Author Topic: AMIDST THE CONFUSION,( diversity of thought )  (Read 29405 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Maqari

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Jan 2004
  • Location: Brooklyn NY/Belleville Paris
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
AMIDST THE CONFUSION,( diversity of thought )
« on: March 08, 2004, 07:43:27 PM »
while roming through some of my documents i stumbled opon this later its a response to an email by a friend, i hope it will inspire thoughts and challenge minds to expand beyond traditional religious boundaries  and allow the subconcious to process and digest the contents, (although i believe this is needless to mention) but feel free to respond its scripted specifically for that purpose,
________________________________________________________________________
Jim,

      It is 5:34 AM in New York. And I have yet to sleep this day. As
opposed to
my typical Stream of Consciousness musings that I direct towards your
Chicago, I am approaching the composition of this letter with a greater
patience, a greater mathematical precision. I have even ordered a cup
of tea
to assist in my endeavor. I have even invited the likes of Beethoven,
Mahler, Rachmaninov and Chopin to gift me with their intellectual
guidance.

Jim, my friend, I have just finished reading the piece you sent me, The
question that came to me on the pont de la Concorde. It was superior. I
read
it while eating a ham and egg sandwich with a side-order of fries, at a
diner in Queens where I find myself and my laptop anchored. The density
of
your thoughts rivaled the density of my meal, and the task of
simultaneously
digesting the two was quite a challenge.

Ultimately, I will have to have read your piece at least a second time
before this letter has been completed.

But before I go into description concerning the movement that your
piece
allowed within my consciousness, I would first and foremost like to
relate
the level of fulfillment I have achieved in being able to write you
this
letter.

“Purity” has been attained here. Purity emerging from my impure being.

And now, to put the ball into play…



You and I conceive of God quite differently, but what remains
consistent is
the Absolute Perfection that He embodies. My perspective may differ
from
yours in that, I believe God – Absolute Perfection - to represent a
state of
consciousness that we as humans strive to achieve, striving with each
act of
“Delineation”, as you call it. With each act of “delineating Nothing
into
Something”, as you put it (and with such sparkle!), man is exercising
those
muscles of Reason and Emotion that bring him closer to experiencing
God;
that bring him closer to experiencing a state of consciousness in which
he
is free of the consequences brought about by the inevitable disharmony
of
his “tangible existence”. For when we “delineate with words”, we are
first
delineating with thought. Delineating within our minds between that
which
consists of our immediate, tangible lives, and that which embodies our
essential, timeless nature. With each act of philosophical
introspection,
with each act of deconstructing the system that is mankind (past,
present,
and future), we work towards a state of perceiving reality in which we
– not
only know, but – feel that the circumstances of the outer world (of our
particular time) represent mere data, mere information, mere food meant
to
feed that aspect of ourselves which is timeless – our consciousness.

What I find to constitute “purity” can only occur when man separates
his
consciousness from his immediate and tangible world, detaching from the
particular experiences that comprise his “individuality” and his
“accumulated life”, to dwell exclusively in a state of perception that
is
entirely comprised of his “human essence”, namely, his ability to
perceive,
analyze, imagine and conceptualize; that which is perfectly shared with
each
human being that ever existed before him or shall exist beyond him.
Thus,
what you and I have achieved here is aloft in the realm of purity, for
that
which is at the core of this dialogue, this exchange of “conceptual
world
maps”, is not bound to the particulars of time. Rather, it is a
conversation
whose essence belongs to any moment of man’s history, present, or
future.
This fluid collision of our ideas is timeless, and consequently in
thinking
through your thoughts and responding with my own, my consciousness has
detached itself from my tangible reality, temporarily surrendering the
details of my immediate, time-specific existence, and venturing to a
pure
place in my consciousness, where my human essence - mind studying mind
–
dominates without opposition.

