I really like Richard Dawkins. Without him, I wouldn't see and hear the idea called Deepak debating this issue ... so the universe must indeed be very intelligent :)

Deepak on video with Richard Dawkins:
At 18.30 Deepak is explaining how Quantum Theory fits into consciousness.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4720837385783230047

Congrads! on joining the two, cause both of you have love!
Cheers to science and religion finally being the Same!

I can picture you and Richard sitting around the pool drinking margaritas, talkin quantum bladabla!and making eyes at the hot blondies!

I suppose that a good thing!

hehe

Thanks for the video, Skeptisch, and for the kindness of pointing to the segment where Deepak speaks.

As I haven't red Dawkins, after seeing his video I understand why Deepak writes that he has an "over-heated skepticism". Mr. Dawkins is fighting a battle against his image of alternative medicine, which, just like his image of religion, is a general blend of all kinds of ingredients he obviously has no understanding of.

If he could only stop fighting and start looking without bias... at the observer effect he is demonstrating.

Hi Aurora, you write:

"If he could only stop fighting and start looking without bias... at the observer effect he is demonstrating."

Rest assured that he is :)

The way I see it both Deepak and Richard Dawkins are entangled in a drama they both like to perform :)

I see this happen in politics, coalition after coalition in our country. Duality is necessary in order to debate lol

I see this happen in the debate between religion and spirituality.

And in lots of other aspects of life :)

If this was not the case, life would not be worth living :)

All is part of being alive and to be honest, i would not want to have it in another way, i want to be part of it all, every day.

And then, at the end of the day being able to disentangle from it all and go back to the source.......... :)

Love, Light and above all Peace,

Mieke

Goodness knows that the world badly more brilliant gems like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, et al, to disencumber mankind from insidious age-old shackles of religion and delusions!

It is egregiously unhealthy to perpetuate fairytale and superstition in our time. To do so, is to surrender to deception, fantasy and wishful thinking! We appear to be trapped in a tug-of-war between untruth and reality!

Deepak says:
“Contrary to what Dawkins thinks, design in the universe isn't a blueprint set down by a fictitious God. It's a vital, ever-evolving, imaginative, dramatic process.”

What does Deepak say here?

Yo balance

There is good in medical science and there is also bad.
Same with alternetive medicine.

There is a lot of new age mumbo jumbo and there is much poisoning of our world with perscription drugs and unnessecary surgeries.

To believe one is all good and the other all bad is truly an unbalanced belief.

like I have said before science has brought us many wonderful things and many horrific things as well, the same as religion.

Dawkins is just another side of the coin of sensationalism. No more right or wrong than Deepak or anyone else.

The need to warn the world or save it or whatever his motivation he is just another person sharing things from his perspective. No more relevant than anyone else.

I have seen people healed with scientific medicine and hurt with scientific medicine the same with alternative medicine.

derek

come on in boys the waters warm, an afternoon swim will fix ya right up!

Edict:

It's against the law for the mind and body to promote or even having thoughts of a fairytalelike or superstitious nature, starting today!

Penalty- why re-programming of course! If that doesn't work......

How's that for re-building humanity...for the good?

Deepak says:
“Contrary to what Dawkins thinks, design in the universe isn't a blueprint set down by a fictitious God. It's a vital, ever-evolving, imaginative, dramatic process.”

"What does Deepak say here?" Skep asks, because why?

He sees foot and mouth disease and is ready to attack.

It can't be good for you, and words dissolve crummy bugs.

.

Hello Skep!

Thanks for the link. I've wondered what R.D. looked like.
He doesn't seem as crass as all that. Good info
that yes...needs to be seen and heard, especially here.

Can I tie in this video with the question?

Deepak admits using quantum theory as a metaphor. (No, duh.)
He has read up on the 'real' physics, and he sees a relationship.
I won't re-phrase the question. Can I translate his English?

A design is a process. 'Designing' might have been a better term.

Biologically speaking(no quantum guru here, duh),
it sounds like Deepak believes the human system is capable
of creatively producing an immune system response
to any new threat it will most assuredly encounter.

The DRAMA-tic process must involve the mind-body connection.
(I'm not sure, Skep, just what your stance is here.
I have to think you would agree, a positive state
of mental health is vital to our system as a whole.)

