h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Math,
Though it may not be dogma as such, even if one has reflected for years and years and decided there's some entity in the river at the bottom of the garden, once one starts using some common name it does at least seem to imply some level of contact with other people, if only to agree on a common name.

It must be difficult to independently study anything whilst managing to keep in touch with what other fellow practitioners think, without some seriously knowledgable moderator one can explain one's personal discoveries to who can say "Ah - the river spirit you describe with properties X, Y, Z is actually called ______". A purely post-discovery confirmation would need a very subtle agent to control it.

If doing any kind of reading, any references to things one hasn't yet worked out independently must inevitably colour what one then finds out, even if one has a contrarian nature and so becomes biased towards discovering something rather different. It might not be the same as dogma ("I'll just start believing in all this stuff because someone says so"), but then even in a *generally* dogmatic religion, people brought up with ideas around them might well come to believe things and also believe they are things they have come to know as a result of deep reflection or revelation.

>>"Wasnt it Mendel or some other Russian"

Kekule (not sure about the accents).

However, he had been thinking about the problemn for some time. Having a good idea whilst dozing isn't exactly uncommon.

*But* what Kekulé (for twas he) did was to run with the dream idea because he realised it fitted with the observable facts. Furthermore, the facts can be demonstrated to you or me without reference to snakes.

Note also that I'm not saying that Druidism/Paganry etc. etc. shares all of the faults of the other religions. Just that they're really no different in terms of this faith thing.

And, of course, I appreciate that I can have common ground with druidic faithers...much as I can with Abrahamic ones.

>>I hate it when I see science being seen as another religion

Well...I hope I'm not presenting it as such. What I'd say is that firstly it's the only game in town as far as describing the material. world. Plus it teaches us firmly that there only *is* the material world - eg that humans, as blackthorn bushes, are pure biology. Thus any ideas we might have about what are the best ways to live our lives must start from this premise. It's just plain silly to refer to the immaterial. Finally, I'd say that science shows us that any ideas we do come up with - right or wrong - are bound to be influenced by our biology. Like the desire to live, to be free from pain, to breed, to lie on the sofa listening to the delicious Regina Spektor...

I agree entirely with your views that other peoples ideas will influence ones own when mentally exploring your own interactions with nature. That said using the same words others use can simly be a method of acheiving some understanding between two people.

As bouncy pointed out a physicist and astrologer might talk to each other about energy and auras but each know that the other holds as a primary meaning a slightly differnt definition of he words.

Likewise ff I talk about creation I mena the start of the proces leading to the present state of th universe without implying any out lying agent deliberately starting a plannned procees.

"However, he had been thinking about the problemn for some time. Having a good idea whilst dozing isn't exactly uncommon.

Im suprised your not willing to give more credence to the idea that in an altered or focused state the human mind can reach a clarity of thought not normally acived with all of lives petty but pressing distractions.

Once while I was in an altered state I experienced the sensation of being able to travel at the speed of thought and felt myself as all the universe and lost myself while being everything. I heard a similar description later, as I knew this description was published before my experience Im still, to this day, not sure if I came up with my thoughts independetly or if I had come across them previously without being properly aware of them. Travelling at the speed of thought is not something I thought I was doing physically but but mentally and seperate to the the lump if carbon and other stuff that makes up the body. Did I really do those things or was it all in my head and if indeed I am (as we all might be) just s different facet of a universe experiencing itself subjectively is there any difference.

I agree with dismissing religions as they have proven time and again to be riddled with lies and supported by people more interested in supporting the prominence of their religion than finding the truth. While Math's mumbo jumbo doenst look a good method to those broght up on emprical method if you are interested in the truth why close of a possible avenue for investigation?

one love

"Once while I was in an altered state..."

A good friend of mine had one of those earth-shattering revelatory moments on mascaline, many years ago. He was addressing the porcelain when enlightenment came, and, as if it were meant to be, the necessary implements were on hand to record the 'Undisputed Truth'.