Concerning pure love: I believe that this too can only be attained upon
achieving separation from the confines of a tangible, time-locked
perception
of existence. This too is done in that circumstance of the mind in
which
oneness with the human essence pervades. While certainly, a man must
first
find a woman in the external world before approaching any kind of
perception
of romantic, man-woman love within his consciousness, it still remains
that
pure love can only thrive in the fertility of the timeless
consciousness.
Once again, the particular course (the tangible details) of a man-woman
relationship will unavoidably attract complication and disharmony,
bringing
about a diffusion of faith in the cultivated love. But the essence of
man-woman love, the timeless ideal of how the male persona intertwines
with
the female persona, cannot be flawed or fractured. He who can attain
the
consciousness of human essence is permitted to love with a type of
dichotomy, simultaneously carrying out his romance in the easily
corrosive
realm of the tangible, and the seamless perfection of the essential
realm.
And while the ability to sustain “pure love” does not guarantee the
infallibility of a man-woman relationship, it does contribute to its
endurance, the essential (or ideal) love aiding to enable a swifter
repairing of damage done along the tangible path of a romantic
relationship.

So then, my friend, I argue that the Fairy Tale that I share with my
German
Princess demonstrates an example of pure love. Lacking many of the
tangible
qualities of the typical man-woman relationship, this circumstance
engenders
a greater need for “ideal love”. It is, in fact, the ideology of man
loving
woman, man worshipping woman, the persona of man bleeding seamlessly
into
that of woman, which fuels the intensity of what we share. I have told
her
that I believe her to be as imaginary to me as a woman might be, yet at
the
same time, as real as a Fairy Tale can become. As a result of this
consequence, my love for her consists to a great degree of that
ideology,
that essence, of man-woman love, which is none other than pure love.

You may argue, that what we share is not only non-pure love, but not
love at
all in any form.  And I offer no counter-argument, for this remains to
be
seen. Certainly, these last two paragraphs might tumble quite quickly,
for
as you know, I am no expert on love. But I still make these assertions,
for
while I may possess only a moderate amount of experience on the matter
of
love… as an artist and thinker, I carry a great deal of understanding
concerning the mind. I am quite convinced in the power of untying one’s
consciousness from the particular external world into which it is
randomly
placed; to cultivate internally that which is timeless and essential,
and
exist in a world that is beyond the tangible world.

*            *            *

You and I have “delineated” through the nature of man, reflecting upon
the
circumstances that comprise “the history of thought, which is the
history of
Man broken into the history of men” (another incredibly attractive
rendering
of thought, my friend; were you a pretty Chinese woman with a large
dowry, I
would take your hand in marriage). In doing so, we acquire the logic to
deconstruct the nature of who we are, not as “individuals” (not as Jim and Jie-song
), but as human beings within this continuity that is the
history,
present, and future of mankind. We arrive at the conclusion that our
tangible identities (Jim and Jie-Song) are merely by-products of the
environments and experiences we have encountered within our window of
existence across the continuity of time. We then realize, that what is
fundamental, what is timeless and uncorrupt of our temporal or spatial
coordinates, is the fact that we are, at essence, a human mind, able to
reason, able to imagine, able to conceptualize; just as all human minds
that
have preceded us, and shall postcede us.

Thus, we come to understand the nature of our tangible circumstances as
somewhat trivial. And moreover, we come to understand the internal
conflicts
we harbor as a result of our tangible circumstances (the causes of our
“impurity”) as being trivial.

And in the end, what we understand to be the forbearer of purity, is to
exclude ourselves from that which is temporary, that which exists
exclusively in the context of where and who we are today, and plunge
into
the abstraction of man, to seek out a logic and emotion that allows us
peace
with the nature of human reality; not merely our specific human
realities,
but the greater conception of human reality.

And in the end, we become artists, in the truest sense of the word,
that
divine hybrid of philosopher and creator, like man’s theological
description
of God, Himself.


