any God for his poor representation on Earth and the many horrid scenarios that have transpired by people claiming to be getting direct communication from Him.

[getting down off soap box]

As far as tiassa's point about the soul being quantified ... I do have hope that the spirit continues after death. It would be quite the feat, however. Yes, Christians, I realize that Christ performed his act of kindness on the cross for just this purpose. Yet, for everything said about Christ, there seems to be one quality that is left out: altruism. What if you had the chance to grant everyone immortality (if they wanted it), would you consider it more difficult to go through your sacrifice without making necessary requirements that people considered you God? For all those that believe in saved by grace, let me point out that the Bible does mention something about every knee bending and every tongue confessing that Christ is the Christ. Wouldn't it be slightly more noble and, even heroic, for Christ to perform this miracle just for the sake of all mankind? Apparently not. It becomes a: Hey, because I did this for you, the least you can do is follow what I say, even if it may sound somewhat strange to some of you. It would be quite another thing for Christ to say: Hey, I managed to overcome death, which means that I have the power to help others (everyone) do the same; together we can find out where to go from here.

Isn't it interesting that Satan bluntly said what he wanted: all the glory from the father for others to follow his plan, while, Christ ends up getting what Satan desired. Does it matter if Christ doesn't want it? Too bad, his followers say he gets it, then he gets it. It seems God is rather good at saying: Follow this path. The thing we don't realize is that God has set up a trap along the path. We fall in, we have to get out, we are somehow at fault, incurs the wrath of God, we confusingly repent, then God lifts us out and puts us on the same path.

[blasted soap boxes!]

Anyway. It would be great to have our spirits (if such spirits could be quantified or measured in some way) to continue on. I would assume there would be so much catching-up with past relatives and others across the board. Wishful thinking, I suppose.

Lawdog, as far as looking down on former men with our science and saying we know better ... I'd have to say science does, indeed, help us to get out of these holes and put us on different paths so that we aren't making the same mistakes (with just a slightly different theme to them) everytime. I consider former men that we can look down on as those men that have said that skin color determines a person's worth, or that a person's sexual orientation is a deviant and should thus be eradicated, or that seek to set themselves up by preying on the guilt of others, or that form any kind of hate groups. I'd say it's pretty fair game to look down on those people. What does it all come down to? Ignorance. Spend enough time with someone of another color and you realize that they think much the same as you do, slightly tinted by cultural differences. Spend enough time with someone that believes a different way about sexual orientation and you realize that they, of all people, would rather not be homosexual (because of how they or others like them are treated) and you realize that they are like you in most respects, maybe differing on one aspect. Spend enough time with motivators-through-guilt and you realize that ulterior motives play a major part in everything they do. Spend enough time with hate-mongers and you realize that it is especially difficult for them to see two sides to every argument. Spend enough time with anything and ignorance becomes a thing of nought.

Wow! This is too long! Hope you both enjoyed this! Good questions, though, Lawdog, and welcome. Thanks again, tiassa, for letting me hang onto the coat-tails to get my thought processes jump-started.

prag

Lawdog

05-17-01, 03:06 PM

Before going into any depth on Christian belief, it is necessary to establish some basic priciples on reality, which, if not accepted, makes further depth learning concerning the mysteries of REALITY impossible.

1) Is Man made, created? or did he simply rise into existance of his own accord.

2) If Man rose into existance of his own accord, or by some mechanism of Nature, please explain this mechanism philosophically. Also explain how the reality of MIND came into existance. If you defer to the arguement of Evolution, please take into consideration the serious weaknesses of this theory.

3) If we can agree that Man either was created or that his evolution arose under the authority of a designer, then can we conclude that the Existant Uncreated Being MUST be Omnipotent and Omniscient, or if not, what relationship does he have to the Cosmos he created and how?

4) Some change occurs between the DEATH of an animal and its former pattern in the LIVING state. The animal ceases in various functions. Some unseen quality is no longer active. May we call this the Life Force? Can we extend the term Life-force to the word Psyche (Soul), Anima, as the Greeks and Romans termed it? Thus can we conclude that animals have animal souls?

5) Man is an animal. Thus Man has a Soul. It appears that Man is the highest Animal and unlike the others has the capacity for REASON. Obviously this invisible reality must be linked to the unseen Life-force called Soul.

6)If we conclude Man is created by an uncreated God on the basis of reasoning, can we conclude that the energizing principle that gives rise to MIND, BEAUTY, REASON, which he alone can represent, and other aspects of Human reality, are external evidences of a Life-force.