He wrote, and I quote:














"If I stand on my tippytoes, I can touch the ceiling!"

>>"Im suprised your not willing to give more credence to the idea that in an altered or focused state the human mind can reach a clarity of thought not normally acived with all of lives petty but pressing distractions."

In a more *relaxed* state of mind, it's often possible to see an answer that a conscious effort failed to see, but that's a bit different to having a generic mystical experience whilst stoned.

I believe it was Poincare who suggested that the best way of dealing with mathematical problems was to really concentrate on them, apparently to no effect, and then to ignore them and do something else.
The mind continues to churn away at the problem in the background, and days or weeks later, maybe while going to sleep or getting on a bus, an answer might just surface in consciousness and start waving for attention.

Personally, I've often solved technical problems which I'd fretted over for days simply by having an 'obvious' answer appear whilst I was falling asleep (sober or otherwise). *Sometimes*, I've even consciously known that I really knew the answer, but couldn't deliberately access it, yet it appeared maybe days later once I'd chilled out a bit.

It's not necessarily a case of life's distractions, but sometimes is a case where even serious conscious focussing on a problem to the exclusion of anything else fails to allow an answer to emerge, yet subsequent non-thinking seems to do the job.

Oh, obviously various pharmaceuticals can give us funny thoughts. Equally obviously, similar mammals will experience similar sensations.

Reminds me of the time when I came out of a toilet and realised that the outer door back into the restaurant was, like, friggin' *miles* away!. That was the same night when everything worked in stop motion. Like I'd pick up a drink, and find that it jumped straight to my mouth without any intervening travel!

>>In a more *relaxed* state of mind, it's often possible to see an answer that a conscious effort failed to see, but that's a bit different to having a generic mystical experience whilst stoned.

Note also that in some states - especially chamically induced ones - unusual areas of the brain will be activated. We can think of this as generating new ideas (it's not as simple as that, of course) and generating unusual ideas in response to familiar stimuli. Some of these may turn out to be useful. Others...well, you've heard stoned people talk.

"moments on mascaline" 'moments on mescaline', of course.

For all my varied experimentation "Mescaline" is one thing that I never tried.

Yeah...but have you tried mascaline? That's one freaky trip. You get interested in cars and loose the ability to do housework.

Or you suddenly find yourself sawing women in half and making airfields disappear.

For all the times inspiration has come from a dream or seemingly unrelated event, how many times has the "inspiration" been false? I've woken up with a start thinking I've got a new possible solution to a technical problem, and 9 times out of 10 (if not more) it doesn't work out.

Absolutely! Broken clocks, and all that. It's like all those times someone claims to think of someone just before they phone. They don't even notice the times they thought of someone who *didn't* phone.

Basically, I don't see a qualitative difference between the dreamy 'inspiration' which follows from previous active thought and regular thinking, where the hypothesising/confabulating part of the brain continually throws up possible ideas, and the more analytical part looks at them and works out what's seeming nonsense, and what's worth adding to the general store of knowledge, explanations and hypotheses.

It's just that with the going-to-sleep flashes of insight, *both* processes are going on subconsciously, and it's only when the idea is provisionally approved that it bobs up into consciousness.

The timing, levels of conscious awareness and immediate intent-to-think may differ from more everyday thinking, but they seem to be relatively minor details.

(couldn't resist the title change)


Hi Math.

Yes, I did mean to put 'falsifiable' there.
Falsifiable means that which is capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation.
Faith, or religious belief, by definition, is not falsifiable.

Even if a belief system has no written dogma, and claims to 'require that a person examine the nature of their own experiences and explore the truth from many angles', having any system, or method of so doing indicates there is pre-conception involved, at some level.

In this context, the Buddhist, engaging in what he believes is meditation, is attempting his quest for enlightenment fettered to an assumption that, for example, certain breathing techniques will provoke true awakening.
He has faith, or believes this to be so, based upon what he has read or heard, or even recalls from previous personal experience.