[to be continued... ]

Offline ummita

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2002
  • Location: Straight from Ruff Endz
  • Posts: 1343
    • View Profile
Re: AMIDST THE CONFUSION,( diversity of thought )
« Reply #1 on: March 08, 2004, 11:14:47 PM »
Quote
while roming through some of my documents i stumbled opon this later its a response to an email by a friend,

[to be continued... ]


I hav 2 say verrryyyyyyyyyy, very very interestin, an absolutely brilliant letter & I've read all. Howeva, I need clarity, b/4 I go any further 2 drop my 2 cents.....I'd like 2 ask who was ur freind referrin 2 as JIM, taut u said d letter was a response 2 an email by ur freind bt to who? :-/

Oh.........(to b continued)?  :-/  there's still more 2 come,(taut this was long enuff) ok will wait till wen everything's completed, den we'd drop our says
Despite ur slammin, am still jammin!!!

Offline Maqari

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Jan 2004
  • Location: Brooklyn NY/Belleville Paris
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
Re: AMIDST THE CONFUSION,( diversity of thought )
« Reply #2 on: March 09, 2004, 04:25:04 AM »
Ummita thanx for the time and intrest, the letter was written by me to a friend name Jim in response to an email he sent me regarding a long argument we once had about the concept of god and love, it was a letter i composed while struggling to attain clarity on certain matters , yes there is more to it than what i just posted but i decided to cut it short in order to allow my readers a room for digestion,

Offline Maqari

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Jan 2004
  • Location: Brooklyn NY/Belleville Paris
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
Re: AMIDST THE CONFUSION,( diversity of thought )
« Reply #3 on: March 10, 2004, 02:26:41 PM »
^

Offline Waziri

  • Newbie
  • Join Date: Oct 2003
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
Re: AMIDST THE CONFUSION,( diversity of thought )
« Reply #4 on: March 11, 2004, 12:58:08 PM »
MaQari,

Quite a beautiful thinking processes you have there, but It is like the idea is as old as history itself. Perharps it even predated the thing called "Traditional Religion". If you have studied a little of Greek philosophy, the Plato, the Aristotle and the highly developed philosophy of the Matrix of the then you will understand what I mean.

For example, you wrote all these in a very tranquil moment and that is why you have a complete flow both in ideation and emotion. But come to think of it, had it been it is in a moment of chaos and maximum terror will you achieve getting the image of this beautiful "GOD" you have painted? Certainly the "GOD" then will look as horrible as the condition you find yourself writing.

Perharps our next description of God should be that one that will catch both the moment of tranquility and that of terror.

But anyway, I share some of your sentiments. It is a good Idea that we should all think it out for ourselves. But in things regarding the "situation" of God, I on my part have threaded a long and thorny path before I come where I am today. But it has not been easy in anyway.

Offline ummita

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2002
  • Location: Straight from Ruff Endz
  • Posts: 1343
    • View Profile
Re: AMIDST THE CONFUSION,( diversity of thought )
« Reply #5 on: March 11, 2004, 12:59:28 PM »
Brother Maqari, We are waitin 4 d rest of d write up..............or can we start talkin?!!
Despite ur slammin, am still jammin!!!

Offline Maqari

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Jan 2004
  • Location: Brooklyn NY/Belleville Paris
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
Re: AMIDST THE CONFUSION,( diversity of thought )
« Reply #6 on: March 11, 2004, 07:43:00 PM »
Waziri
   I render well wishes and respective gestures towards your entity, i intended to write you since my return from germany although the chances seem to emerge less frequent than usual now, due to unusual amount of work i have to get done but anyways i hope all is well in your part of the planet.
  i started this thread mainly just to correspond diversity of thought with other members of this forum, Thus i find many of the religious discourses to share similarities and many a times are even identical in both delivery and structure, this does not suprise me the least , for many of the battles are fought in thesame grounds over and over again , so its only circumstancial that two people practicing thesame religion will be unable to escape certain unity in thought , because there often is a barrier set by these religions not to be crossed under any possible condition, there often are questions not to be asked, and taboo issues that discussing them is often an act of blasphemy,(i do not cite that u share thesame caracteristics in anyway) so do not misread me, im a person who is purely unbonded by any religious sanctions, thus my perspective and thought process greatly differs from that of a devouted muslim or christian not in quality only in structure. with this said i will continue to discuss your points , and please do allow me to make qoatations for the purpose of clarity.