7) Is it possible that all men given a similar design as it seems require oxygen? but Is it possible that some men require oxygen whereas others require helium or methane? Some require water but others gasoline? This is impossible. All men require Air and Water. Hence could not the same be true concerning nourishment required for the human soul/spirit?

8) Is it possible then that only One TRUTH as opposed to Various truisms is the nourishment that the designer sustains the Life-force?

9) Is it impossible to reckon that knowledge concerning REALITY can be obtained in ways other than scientific method involving direct observation. Scientists claim that they know fairly well what structure the interior of the SUN and EARTH have, yet no scientist has directly observed these interiors, nor have scientists directly observed EVOLUTION or PLATE TECTONICS at work. All our evidence is from INDIRECT OBSERVATION in many cases.

10) Is it possible that INDIRECT OBSERVATION concerning INVISIBLE REALITIES also may be employed? Over a thousand years of Platonic and Aristotelean Philosophy employed in the discovery of KNOWLEDGE from the sources of REVELATION have been thrown out by the WEST, on the grounds that it is unscientific and based on indirect evidence. Yet the great THEOLOGIONS of the Medieval Era like THOMAS AQUINAS adressed questions concerning DIVINE REALITY with logical precision rivaling our most profound physics theoriests.

have fun! Lawdog

pragmathen

05-17-01, 04:52 PM

Wow, Lawdog. Nice going. I guess you made some statements of belief, albeit through questions. Although I don't feel necessarily qualified to answer every one of these questions, I'll give it a go from my perspective. This should be fun!

<blockquote>
quote:
<hr>
Originally posted by Lawdog:
1) Is Man made, created? or did he simply rise into existance of his own accord.
<hr>
</blockquote>

This is perhaps the crux of your entire interrogative inquiry. If Man was made or created, then that lends credit to the idea that there must, consequently, be a Creator of some sort. However, if Man simply rose into existence of his own accord, then that in itself, from your point of view, still does not necessarily disallow a Creator somewhere down the line.

[As a side note: I restate according to how I understood the statement from your perspective, hence the path of my subsequent reasonings]

If the argument is that Man was made, then wouldn't it be entirely conceivable to consider that perhaps the Maker is at fault for what he made? In the same breath that someone can say, "Does the axe boast of itself or does the credit belong to the one that wields it?", it can also be said, "Does the axe take the blame for chopping off the head or does the one that wields [made] it?" Similar analogy, I hope. By saying that Man has been made basically rules out any sort of personal worth, because whatever worth Man has has been endowed by his Creator. Which would imply that Man was created for the sole purpose of entertaining the Creator. Man was a means to an end. By this same reasoning, if Man was created then it stands to reason that dinosaurs were also created as well. Seeing as how dinosaurs have been found in nearly every clime on this planet [parallels with humans], then the Creator constructed dinosaurs as a means to an end. This means that once the dinosaurs had outlived their usefulness, they were pretty much decimated. To make room for the second level of creations. Dolphins! Just kidding. Possibly humans. A pattern might be in the development.

But, what if man rose of his own accord? Is that so impossible or detestable? Would you rather have ancestors who were divinely appointed by a Creator or would you rather have ancestors that tried their best to overcome obstacles and hindrances which barred them from adapting to the environment? Why is it that evolution is so laughable and creation theory is not? Both sides of the fence think the other is foaming at the mouth and have gone bonkers. Which one is the truer of the two? On what scales does the measurement entail? Good feelings for creationists? Facts for evolutionists? Admittedly, that was biased. It seems that creationists look for a lack of evidence as evidence of a creationist paradigm; they ignore the mounds of evidence that have been gathered and collated by separate researchers from across the globe in support of Creationist dogma that has, at its source, an easy-out as far as explaining the goings-on on the earth. More on this later, of course.

<blockquote>
quote:
<hr>
2) If Man rose into existance of his own accord, or by some mechanism of Nature, please explain this mechanism philosophically. Also explain how the reality of MIND came into existance. If you defer to the arguement of Evolution, please take into consideration the serious weaknesses of this theory.
<hr>
</blockquote>

The reality of MIND. That's pretty cool. I've wondered about the reality of the mind for quite a while. Put a deity in the equation of man and that automatically undermines man. I'd like to think of man as being stalwart and persistent enough of his own accord to rise out of his disparaging circumstances and overcome crooked paths. To say that some deity has a hand in this would mean that humans do not ultimately decide their actions. But the mind, though. Yeah. The human mind is nearly unlike any other thinking machine (whether literal or animal). Not too sure how the mind came into existence, but I'm pretty sure it involved an awful lot of IF stimulus, THEN response, ELSE continue trees of thought that eventually branched other trees of thinking. Those that could adapt to this way of thinking survived, adapted. Those that could not did not. I think it was tiassa that once said that men gradually were able to actually look up into the sky, which would cause thoughts of "What are those shiny things that I cannot reach over my head?" to develop and eventually become more detailed and specific.