The 'ever-evolving part' I take to mean this:
An ongoing intelligent selection of mutations.
(As opposed to an ongoing set of chances where
nothing is determined until a later date, i.e. luck.)

As for 'vital' he means life-sustaining...
moment to moment, breathe-pause-breathe, tick-pause-tock.

As for 'imagination', here he means(presumptuous on my part, I know)
an intelligent creative process that produces a solution,
a foreseeable, favorable outcome AND the ways and means.

.

T-cells and embryonic stem cells come to mind.
I wonder why that is...could it be?

A little encouragement works wonders.
Everybody talks to and with their mind/brains.
Some of us beg and plead, hell...
some of us pray, some of us meditate, some of us
just talk a hike. See ya! Peace yawl!

Without Prejudice:

It would seem that the author is on a determined mission to debunk much of what Darwin and Sagan stood for, what Einstein meant vis-à-vis his religiosity and much of what Dawkins teaches in the God Delusion.

Are we to infer then that all of the preceding thinkers got it wrong and he's on the right path? Isn’t science an open-ended affair? Are we to therefore abandon the scientific method for mysticism?

So why should we have to abandon anything for anything else?
Can't they both exist?
One as relevant as the other?
Sounds childish to say that one idea has to diminish so the other is more.
I feel the point is to bring balance and acceptance of all ideas.

derek

This discussion is not for those in kindergarten!

#14..I agree.

just as the world needs happy people, we also need sad people...

no difference when it comes to perspective.

Deepak's continuing to discredit Dawkins; makes Deepak look and sound like a bully(IMHO) as it is Dawkins right and privilage, to believe... in any thing.. or not!

Deepak must need more money.

says lady north...

"Deepak must need more money." damn...donna...you brave! no? damn!

once a fool, always a fool...

even fools like me, are necessary; to make the nonfoolish LOOK or APPEAR nonfoolish...

that's my excuse, and I"m stickin' to it, Diablo! : )

Can someone who criticises and interprets some of the greatest minds, past and present, and then comes up with his own hocus pocus list of what the future will look like, have any credibility or intellectual honesty left?

--Faith will no longer be seen as an irrational departure from reason and science.
--Prayer will be seen as real and efficacious.
--Aspects of the paranormal and miraculous will be widely credited.
--Healing, both physical and psychological, will become commonplace.
--Communities of belief will arise.
--Manifestation of desires will be talked about as a real phenomenon.
--A wisdom tradition will grow to embrace the great spiritual teachings at the heart of organized religion.

The same person also claims to have bent many spoons with his mind and tells us not to be skeptical about pseudo science but to be very skeptical with real science and the scientific method.

Isn’t it about time we have an honest conversation about the truth?

Yo Ron
I guess I'm in over my head again so I'll go back to my finger paints and let you "smart" guys continue to argue it out.
You're doin' a bang up job so far. Round and round.................

How long has this arguement been goin' on?

derek

"Dawkins is a great rationalist, but he is also a good man. History has seen a number of supreme rationalists who weren’t good at all.

He gives human sympathies and emotions their proper value, which is one of the things that lends his criticisms of religion such force, because many religious leaders in the world today – certainly the loudest ones – are men who, it’s obvious to anyone but their deranged followers, are willing to sanction vicious cruelty in the service of their faith. Dawkins hits them hard, with all the power that reason can wield, demolishing their preposterous attempts to prove the existence of God, or their presumptuous claims that religion is the only basis of morality, or that their holy books are literally true."

The God Delusion is written with all the clarity and elegance of which Dawkins is a master. It is so well written, in fact, that children deserve to read it as well as adults. It should have a place in every school library — especially in the library of every ‘faith’ school.

Naturally, it won’t. But with any luck, the teachers in these ridiculous establishments will ban it from their shelves, and thus draw the attention of the intelligent pupils in their care to something that might be interesting as well as true."

"Dawkins is a great rationalist, but he is also a good man. History has seen a number of supreme rationalists who weren’t good at all."

That's quite a statement, apparently being a supreme rationalist, the highest form of human doesn't always promote or guarantee goodness. Why would that be?

Hopefully we will see more good ones like Dawkins in the future, because the track record has been spotty.

Physicists need more time, not the paranormal and supernatural.