If you have studied a little of Greek philosophy, the Plato, the Aristotle and the highly developed philosophy of the Matrix of the then you will understand what I mean.

 with all respect to early greak philosophers, the dinosours of logical thought process itself i often find many of their theories to be amalgamated with the greek mythology, this makes a perfect sence if u consider the fact that science was at a very delicate level of existance back then , this is clearly so demonstrated by various theories, im compelled to qoate Aristophanes a close frieand to both Plato and Socrates who after being asked to speak of love wrote:
 " I say we ware whole beings, before our wickedness caused us to be split apart by Zeus ( one of the many gods the greaks worshipped )as the Arcadians have been split apart by the Spartans, we have reason to fear that if we do not behave ourselves in the sight of heaven we might be split apart in two again like dice which are bisected for tallies,"
  
 with this qoatation i seek to prove that even the likes of Aristophanes ( inargurably an early authority in the evolution of thought ) ware bounded by this belief that god or gods are mythical beings that hover above all ,otherwise why mention Zeus and credit him with altering the very fundamental of human existance,a sentiment i do not share,

as of Plato (427- 347 BC ) and  Aristotle (384-322 BC ) their philosophy on the existance of God both agree on existance but vary  on the issue of God's nature  though each thinker takes a different approach to why there is god,that of Aristotle seems the most valid because he takes a rational stance and does not dogmatically assume God's existance. Plato on the other end his phylosophy assumes that god exists as a supremely good being whose goodness is analagous to platos's concrete concept of the ultimate good. however God And goodness are not one and thesame; he does not directly state that goodness is good ,but that god is good, since he examplifies the idea at the top of Plato's hierarchy ,in short God does not equal goodness but God encompasses it better than any other being this implies not that god is perfect ,but that god exists
  he then scripted in the Symposium "Broad-brested Earth, on whose foundation firm creation stands firm and love.
then proceeded to qoate Phaedrus on saying; " now love is the oldest of the gods, so also he confess opon us the greatest benefits, Mr. Waziri its crystal clear here that the bove qoate demonstrate some kind of a submission to God's supremecy,this differs greatly from my stand point that questions the very existance of God

"For example, you wrote all these in a very tranquil moment and that is why you have a complete flow both in ideation and emotion. But come to think of it, had it been it is in a moment of chaos and maximum terror will you achieve getting the image of this beautiful "GOD" you have painted? Certainly the "GOD" then will look as horrible as the condition you find yourself writing.

 you are correct in saying that the above writing was composed in a "tranquil moment" yet i fail to see how u managed to extract an image of some beautifull god out of it, to believe that god is beautifull first u have to believe that he exist at all ,which was the point i was trying to make by describing it to be just a state of conciousness that mankind try to chieve, neither do i believe in absolute goodness this due to my constant questioning on the nature of "good" because the idea of "absolute perfection" defies completely the idea of "negation",something i couldnt live with,

 "Perharps our next description of God should be that one that will catch both the moment of tranquility and that of terror. "
 
 i did not in any way attempt to describe God rather question the human discription of him, which i hold the need of a spritual bong in account for.

"but It is like the idea is as old as history itself. Perharps it even predated the thing called "Traditional Religion".  

its true that my bold audacity at tempering with these issues was experianced by many scholars in the past take for instance the early Islamic scholars of Kufa and Basra arround 1232 AD, a period when both the arabic litreture and the  islamic study ware at the intense level of evolution, due to the exessive increase of philosophical revolutions in the regions of arabia and Andalusia ( spain ) many of the ulama-ul-tawheed (which ultimately then only dealt with the issue of gods isolation in oneness and dominance) began to welcome the then  newly introduced islamic subject of "MandiQ" a word that litterary translates as (logic) this was documented as the official era  the muslims started dealing academically with the issue of questioning the existance of god, so yes im not the first person that dealt with this matter , but then i dont recall saying i was, finally u said;