If I defer to the argument of Evolution, I should take into consideration the serious weaknesses of this theory, eh? Mind telling me what those blaring weaknesses are, along with the glaring obviousness of Creationist theory? Then again, perhaps I'm assuming too much about your line of thinking. Perhaps, like me, you don't believe in the Creationist theory and have a tenuous grasp on evolutionary dynamics as it is. Hmm. Perhaps not.

<blockquote>
quote:
<hr>
3) If we can agree that Man either was created or that his evolution arose under the authority of a designer, then can we conclude that the Existant Uncreated Being MUST be Omnipotent and Omniscient, or if not, what relationship does he have to the Cosmos he created and how?
<hr>
</blockquote>

Not sure I can agree with you on this one. This one is best left to those that can agree with you on this.

<blockquote>
quote:
<hr>
4) Some change occurs between the DEATH of an animal and its former pattern in the LIVING state. The animal ceases in various functions. Some unseen quality is no longer active. May we call this the Life Force? Can we extend the term Life-force to the word Psyche (Soul), Anima, as the Greeks and Romans termed it? Thus can we conclude that animals have animal souls?
<hr>
</blockquote>

Former pattern in the living state? Could you elaborate a bit on this point? I was under the impression that when an animal dies, it ceases in all functions. Any kind of movements after death can be attributed to built-up gas, residual neuron-firings, or some other physical explanation. Not to say that I disagree with man having a spirit, but I see death differently. As I mentioned before, the Mind is an amazing multi-tasking machine. When the mind is shut down, the body soon follows--no choice being given to the body in this instance. If it turned out that I had a soul that continued on after death, I'd be pretty peeved if animals didn't have souls as well. Imagine an afterlife with no other beings but humans. Bleah!

<blockquote>
quote:
<hr>
5) Man is an animal. Thus Man has a Soul. It appears that Man is the highest Animal and unlike the others has the capacity for REASON. Obviously this invisible reality must be linked to the unseen Life-force called Soul.
<hr>
</blockquote>

This is under the assumption that man has a soul, of course. Not sure that assumption can be clearly laid out. Again, not necessarily disagreeing with you, Lawdog, just letting you know that not backing up assumptions with at least some form of thought or beliefs or facts has the tendency to stagnate whatever point you're trying to make.

<blockquote>
quote:
<hr>
6)If we conclude Man is created by an uncreated God on the basis of reasoning, can we conclude that the energizing principle that gives rise to MIND, BEAUTY, REASON, which he alone can represent, and other aspects of Human reality, are external evidences of a Life-force.
<hr>
</blockquote>

Can we also assume, in the same vein, that the energizing principle which gives rise to DEPRECATION, TORTURE, ILLOGICAL MYTHS are external evidences of a Life-force? If man is the pinnacle of creation, as you seem to hint, then that's a pretty low standard for creation. How many times have you run across a dog and thought, "Man, if people were like this, perhaps they wouldn't be going to war over their personal religious belief system." Never? Dogs are cool.

<blockquote>
quote:
<hr>
7) Is it possible that all men given a similar design as it seems require oxygen? but Is it possible that some men require oxygen whereas others require helium or methane? Some require water but others gasoline? This is impossible. All men require Air and Water. Hence could not the same be true concerning nourishment required for the human soul/spirit?
<hr>
</blockquote>

On the home stretch! Pretty sure I can agree with you that all men require oxygen. Next points are pretty impossible. Air and water seem to be the duo that man can not do without, to be sure. I'm pretty certain that food fits in that equation as well, somewhere. As far as assuming that the human soul requires air and water, I'd have disagree. And not on a "I don't believe in a human soul" stance. That'd be a hard blow to take upon dying, wouldn't you think? You die, then "wake up" saying, "Man, I'm famished! Where can a spirit like me grab some air and water (and possibly food)? The afterlife sucks. Thanks a lot, Creator-guy." But seriously, I'd think that if the spirit exists, it would require other forms of nourishment, say interaction with other spirits.

<blockquote>
quote:
<hr>
8) Is it possible then that only One TRUTH as opposed to Various truisms is the nourishment that the designer sustains the Life-force?
<hr>
</blockquote>

Well, if it's one truth, that rules out ALL forms of religion, since they differ on many varying degrees, even within their own respective sects. As far as the designer sustaining the life-force, I'd have to take issue with a designer that sustains the life-force of someone that is being tortured to get them to confess something which they have no idea on. Inquisition comes to mind.

