Profile of Liberepublicat
Last seen: 09/03/11 - 18:44:52
 Liberepublicat | |
Contact InformationGuestbook: View or sign guestbook (0)
|
Biographical InformationLocation: Kansas Occupation: Semi-retired Birthdate: February 18, 1950 (62 years old) Interests: Art, music, theater, literature, science, philosophy, religion, psychology, sociology, law, politics Biography: Fundamentalist. How I Think About Everything, or "Unified Dot-ology" ...connecting all the dots. All normally formed humans have the same basic brain architecture which dictates--to a large extent--how thoughts, feelings, and beliefs are formed and maintained (nature). What ever experiences we each may have are imprints (nurture) upon this basic architecture , and many of those experiences are unique or variable. But a few are not. Most of us are pushed--from a safe, warm, secure, and omni-satisfying environment--through a birth canal the size of a garden hose. A few of us came out of the same environment through the flayed opening of our mother's abdomen. In either case, the change of scenery is dramatic and traumatic. Had we been born with language, our cries and screams would likely translate into something like, "Put me back in there!" So, every human who has ever been born has the shared Post Traumatic Shock Disorder (called "life") from birth, and in some sense, thereafter has the urge to "get back in there." Failing that re-entry, four to ten months after we are born we each begin to individuate or differentiate from the symbiotic unit of mother+child, discover there is an "I" and a "thou" (in fact, many, many "thous"), and repeatedly try to negotiate and navigate thru the rest of our lives with some potency of identity in a veritable sea of other people trying to do the same thing. These are two of the most fundamental first-imprints of shared human experience which are imposed upon a shared brain architecture. The dual passions of returning to undifferentiated comfort and gaining or maintaining differentiated potency are cognitively negotiated by a common brain architecture. Just those simple and primary truths explain, in a wide swath, a preponderance of individual behavior and social interaction without multiplying explanatory entities beyond necessity. In the book, Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief (Newberg, Andrew; D'Aquili, Eugene; and Rause, Vince., 2001), the researchers/authors propose that it is our brain architecture that gives rise to any theistic or mystical sense. They don't come down firmly on one side or the other as regards whether God made our brains to sense God, or our brains evolved in such a way to create God. They do ask some compelling questions as to why, or for what survival purposes, our brains would have evolved that way. (see exerpts from each of nine chapers: http://csp.org/chrestomathy/why_god.html) I don't necessarily come down firmly on one side or the other. I do come down firmly on the fundamental facts of the matter: we are what we are. The agnostic and the atheist could argue that because we are what we are, in its fundamental aspects, we created the concepts of God and all divine gifts and attributes, e.g., omniscience, omnipotence, salvation, everlasting life (and getting back to Eden), etc. Or, the theist could argue from the same set of facts that we were created in God's image and with a set of innate features that made us especially well-suited for God and God's plans ("We were made for Thee and our hearts are restless until they repose in Thee"--Augustine). I am amenable to both view points. What's most important to me is the simple fundamental state of we are what we are and thus we do what we do. It explains so much, to me at least. It explains a lot about Jung's "collective unconscious" and "archetypes," drawn out in great detail by the likes of Joseph Campbell in his exhaustive study and research on human mythology. The journey of the hero is all about the dual boons of potency and comfort. It explains a lot about historiography and comparative religion and their respective referents. It explains a lot about the evolution of science and religion and their protection of "closely held and deeply cherished" beliefs that are an attempt at guarding potency, individual and collective. It expains a lot about how individuals grab at whatever might give them a sense of potency to relieve their sense of disenfranchisement, low esteem, isolation, or any number of self-perceived impotencies. It enables me to understand, forgive, and have compassion for people I don't even particularly like from time-to-time...including me. It's simple, it's true, it's fundamentally amenable to many other viewpoints (including "I Am that I AM"), and it works. |
Membership StatusRegistration Date: Feb 12, 2004 Usergroup: member Articles Submitted: 0 articles Total Comments: 0 (0 per day) Replies Received: 249 Shouts: 44 Total Time Online: 3 days, 22 hours and 47 minutes Signature: |
Submission HistoryMost recent shouts:
Page: 1 2 |