"But anyway, I share some of your sentiments. It is a good Idea that we should all think it out for ourselves. But in things regarding the "situation" of God, I on my part have threaded a long and thorny path before I come where I am today. But it has not been easy in anyway."

 i do not know where you stand today on this issue Mr.Waziri perhaps because you and I never before quite directly discussed the matter, but im purely aware of where i am on this "thorny path" as your excellence so poetically termed it, im not anchored at any particular destination , thus i do not deny my mind the luxury of traversing beyond the common religious  and moral frontiers , sometimes even the rational, and as a 23 year old this where MaQari stands.

Offline Maqari

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Jan 2004
  • Location: Brooklyn NY/Belleville Paris
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
Re: AMIDST THE CONFUSION,( diversity of thought )
« Reply #7 on: March 11, 2004, 07:50:43 PM »
in the 9th paraghraph i wrote "a spritual bong " i meant a " spritual bond "

Offline Muhammad

  • Newbie
  • Join Date: Mar 2004
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
Re: AMIDST THE CONFUSION,( diversity of thought )
« Reply #8 on: March 12, 2004, 07:28:26 PM »
hi there
I just thought the diversity of thought brings a 'convergence of chaos'. It is for that same reason that the world sees wars civil strife, violence, intolerance and racism.
If we all were to collectively think alike, even though we agree to disagree, the above mentioned problems will be curtailed.
Just wondering, MaQari. I see you quoting islamic scripture; are you muslim? If yes then are you not aware that consuming 'ham and egg sandwich' is haram
forgive me snickiness but i cannot help but notice that line.
I assume you understand.
bye.

Offline Waziri

  • Newbie
  • Join Date: Oct 2003
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
Re: AMIDST THE CONFUSION,( diversity of thought )
« Reply #9 on: March 15, 2004, 01:38:33 PM »
MaQari,

My well wishes. We are fine up here as d struggle to define and redefine our relevance in the cosmos, we the organic part of this universe, continues. I say nothing lasts forever, and it is the reason  why I take my journey in this life to be a mixture of grief and joy. And with this grasp of things, I always see my happiness as a part of my grief and vice versa. This is of course is the reason why my best friends today are the ones who fight me most, for love finds meaning in completion, only when it is capable of implicting pains. This is why to my friends I do not promise something that will not hurt, but that thing that will never ever violate there persons, respect, honour, faithfulness and the strong desire to keep and preserve what they earnestly want to me to preserve for them. This, I think, is how our friendship started.

Back to the subject matter. I cannot help but to admire how you were able to remember the dates of the Platos' with maximun precision. Though what I want to say here is there is always in the cosmos that force, something that cannot be explained in detail and perharps that is what ppl call and represent as "GOD". When mankind cannot explain something he attributes it to some power. The Aristotle's friend you quoted said it sometimes comes in the name of "Zeous". And you would find the communist saying " invinsible hand". And here you are trying to explain it as the peak of "conciousness". Though u were able to manage to say it this way:

Quote
i did not in any way attempt to describe God rather question the human discription of him, which i hold the need of a spritual bong in account for.

Philosophers whereever they be, old or new have never started their discourses by claiming to have understood God, they always start from the opposite trying to question what they call "the ordinary" description of him, before thay conclude by discovering another form of Him. This is the reason why Firdausi, when he wrote his Book of Kings, he started by saying:

Everything that I shall say has already been told... all have walked thru' d garden of knowledge

The fact of the matter is there is not going to be anything new that will transcend the boundary of "traditional religion".

When Stephen Hawkings, the top authority in physics, wrote his book, A Brief History Of Time, at the turn of the century, he started his introduction by saying:

"Today we still want to know why we are here and where we came from. Humanity's deepest desire for knowledge is enough justification for our continuining quest. And our goal is nothing less than a full description of the universe we live in."