<blockquote>
quote:
<hr>
9) Is it impossible to reckon that knowledge concerning REALITY can be obtained in ways other than scientific method involving direct observation. Scientists claim that they know fairly well what structure the interior of the SUN and EARTH have, yet no scientist has directly observed these interiors, nor have scientists directly observed EVOLUTION or PLATE TECTONICS at work. All our evidence is from INDIRECT OBSERVATION in many cases.
<hr>
</blockquote>

Ever read a history book? Ever read about how these dastardly scientists plotted the heavens quite a few millennia ago and how scientists of today have correlated those plottings and discovered that changes have occured in the heavens? Implying that an evolution / change of some sort is constantly happening. What you would call indirect observation is not correct. Direct observation of plate tectonics and the fact that certain coastlines are receding away from neighboring countries at a rate of an inch a year. Plate tectonics in action! You go, Pangea! I think you want to take the science out of the scientific method and presume you know more than others that have specialized in this field. Or, perhaps you're assuming that creationists know more about the past life of the earth because they are IN with God? Just wondering.

<blockquote>
quote:
<hr>
10) Is it possible that INDIRECT OBSERVATION concerning INVISIBLE REALITIES also may be employed? Over a thousand years of Platonic and Aristotelean Philosophy employed in the discovery of KNOWLEDGE from the sources of REVELATION have been thrown out by the WEST, on the grounds that it is unscientific and based on indirect evidence. Yet the great THEOLOGIONS of the Medieval Era like THOMAS AQUINAS adressed questions concerning DIVINE REALITY with logical precision rivaling our most profound physics theoriests.
<hr>
</blockquote>

I don't know that Platonic and Aristotlean philosophy has been entirely thrown out here in the West. Philosophy is a great pasttime, but it does not solve the world's energy crisis. Theosophizing on why the earth rotates around the sun instead of the converse is fine and dandy (and I do think about things like this), but it basically remains an open-ended "science". Technology is science-grounded. Science is concerned with unlocking secrets and opening doors and finding end results, not with proposing a theory and then discussing it to no end.

<blockquote>
quote:
<hr>
have fun! Lawdog
<hr>
</blockquote>

Loads!

prag

Bowser

05-18-01, 08:55 AM

"Science is concerned with unlocking secrets and opening doors and finding end results, not with proposing a theory and then discussing it to no end."

Yes, but does one key fit every lock? I am sorry. Science is limited, and there are some questions it cannot answer. If I was to ask an atheist about god, what would his answer be? Such is science...limited.

Malaclypse

05-18-01, 09:02 AM

Tiassa

05-18-01, 09:09 AM

Science may be limited and occasionally bureaucratic, but who here will choose a laying on of hands over medical treatment for cancer?

Furthermore, I would like to remind all that science is an ongoing adventure; new discoveries change our perception of reality every day.

If you ask a Christian, nothing new has been written about God since a congress of bishops decided what Christ did and said and set a canon known in the modern day as The Bible.

Whatever religion has failed to do, it will continue to fail to do. Whatever science has failed to do, it has a legitimate shot of achieving someday.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Lawdog

05-18-01, 04:12 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pragmathen
[B]Wow, Lawdog. Nice going. I guess you made some statements of belief, albeit through questions. Although I don't feel necessarily qualified to answer every one of these questions, I'll give it a go from my perspective. This should be fun!

<blockquote>
quote:
<hr>
Originally posted by Lawdog:
1) Is Man made, created? or did he simply rise into existance of his own accord.
<hr>
</blockquote>

This is perhaps the crux of your entire interrogative inquiry. If Man was made or created, then that lends credit to the idea that there must, consequently, be a Creator of some sort. However, if Man simply rose into existence of his own accord, then that in itself, from your point of view, still does not necessarily disallow a Creator somewhere down the line.

[As a side note: I restate according to how I understood the statement from your perspective, hence the path of my subsequent reasonings]

If the argument is that Man was made, then wouldn't it be entirely conceivable to consider that perhaps the Maker is at fault for what he made? In the same breath that someone can say, "Does the axe boast of itself or does the credit belong to the one that wields it?", it can also be said, "Does the axe take the blame for chopping off the head or does the one that wields [made] it?"