1. Well done, Skep!

2. Like clock work, a certain 'fan' feels obligated to provide color commentary whenever his hero posts. I suppose he'd be asking for an autograph soon! (?)

When you cut a crumb in half, you get two crumbs. And so on. This is why materialism is unsatisfactory for me.

A couple threads ago, Skeptisch made this statement: "Let's not worry about *how* we say things, just *what* we say", or something along those lines, meaning, I think, that the content matters more than the manner, of the communication. I've been mulling over that statement ever since I read it, because as it happens, I try to conduct my life in the exact opposite manner.

And this is what I see. The plain fact of the matter is that you can never get two people to agree about everything, or to get everybody to agree about any one thing, regardless of how convincing your facts (content) may be. So after a point, hammering on the facts only polarizes the world further. Our friend Ron recently asked us for the best way to achieve world peace, if that was indeed attainable at all. Well Ron, I don't know the answer to that, but I sure know that the answer is not to summarily judge people who disagree with you. Brain-dead, ignorant, gullible, rubbish, ridiculous, delusional, nincompoop … are just a few of the adjectives you freely use. In my book, doing that is just a hop, step and jump away from invading countries and dropping bombs on people we have disagreements with; the only difference is that there is firepower to go with the adjectives.

The only reason I even venture this here is that both Skeptisch and Ron have been, like Ambasteve, Timex watches – persistently communicating their views but also human enough to build relationships here, unlike the drive-by shooters we've had in the past for Deepak's more belligerent posts. Your seemingly unshakable faith in your beliefs has been quite eye-opening for me, in the way any opposing viewpoint is, if we take the time to consider it, and allow ourselves to co-exist with it.

Ron, your summary dismissal of thousands of years of past civilizations and cultures, just because they believed in gods, absolutely took my breath away. I wonder how much time you have spent getting to know another culture, or even another country. Even if it was about something factual, like the earth being the center of the universe, the fact remains that most of the world believed it at the time. We could all be very well that world today, believing fervently in the 'truth' of something, only to be totally upturned tomorrow by a new discovery or theory. Maybe a century from now, mankind will totally renounce violence as a way of solving problems, be it between nations or kids in the sandlot, and people then will be saying, "can you believe people back in the 20th century used to call others nincompoops just because they differed in their views?"

This is Intentblog, not your common garden-variety blog. Let's elevate the spirit over the content; let's do life a little differently here, shall we?

Well done, Skep!

like clock work indeed

'..It is non-local.., defies all notions of cause and effect.. from which the purpose breaks only when it is fulfilled.'

Swordsman,

Thank you for the essay. Well written!

Rgds.

Dear Mieke,

About your post no 6 – you say “rest assured that he is”. Yes, the silent observer exists behind every physical manifestation, but as you surely notice, not all physical beings are aware of it. I agree that what may appear as conflict is a perfect dance seemingly made of light and shadow, but shadow is actually nothing other than light- unaware light. And the whole dance is leading to increased awareness of the light nature of any manifestation. I am glad that the brightest points of consciousness on this planet keep shining their light. Light is not opposite to anything, it never shines in conflict with “shadow”, light never fights battles, there is nothing outside of itself to fight…awakened light simply shines :)

Dear Ron,

You write “We appear to be trapped in a tug-of-war between untruth and reality!” Yes, it is true... we APPEAR to be trapped in war. It is only an illusion, friend. There is no conflict in reality, only in the way we perceive things. The “war” is created by our inner resistance to our own expansion of consciousness, of knowledge, of understanding. We resist anything new and unknown, we resist including more reality into our image of the world... It is a terrifying thought- “what if my opponent is ALSO right?” But allowing this possibility can make room for a larger truth, one that allows different truths to merge into a larger, deeper reality. I think your inner impasse might be that you think that science needs to be wrong if spirituality is to be right. How about both being right, and our job to discover in what way?

Dear Skeptisch,

You ask what Deepak is saying in this paragraph : “Contrary to what Dawkins thinks, design in the universe isn't a blueprint set down by a fictitious God. It's a vital, ever-evolving, imaginative, dramatic process.”
What does Deepak say here?”