In the conclusion of the book he said:

"But if we find the answer, it will be the ultimate triumph of reason... for then we will know the mind of God"

To Stephen Hawkings I comoposed and sent  the following poem, under the title "KNOWLEDGE" as a  rejoinder:  
 

 "Know ye not Man, seek ye Knowledge"
 
Myriad millennia have passed us at the stream of knowledge
 
Vulnerable we are yet, amid the bulk of our knowledge
 
Where does lie the assumed peace acclaimed in knowledge
 
Where is the pride in knowing when we cannot exhaust knowledge?
 
Why must we know?
 
Who then is the ignorant?
 
When we will always be haunted by that craving desire to know more
 
That desire to know again is always at the trail of our knowledge
 
The more we know the more we realize that there is much to know
 
"Know ye not Man seek ye knowledge"
 
Until you can fall helpless at the footings of the providence
 
 
? I. A. Waziri, 1999

This is what much later I came to find to be the crowning statement of the Qur'an on the issue, it says:

"Soon shall we show them our signs,  
In their horizons, and their own souls,
Until it becomes manifest to them
That this (message of God)  
Is the truth.
    Qur'an (41:53)
 
Also
 
"Nay are signs self evident (O Muhammad)
In the heart of those endowed with knowledge
And none shall reject our signs but those who
Are unjust to themselves"
     Qur'an.
 
"Know ye not Man seek ye Knowledge"
Until you can fall helpless at the footings of Providence.

So MaQari, this is my stand and though you said yours' is:

Quote
i do not know where you stand today on this issue Mr.Waziri perhaps because you and I never before quite directly discussed the matter, but im purely aware of where i am on this "thorny path" as your excellence so poetically termed it, im not anchored at any particular destination , thus i do not deny my mind the luxury of traversing beyond the common religious  and moral frontiers , sometimes even the rational, and as a 23 year old this where MaQari stands.

As you said you do not deny yourself the "luxury  of traversing beyond the common religious and moral frontiers". I think this kind of luxury always brings ppl back to the cocoon of traditional religions as it has brought me back.

 Even Fredrick Nistche, one of the greatest 'modern' Western philosophers, after traversing to the extent which he claimed to have killed the "traditional god", he found himself later "resurrecting" Him, it is then he concluded that life cannot be possible withbout some sort of a "GOD".


 
  

Offline Maqari

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Jan 2004
  • Location: Brooklyn NY/Belleville Paris
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
Re: AMIDST THE CONFUSION,( diversity of thought )
« Reply #10 on: March 17, 2004, 05:53:28 AM »
Waziri
  im sort of tired tonight , so i will try to make this as short as my vocabulary allows, will discuss your points more profoundly tomorrow,
i might be an athiest or a Marxist but this does not change the fact that im aware of how religion dominates litterary every part of the human existance,i do not consider the lack of belief in God as something Modern or even glamorous, quite the opposite actually, humans simply sleep better at night knowing that there is some mighty being above keeping watch, statistics show that people who believe in some kind of God generally lead a healthier and less stressfull lives than those who do not, but i'd rather follow my logic into hell than allow myself to be led into heaven by someone else's logics, and ultimately i do not have a problem with god rather ways in which people are convinced to serve him,
yes Nitsche might have killed and resurrected the "traditional god" but his doing so does not fall out of the need for a "spritual bond" circle,a fact i thoroughly understand, truth is when you defy god after first believing in him and vice versa, you are often confronted with more questions than answears, you often need to start from ground zero, a task very few seem to wanna partake, and my mind might have been created by god ,but i govern this mind my self, im the lone captain, the only person who ever sat on its controll boards, thus untill it reaches this apex of thought that will render me submissive to your concept of God i will continue to believe otherwise, bear in mind that im not just making vaig statements, NO ,i process the data i daily recieve and pay meticlous attention to details , so if one day the radars point me towards the direction of the heavens  im not going to be scared or ashamed to follow it, i hope you wont be discouraged or disheartened and retreat from further discussion, who knows ? u might be able to oneday provide me with an evidence so intellectually intricate and precise that may change my views, good luck
____________________________________________________
Amin
  it will be hypocritical of me to answear the name Muslim depending on what your definition of the word is , if you meen was i born as One ? yes , i was and i actually studied the religion quite extensively, do i practice it ? now thats another matter, but i do enjoy my ham and egg breakfast every once in a while , i will try my best to stop though, there is nothing desirable in a swine,except that it tastes hell-o-good  :-/   although im usually disgusted when i give it a thought before eating it , thats if i give it a thought at all,
but hey...................................................!!!!