>>>>Perhaps here you are really saying that if there is a "God" this God must be the first cause (ie "at fault") for designing and putting humans into Being. I agree with that, and would add that my intellect informs me that there must be some primordial being which has set into motion all that is coming into existance and passing out from existance. I also suspect that this Being does not rely on a previous being to set it into existance, but that this being is the base and foundation of BEING ITSELF, uncreated, but giving rise to all that is. Aristotle called this the PRIME MOVER, which set all reality into existance. One might add, shall the created say "Why hast thou created me thus?"

Similar analogy, I hope. By saying that Man has been made basically rules out any sort of personal worth, because whatever worth Man has has been endowed by his Creator. Which would imply that Man was created for the sole purpose of entertaining the Creator. Man was a means to an end.

>>>>Christianity does confess this doctrine, with the correction that Man has been created not to entertain but to worship God, not for any need of the Creator, but rather for the sake of union with the Creator, as the Lover seeks union with the Beloved, to the benefit of created Man. We believe that the end(goal) of Man is union with God and the beatific vision.

Opps, gotta go!

I'll respond to the rest later...by the way how do you use that quote-system?
Lawdog

daktaklakpak

05-18-01, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by Lawdog
Man has been created not to entertain but to worship God...

Does that mean God is lonely?

...not for any need of the Creator...

But it looks to me that the Creator needs worship, isn't it?

Tiassa

05-18-01, 08:46 PM

Prag--

Thanks again, tiassa, for letting me hang onto the coat-tails to get my thought processes jump-started. Aw ... bullhunky. Specifically, sir, I believe that contiguous discussions are actually part of the purpose of debating at Sciforums. In this case, I am happy to see that what I write does something more than draw desperate flak fire from some of my (added on edit) rhetorical opponents. In this sense, it is I who owe thanks: that you would think so deeply as a result of something I might have written is a compliment of the spirit which transcends price.that men gradually were able to actually look up into the sky, which would cause thoughts of "What are those shiny things that I cannot reach over my head?" to develop and eventually become more detailed and specific. This is one of my favorite little bits of late; one of the most painful abstractions I can create for myself is when I note that I cannot recall the first time I saw the stars. But it has occurred to me that it is entirely possible for our evolutionary ancestors to have lived their whole lives with self-awareness in the sense of comparison, and never have seen something so damned fascinating as a sky nearly exploding with stars: and there were no city lights to glare and press away the night and deny the magnitude of the Universe. One of my (Catholic high school) teachers, during our World History-associated glossing of the archaeological record, liked to make certain points, and actually slowed the pace enough to use slides and point out differences in cranial structure, increases in brain mass, the notch in the back of the skull, &c. Aside from brazenly making pedophile suggestions about my teacher, I think the first joke of mine that actually endeared us to one another came on this particular day, when he pointed out the importance of the simple ability to look up, and I (who prided myself on having better taste and humor than most, a joke that we all still haven't gotten over today) managed, "My God, it's full of stars."

If we look at the human, functional notion of the first time one realized that one could farm, and thus not sneak around among more efficient predators itself ... what must that have allowed in terms of evolution? Man suddenly has the opportunity to reduce the necessary scope of the Universe and can begin accruing a greater knowledge of those things more immediately relevant--and, by proxy of permanence, subject to a greater degree of control--to the living experience. Instead of sitting on the rocks in the shade, guarding vigilantly against predators, one could sit on the rocks and be fascinated by the rock. Imagine the possibilities. Or, perhaps, that is the point: as one gains a sense of permanence and security in the living experience--a sense of control--one has time to imagine.

Looks like the cranium's going to need some new hardware: later generations have been running at higher levels. Perhaps one among them mutates on the genetic strand, and suddenly the brain is running at the right levels because brain mass has randomly increased; perhaps the increase is responsive, as the organism was created amid certain conditions, and adapts to fix the power-management problem in the brain--larger brain capacity is necessary. Perhaps genes are not as fixed--as such--as we tend to think; perhaps over generations, they begin to adapt to prolonged conflicts between programming and operating conditions. (This invites a tempting question: what happens if our ability to change the operating conditions outpaces our ability to adapt to changing conditions? We disappear, is what.)Theosophizing on why the earth rotates around the sun instead of the converse is fine and dandy (and I do think about things like this), but it basically remains an open-ended "science".Every once in a while I like to assert that certain forms of religion are actually pre-science. Even Christianity has had its periods; look at how much logical work the Catholics did--so much that the faithful got sick of it. The only problem with the things worked out over the centuries is the number of a priori declarations they begin with. The method is rather quite sound. But the assumptions before they begin are preposterous enough to wound, perhaps mortally, the viability of the conclusions.

But look at what you've given me to think about .... ;)

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

Edit: Geemineezer Scrooges! See what happens when you only proofread for typos?