Thank you for this intelligent question.
If I may offer you my understanding of it, he is expressing the insight that the detailed harmony and perfection we can observe in this fantastic world of ours is not a blueprint handed out by an outside entity called God. The laws of the universe are not set in stone once and for all by an outside all powerful God. The universe is an ongoing, intelligent, creative process that we human beings are an integral part of, and the intelligence of the universe is the same intelligence we perceive in ourselves.

This process is self-improving all the time and our inner world of hopes, wishes, imagination, creativity, emotions, as an intrinsic part of this whole process, is not separate from the world of planets and buildings and atoms and financial markets, there is one alive universe that everything belongs to, it is intelligent and evolving, all its parts are in continuous communication with each other and influencing each other. One of the possible names for this wholeness would be “God”.

So " Universe", “God”, “Life”, “Love”, “Science”, “You”, “Me” are actually different names for the same, intelligent, ongoing and evolving process.

SONNET 53

What is your substance, whereof are you made,
That millions of strange shadows on you tend
Since every one hath, every one, one shade,
And you, but one, can every shadow lend.

Describe Adonis and the counterfeit
Is poorly imitated after you;
On Helen’s cheek all art of beauty set,
And you in Grecian tires are painted new:

Speak of the spring and foison of the year;
The one doth shadow of you beauty show,
The other as your bounty doth appear;
And you in every blessed shape we know.

In all external grace you have some part,
But you like none, none you, for constant heart

:)))))

SONNET 43

When most I wink, then do mine eyes best see,
For all the day they view things unrespected;
But when I sleep, in dreams they look on thee,
And darkly bright are bright in dark directed.
Then thou, whose shadow shadows doth make bright,
How would thy shadow's form form happy show
To the clear day with thy much clearer light,
When to unseeing eyes thy shade shines so!
How would, I say, mine eyes be blessed made
By looking on thee in the living day,
When in dead night thy fair imperfect shade
Through heavy sleep on sightless eyes doth stay!
All days are nights to see till I see thee,
And nights bright days when dreams do show thee me.

With respect to the use of certain adjectives, one must be himself at all times and call it as he sees it, won't you say? I think it would be a bit disingenuous to be phony just because you are afraid that someone might be offended!

One could say, “You are dumb!” or, “You are not smart!” What is the difference?

Cheers!

Ron: I agree with you; it is not useful to be inauthentic in order to avoid offending somebody. Actually, everybody has the option to take offense regardless of which words you use, so you are actually completely off the hook :-).

What I was referring to goes deeper than just what words we use. I was looking at the impulse that makes us want to judge others in the first place. Let's just take negative labels for now. Say, when another person looks different, has an opposing opinion, are an inconvenience in some way, etc, what makes us want to call them dumb, or their opinion ridiculous, etc? After all, their opinion is their opinion, their looks are their looks, etc. Why can we not let it stay at that level, and why do we instead want to put it in a box marked 'dumb' or 'ridiculous'? I'm not sure I have an authoritative answer, but I think it's along the lines of what Aurora wrote recently – we like the known past over the unknown present or future. We have grown to feel comfortable with things we have already experienced and filtered through our current belief system. But the bald fact is that the universe is like a river – it flows past us (and through us) at the rate of a billion stimuli per second. We can certainly cling to the parts we are familiar with, but in that process we're leaving out a lot.

So could the answer be, as many people have said here, that others don't have to be wrong for us to be right? And instead of lamenting and resisting the possibility that we could have been wrong in the past, we can celebrate the possibility that we are more 'right' now than we used to be. And eventually, maybe we can get to the point where we recognize right/wrong/bad/good as just mental constructs, and look at things just as they are, and act accordingly.

I'd like some more detail on exactly how a universal consciousness would work: how exactly do the quantum effects describe work to produce conscious experience? How do paired particles or non-locality act so as to produce subjective thought?

If all this citation of Quantum Mechanics has any informative purpose at all, my questions should be easy to answer.

Hey Bad Boy! I checked out your site.

You are a young man with credentials and much promise.
Good luck to you and your blog. Recent addition?

I find it odd that it took so long for you to arrive here and post.
I find it equally odd that you would ask these two questions.

The archives is chock-full of global viewpoints.
There will you find a wide variety of answers,
if you were to bother yourself enough to spend
some quality time reading through all of it.