Offline Waziri

  • Newbie
  • Join Date: Oct 2003
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
Re: AMIDST THE CONFUSION,( diversity of thought )
« Reply #11 on: March 17, 2004, 05:13:00 PM »
Quote

.....you wont be discouraged or disheartened and retreat from further discussion, who knows ? u might be able to oneday provide me with an evidence so intellectually intricate and precise that may change my views, good luck

LOL, MaQari, I do not know what gave you the slightest hint that I am the kind of person that retreats??????? or gets easily disheartened??????????

But know that I am a person who is intersted in discussions for the benefit of the discerning public and this even if it does not favour me. If you ask me saying that my wish in this is to change MaQari's views then I will say it is not it is only my desire within my obvious shortcomings to make a point and this I will continue to try as long as you continue making a sense.

Offline Maqari

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Jan 2004
  • Location: Brooklyn NY/Belleville Paris
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
Re: AMIDST THE CONFUSION,( diversity of thought )
« Reply #12 on: March 22, 2004, 04:10:59 AM »
Waziri
   your intellectual curiosity never fails to amaze me, nevertheless i would prefer if this discussion is steared trhough the highways of reason and personal theories rather than quoating our predecessors,and may we reach the harbours of agreement (or not ) in peace
you cited :

"The fact of the matter is there is not going to be anything new that will transcend the boundary of "traditional religion"."

i do not clearly overstand this statement , perhaps you should elaborate, for im not in the habit of building concepts on shaky grounds, and i detest it when folks do such to me,

" "Today we still want to know why we are here and where we came from. Humanity's deepest desire for knowledge is enough justification for our continuining quest. And our goal is nothing less than a full description of the universe we live in."  
 
In the conclusion of the book he said:
 
"But if we find the answer, it will be the ultimate triumph of reason... for then we will know the mind of God" "

 i've read a fair amount of Hawkings, and carry a deep respect for the theoretical physicist ,i never knew him to be a prominent believer in god though,but when one is confined to a wheelchair i cant begin to imagine how one fathoms the matter of submission and dependancy ,(i also am mindfull of the fact that its thoroughly possible for two minds to process seemingly clear theories in a completely deifferent fashion,) to me the last sentence in the above quoate only goes to assist my point that the "God" most thinkers allow their minds to imagine is no more than a level of conciousness, "for then we will know the mind of God" when one knows the mind of god one achieves the ultimate conciousness, however its not as simple as a task to practice as it is to theorise, and this Apex of conciousness that both I and Hawkings speak of might be not achievable at all , thus most humans seak the more stable routes of either: (1) completely defying the existance of god  in cases like Marx and Engels or:(2) accepting a certain traditional/religious explanation of him, and satisfy themselves with the well composed evidance of his existance,in cases like yourself and billions of other people who practice a certain religion, however there is a third party that takes the less traveled route, composed of those who continue to  question , i belong in the last lot, the ones that are constantly in search of this " ultimate triumph of reason" as i mentioned above this a task that  none ever achived before , and those who claimed they did and left behind books and theories often their statements get shattered by some new tangible scientific evidence, in the last century alone more views ware flawed than in the whole human history,i do not condamn any past thinker or even dare question their authority, im aware that any new  grand break through was only made possible by the past ones, u might feel compelled here to ask me: THEN WHY CONTINUE SEARCHING ? if i have the reasonable doubt that this "ultimate triumph of reason "might not be at all accessible, i will then reply : because the very possibility of its existance is enough to fuel the tanks of my intellectual curiosity, and after all only by daring to be radically different that many great moments in history ware forged, plus its my belief that in this painfull process of human evolution great thinkers can never provide the definite answears to the "whys" and "hows" they can only leave patterns and threads for future thinkers to nourish opon, and further the human knowledge, im vibrantly aware that my stance is a highly hazardous one , even argurably unhealthy, but then my frieand , this is the crooked disfigured rock that GREATNESS is often carved from . peace ONE  