Following the path of the known, he seeks the unknown.
By mental activity, he strives to attain a quiet mind.
And so forth.

Pure enquiry, on the other hand, has no method or path, and therefore does not fit very well with the notion of faith or religion.

If you are following a 'self-revalatory path... based upon personal experience', whatever formulae or guidelines comprise your 'interpretations of events' also derive from somewhere, do they not?
Aren't those interpretations based upon assumptions?

Despite my nickname, I confess an almost total ignorance of Druidry, but if your philosophy is pure enquiry, unencumbered by any pre-suppositions, or tenets whatsoever, why bother calling it a religion?

>>It's just that with the going-to-sleep flashes of insight, *both* processes are going on subconsciously, and it's only when the idea is provisionally approved that it bobs up into consciousness.

That's pretty much it. The thing to remember is that all brain activity is pretty much the same sort of thing. Whether a given bit of processing happens to be concious or unconscious simply depends on what's going on at the time.

And obviously it's all neurochemistry. No soul or any such silliness involved. The brain is one less place for god to hide.

>>but if your philosophy is pure enquiry, unencumbered by any pre-suppositions, or tenets whatsoever, why bother calling it a religion?

I also wonder, why make a connection with the alleged ancient traditions of Druidism? But that's by the by.

*Although*...of course, many 'Abrahamics' do something similar. They declare a personal understanding of the divine, yet connect themselves with a tradition. Oftentimes their version of their religion is almost unrecognisably different to its primal form. Example - some in the Reform shul describe Judaism as 'the evolving religion of the Jewish people'. So again, I'm struggling - as an outside observer - to see a qualitative difference compared with Druidism. I'm certainly struggling to see why a difference should be stridently expressed.

A brief aside on the subject of Buddhism.

Although there are varieties of Buddhism which lack some of the 'typical' attributes of religion, such as belief in deities, most have nearly all the other trappings of an organized belief system:

Ritual, costume, heirarchy, scripture, and dogma, are almost always found, forming the structure of 'religious' Buddhism.

Interestingly, many of the writings, especially those of Ch'an and Zen, encourage the seeker to cast both Buddha, and Buddhism aside, and figure things out for oneself
The teachings are regarded as a means of helping one cast illusion aside, and once intellectually understood become nothing more than another hindrance to enlightenment..

I'm not sure the term 'religion' is strictly apposite for such 'non-systems' as Zen.

Hi Eddie

"In fairness, Math, it's a corner you back yourself into. You talk about religions such as yours as being based upon 'personal revelation'."

As do we all. Every time we take a position on a moral or ethical subject we can feel the corner at our back. For if we step backwards we will abandon what must be one of our core beliefs/philosophies/what have you...

"If, however, you are asserting, absent empirical confirmation, that your revelation has wider applicability...then I'm afraid that's a matter of faith."

Perception is a series of philosophical lenses. When I talk about my perception of a thing I hold my lens up and let you look through. I do not say to you that what you see is true for you, but that this is my perception coloured by my lens.

If I were to gather hundreds of thousands of people together and tell them my lens is the only true lens, and that they must have copies of it so they can see THE TRUTH, then you would have reason to oppose me, and perhaps to hate and to fear me.

All of our perceptions, even yours my young Padewan, are coloured by our life experiences and our beliefs. You can trick yourself into believing that your lens is strictly objective but it cannot be.

One of the purposes of sentience is to clean our lenses as much as we can so that we can come closer to a perception of truth. I think you will find that however much we look for a unified (field theory) lens that will show us the whole truth what we will discover is that upon close examination this lens is in fact a prism that allows a whole rainbow of truths to co-exist.

That is the Druid Philosophy 101 class for today, remember your homework and Bobobo, I will not accept the same excuse again - you don't even have a dog...

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Imprismed by his perceptions.