A tedious process, yes, I would agree, but you came to the party a bit too fashionably late.
It is likely that we will re-hash much of what we have debated
in the near future, if you care to stick around for awhile.

If that be the case, then welcome aboard the mystical ship of Doom.
Destination unbeknowest to all, including you and Me2.

Keith: none of that actually _answers_ my specific questions: how does an understanding of quantum mechanics provide a better means of understanding consciousness? Why cite things like non-locality but then not explain how they have anything to do with producing conscious experience?

I'm also not sure why a little more than 24 hours is considered too late to discuss an article that is being published in a quarterly magazine.

LOOK AT WHAT THESE GENES DID!

How many esoteric messages can you find in this story about huge mysterious webs in the "spirit" of Halloween? Was talking about God getting lost in a web he weaves and look what he does. I have been seeing a lot of unusual phenomena lately, but this qualifies as some objective observable evidence of high strangeness. A huge social network of millions of spiders from an unknown species.

Spiders in Texas have banded together to create one of the largest webs ever seen, stretching over 650 feet (twice the size of a football field), across shrubs and trees in a state park. Experts are studying the web and the spiders in order to determine what species they are. It was reported to have happened in British Columbia once, but it has not been seen in Texas before. It is not the work of one giant spider, but of millions of small spiders that have, for some reason, cooperated to build a single, giant web.

From the Dallas Morning News

Spiders turn Tawakoni trees into giant web sight
No one's sure of variety or why, but Tawakoni spot is a silky tangle

WILLS POINT – A large pocket of trees and vegetation has been overtaken by spider webs on an out-of-the-way path at Lake Tawakoni State Park. The freak anomaly has stumped entomologists and park rangers, who cannot agree on what variety of spider is filling the tree, let alone why.

RICHARD MICHAEL PRUITT/DMN
Donna Garde, park manager at Lake Tawakoni State Park, sees tens of thousands of mosquito carcasses weighing down the webs.
One thing is certain: The area east of Dallas will not become a Mecca for arachnophobes.
Tens of thousands of mosquito carcasses sucked dry of their blood weigh down the webs, which look like hammocks stretched horizontally from branch to branch. After a rainstorm Wednesday night, portions of the gargantuan webs began to sag and melt – leaving behind thousands of reddish-orange spiders bunched up and hungry for more.

RICHARD MICHAEL PRUITT/DMN
Walking under a crawling mass of webs - and handling the foul, musty smell - didn't give volunteer Jerry Brian the willies Thursday at Lake Tawakoni State Park east of Dallas.
"It was a white fairyland," said Donna Garde, the park manager, reflecting on her reaction after seeing the webs earlier this month. "It looked like a fake Hollywood set. In older movies, I always thought they overdid cobwebs. And then I was looking at it with my own eyes."
Stand under the canopy of webs too long, and you're liable to have the tiny reddish-orange bugs land on your hair, face, shoulders and arms. But it could be worse: A dragonfly fitfully flapped its wings in a futile effort to escape the web's deadly confinement. A small branch broke off one tree after being smothered with the silk string laid by eight-legged creepy crawlers.
Hissing cicadas, croaking frogs and red fire ants live in the area around a small pond next to the web-covered trees. Poison oak and ivy speckle the ground at the base of the juniper, hackberry and oak trees.
A foul, musty smell greets visitors as they turn the bend toward the bunched-up webs. Ms. Garde guesses that the whiff comes from the dead bugs.
Now there are three pockets of spider infestation on the parks' peninsula. Ms. Garde suspects that the spiders began weaving their webs at the beginning of this month.
But how did it happen? Has the phenomenon resulted from sophisticated social networking of 2-millimeter-long bugs or is it a freak accident of nature?
Norman Horner, an emeritus biology professor at Midwestern State University in Wichita Falls, has been studying spiders in Texas since 1965 and he says he's never seen anything like this. In 2002, there were reports of a massive spider web in northern British Columbia. And there have been anecdotal reports in other locations over the years.
Park rangers collected spider and web samples Thursday afternoon and planned to send them to several university research labs for analysis. Entomology Web sites have been abuzz, and a group of researchers from Austin plans to visit today.
If the spiders turn out to be an invasive species, Ms. Garde said, the state will act to abate them.
There are a few schools of thought on the possible cause, but no entomologist has visited the site to examine the specimens.
Mike Quinn, a biologist for the Texas Parks and Wildlife department, first thought "the spider ballooning event" was caused by a "social" species of spider cooperating to build a large colony. Unlike termites, bees and ants, arachnids typically do not cooperate to get food and build communities.
"Social spiders," the rare exception, typically only form colonies in tropical areas across the southern hemisphere, said Dr. Horner, but they have been spotted in South Texas. After seeing pictures and learning that the webs would have been weaved in only a few weeks, Mr. Quinn decided this was probably not the work of social spiders.
Another theory is that the spiders secreted silk that lifted them into the air and landed them at this location. Dr. Horner, who has not visited the site, guessed these spiders dispersed together and landed on a windy day.
But it could always be something else.
"I love when nature throws you a curve ball," said Ms. Garde, the park ranger, "because it wakes you up."