Offline Waziri

  • Newbie
  • Join Date: Oct 2003
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
Re: AMIDST THE CONFUSION,( diversity of thought )
« Reply #13 on: March 24, 2004, 02:33:56 PM »
Quote
Waziri
 ? your intellectual curiosity never fails to amaze me, nevertheless i would prefer if this discussion is steared trhough the highways of reason and personal theories rather than quoating our predecessors,and may we reach the harbours of agreement (or not ) in peace
you cited :

"The fact of the matter is there is not going to be anything new that will transcend the boundary of "traditional religion"."

You see, My brother, we are at peace forever. What I said right from the onset is you and me whether we choose to quote from our predecessors or not we are not coming up with anything new on this subject. You, by now, must have noticed, from the forgoing, how we have succesfully proved that all the ideas you are harbouring can not claim any originality to yourself alone. They are as old as history itself.

Quote
...and those who claimed they did and left behind books and theories often their statements get shattered by some new tangible scientific evidence, in the last century alone more views ware flawed than in the whole human history,

You see, MaQari, there has not been anything new on philosophy that got shattered in the last century or even before. If you say there were theories and advances in practical sciences and technology I agree with you. But in philosophy of social relation between man and the cosmos, nothing new ever came up. They were as documented right from time. You have those who believe in God as I do, those who do not, like Marx and Darwin and with their "very ancient" understanding of god as in the very old Sumerian religion and those who use their reason alone hoping to find god thru knowledge but ended up having faith in something klike you do.

Quote
if i have the reasonable doubt that this "ultimate triumph of reason "might not be at all accessible, i will then reply : because the very possibility of its existance is enough to fuel the tanks of my intellectual curiosity, and after all only by daring to be radically different that many great moments in history ware forged, plus its my belief that in this painfull process of human evolution great thinkers can never provide the definite answears to the "whys" and "hows" they can only leave patterns and threads for future thinkers to nourish opon, and further the human knowledge, im vibrantly aware that my stance is a highly hazardous one , even argurably unhealthy, but then my frieand , this is the crooked disfigured rock that GREATNESS is often carved from . peace ONE ?

You my brother, how you all concluded your arguments by saying you too have belief not knowledge. You are not different from us. We believe in God which you think is traditional and you believe in what you said above which of course is traditional too. I will here conclude that it is in human nature to believe. I believe in God and you believe in something else. We all have faith and act by faith not knowledge alone.

Offline Hafsy_Lady

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jan 2003
  • Location: Unknown
  • Posts: 787
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: AMIDST THE CONFUSION,( diversity of thought )
« Reply #14 on: March 24, 2004, 04:19:17 PM »
Quote

I believe in God and you believe in something else. We all have faith and act by faith not knowledge alone.


SO WAZIRI WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY? YOU BELIEVE IN GOD AND MAQARI BELIEVES NOT!!!, OR RATHER HE BELIEVES IN A NON- EXISTANCE GOD? WE HAVE SO MANY DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF RELIGION AND AM SURE HE FITS IN TO ONE! SO HE MIGHT HAVE HIS BELIEVES IN GOD ASWELL, NOT ONLY YOU. :-/?WELL AM NOT JUMPING INTO CONCLUSION BEFORE YOU SAY THAT BUT THATS EXACTLY WHAT YOUR STATEMENT INTERPRETS.

KO HA HAKA BA JAMA'A? WHO AGREES THAT I NO DEY MAKE FALSE MISTATEMENTS? ;D:-/

THE TWO OF YOU, NA WUNA SABI!!!!!  ::)
What you see is what you get[/b]

 


Powered by EzPortal