Quote:
from r.p.bibra (post number 26).............
SP = Supreme Intelligence
AK = Acquired Intelligence
....................
Graybeard; you have got the whole point wrongly. Ls. knows the meaning/relevance of science in our lives....................It is not understand as to how this divide, between the science & spirituality, has been created........
..................
In the quest, there is no room for a atheist or theist, because intelligence is pure logic. The source of our intelligence is the ‘Intelligence” in nature, whose totality could be referred to as Supreme-Intelligence (SI). If we accept that the source of our ‘acquired-intelligence’ is Nature, then we accept also that the core-reality (intelligence) of each creation is embodied in itself, the sum-total of reality of each creation, is Supreme-Intelligence.
|
..
Dear Rajinder ... I spent a great deal of time absorbing your post number 26. Thank you for the case studies. I have tried to condense your post down to the following statements. You are saying, and I hope I have read your post correctly, ....
a)...That the source of 'Intelligence' is in Nature. That this intelligence is actually the
reality of existence, possibly life.
b)...That Nature is actually an entity, who has the control and distribution of this 'Intelligence'. (nature in this sense could loosely be referred to as , God, The Designer, Intelligent Design, etc)
c)...That all Homo-Sapiens, in fact all living Organic Species derive their Intelligence from the entity, Nature.
d)... That any one individual's 'intelligence', can be referred to using the term '
Acquired Intelligence'
e)... That the sum total of each individuals Acquired Intelligence can be referred to as '
Supreme Intelligence'. Furthermore, that Supreme Intelligence can be accessed as a resource by individuals who put the energy of their
acquired intelligence into such disciplines as meditation and other esoteric practices. That a state of 'Nirvana' can be achieved where a supremely greater understanding of the Cosmos becomes available. That this state, once experienced is almost impossible to communicate to those who have an 'empirical' and 'materialistic' or 'rational' approach to the matter.
f)... That the above statements do not operate outside the Laws of Physics. Where they appear to, such as the examples of living on sunshine and water, are simply examples and areas of where the physics is poorly understood in relation to the '
Totality' of Supreme Intelligence.
I am going to assume that I have summated your post correctly in the statements
a) .. f). Correct me in a future post if I have it wrong. Firstly, I am willing to listen to you on this doctrine and do my best to understand what you are communicating.
The only counterpoint I wish to raise here is concerning statement
'b'. I believe there is an alternative method in the explanation of statement
'b'. This method is as legitmate as your explanation, and has no effect on any of the other statements.
I am not making the claim that the alternative explanation is correct. I am saying that it is as legitmate as your explanation. In other words it cannot be proved wrong any more than your explanation can. If this is the case then you would have to admit it deserves serious consideration. Any proposal, that meets all the facts, and initially cannot be proved false, that operates within the laws of physics, deserves to be considered as a legitmate theory until tested and proven wrong. Do you agree?
Rajinder, you have said that I poorly understood both you and IC, also of doubting the veracity of your facts.. of not making a true effort to understand. Your interpretation of
'b' is subjective. It relies on something other than itself, an unknown proposed entity. My interpretation is objective, it will stand by itself. It does not require my support apart from communicating it to you.
Quote:
| r.b.bibra .....................It is not understand as to how this divide, between the science & spirituality, has been created........
|
I am proposing we discuss this divide only ... as I believe it occurs in statement
b). I am willing to let all other statement a-f stand as they are
You have stated above that intelligence is pure
Logic. Can we discuss these two interpretations. So far Science can prove neither one wrong, nor can it prove them right.
We have nothing to lose. What do you think ??
Greg
PS: Lloyd, we may or may not be able to live on Sunshine, who knows. But some of us who have discovered alcohol as a source of food well in advance of medical science, may be able to live on Moonshine.