Dear Mr. Bad: Intentblog was not born the day before yesterday.
Are you another savior who's come to abort a re-birth?

.

Sometimes the clues themselves leave traces, otherwise we'd miss them.
Is a clue a thing in itself or is it what we reflect upon
after the fact? What does your watch tell you?

What tells us that something heard here is echoed to there and back again, Bilbo? Your ears?

Tell you what, I'll head out to the other side of the universe
and yell really loud while you guys and dolls wait here.

But first...we must synchronize our..hmmm...how to say...
hmmm...ahem...ahem...owehem...howmuch...om?

Bzzzzzzzzz.....click.

Again, Keith, your response is incoherent and irrelevant.

Bad judgement!

"the only true reality is pain", so say psychiatrists and psychologists...

Anyone care to examine this psyche-phenomenon?

yo...listen up, dude!

dont rile the tree up...'cause after a little encounter with Uncle JD...he may instantly turn into a DJ and starts sending out music to u! damn!

whoa!

It's certainly unpleasant, North and forms a judgement of itself. There again, in masochistic circumstances it can be welcomed.
Are psychologists referring to both physical and emotional pain?
Still others say that pain is all in the head. No doubt, pain points to a much deeper reality.

He's a dog, D, piss on any tree, damn!

Richard,

I found it at last. It's a beautiful poem about what you were talking about.

http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2005/08/prisoner_of_wor.html

HI Edmund, the reference is indeed, both physical and mental pain.

Example: I lived for over 7-8 years with a catheter left inside my bladder from a surgery in 96. Years of complaining to doctors about the physical pain, resulted in my being told it was all in my head, and that I was depressed. All testing revealed nothing.

After years of this shit...Lo and behold, 4 years ago; after much physical painful suffering and hematuria... NEW tests which I "demanded be done" revealed the catheter left in the bladder.

What sickens me, is doctors were willing to let me believe it was in my head; when, all along; it was a doctor error!!!

I've had a 3rd corrective surgery to aleviate "the doctors" mistakes in diagnosis; only a few weeks ago; bringing the total years of my unnecessary suffering, to 12 years, and 3 surgeries to correct!!!!!

So, technically; if I had not had the physical pain; I would not be aware of the botched surgery...which had the catheter growing into my kidney(removed in 2003)blocking it; damaging it.

But, what hurt the most; was the professional doctors... trying to convince me, the pain was in my fucking head! I have lost faith in doctors, medicine and science; when they will allow a patient to suffer, to cover their errors!!!

Sadly; my body and mind; is yet to recover from the ignorance of doctors covering for each others mistakes in diagnosis; and failure to complying with "first, do no harm!!"

I have recently learned, that the catheter was "found" years ago in my bladder; yet, doctors continued to try to convince me I were depressed.

I hate doctors.. and this is the mental pain and anquish they have given me... the inability to forgive them, for the 12 years of suffering.. just so they didn't have to admit they were wrong!!!

Dear North, that IS a pain! I don't hate doctors but I certainly don't trust them with 'me.' I am not at all keen on anyone claiming to be professional, ie superior, because, at once, there is an impersonality. Empathy and love get warped to maintain that disparity. We, too, if in need, fall into that drama and become 'victims'
As I wrote, I feel there is a deeper reality which would squeeze those clinging to privilege until the pips squeaked. Don't hate, dear North, follow the pain on in and we can both find that seeming 'threat' that caused them to try to squash you. That they couldn't do and I'd say you've proved it, in spite of time.

Christ knows how you did it!

I offer a great big hug,

Ed.

Good ol' Ed!

Hey bud, I am keen to K-now.
Where did that little 'me' of yours come from?
How long has it been around? What occupies it all day long?
I won't ask where it's headed...that flip's still up in the air.

Mi'Lady North is a woman whose bosom protrudes strength.
And I don't think she'll argue with my little 'me' on this one.

What was the topic here? Oh yeah, irrelevancy.
That's sorta like No Vacancy, ain't it?

Bad: Note taken by occupant.

bad...

what did u say to UT?

"Again, Keith, your response is incoherent and irrelevant." damn!

dont let ole tree get mad, bad or he might have take his leaves off and square up to scare u, odd one? damn!

Got it bad for my teacher...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=b5t5GukrWOU

Thanks Ed.. what further compromises the position of doctor-patient trust; is their eagerness, to get me addicted to painkillers for the pain and hematuria; and anti-depressants!!! Then, when you get addicted.. you are treated like shit by the medical system..

Medicine is a hypocrisy; in that, doctors are no longer empathetic towards patience...only intollerant of the truth.

Because addictions are common in my bloodline; I refused all the medicines they prescribed... and this I believe, is the ONLY way/reason I was able to escape their twisted morality.. in "doing harm."

I am still healing from this; as like mentioned, the most recent surgery was a couple short weeks ago.. but,how does one claim 12 years of their lives..their independance, their TRUST!!? siggh

Thanks for the hug.. I sure needed that! : )

))))Hug)))))
North

#51--tnx Keith(hug 4u2)

#51 K-eith asks:-
"Hey bud, I am keen to K-now.
Where did that little 'me' of yours come from?
How long has it been around? What occupies it all day long?
I won't ask where it's headed...that flip's still up in the air."

Little 'me?' I wish I could remember!
I'm a professional retiree and I love gardening, sometimes spelt with a u. I know that much.

I think you are onto something with your last, there. (we must be ready for text-speak here, young D rarely misses a trick.) That's not Bad D.

Yeah, whichever way you look, the job's taken. Deepak and Dorkins do send us down some wild alley-ways!

Glory be, Keith.
ed

well ed,

as long as we're being really, really small...
you're not going to make this easy for me,
are you? garduning? guddering? cultivator?

geez...getting tired all over again,
at your age? if you are my elder...dear god.
bad dog...alzheimer's or what? sheeeeeeet!
no bull, doggonit! dorkins...funny!
glory or not, pssssss...all over!

friday, yeah! checking out, chuck!

TGIF Keith & Edmund!
Come along to the park for a sunset
with me
;)
~ Kate

from Deepak:
"What we observe once we get over the superstition of materialism (a superstition Dawkins defends to the last degree) is that random chance is one of the worst ways to explain how the universe evolved"

For now, Deepak, I have no explanations to offer.
Come and join me in watching a magnificient sunset. Keith & Edmund may be there too!

Dear Deepak,
Re-reading your post again,
You say:

"Beyond the physical world lies the womb of creation, and whether we call it God is irrelevant. We came from a source, we are forever in contact with our source, and we are constantly returning to our source."

What form do we 'go' in - when we return to our Source?

It seems from death of the body, we indeed become - particles of - dust (unless, you are a newly discovered mummy, and current technology can do what 500 years has done naturally - preserve the body).

And what form does consciousness rest in (does it rest? :)
- while we are waiting to spring forth again from our Source?

Does consciousness 'need' to replicate itself in a body again.

love,
~ Kate

Hi. Way to go Deepak!
I also would like to say something to Kate. The Christian or religious ideas may have been that one has the chance to meet the source after death, but because we have consciousness, and consciousness resides at the source - then we don't need to miss out during our life.

If we are able to let go our personal 'beliefs' which often we hang onto feeling they are our protection, then we may actually rest in conscious awareness, as consciousness itself.

This is the aim of meditation. It's not that you lose your beliefs, though you may for a moment during the taste of pure conscious awareness (when you go beynd thought). It's that you get a taste of the source and self as one.

Then one may decide afterward how to honour their sense of self and belief system.