There's nothing wrong with living with one's parents. Infact, I consider a family-focused home affair (like back in the day or as is the case with some semitic or hindu cultures) to be better than what modern-western ideals are trying to sell. I prefer when my kids are taken care of by their grandparents (who are always around - helpful but not meddling like in movies) instead of hiring strangers to take care of them. I don't know when strangers stopped being strange but I think family loves best.

I believe there's rationale in everything.

For example, we don't need rationality to love. — intrapersona

To your professor I'd say there is a lot of priority and preference in falling in love. For example, which character or persona you prefer to the others, what factor you consider to be more vital than others, etc. All these and much more come into play when we're falling in love and they are a part of our rationale even if we don't take the time to deliberate on them.

Reification aside, what would psychology and psychiatry be without reference to the psyche? And isn't psyche just another reference to mind and mental states and processes?

I think the name 'mind' might have been misused too many times for comfort but the idea is still in use presently scientifically and philosophically.

Mental states and processes are quite mysterious even when referring to the little that is known. Additionally, what is seen in the brain is far from representing everything we know and expect. So my point is this, to use another analogy: genetic material though protein in substance acts like software in the way that it propagates information. That, coupled with the body's response and we have an organisation far superior to any computer. Now, we know how much intelligence is applied in making computers and yet, our body organisation, having existed for more millennia than we could name, exhibit much greater intelligence than we can fathom presently. With the genetic material, the distinction between the information (if I may call it so) and the protein material has provided a more illuminating approach compared to the studies of the mental faculty. However, the mental faculty (and the nervous system) is so complex that no other biological system could stand in comparison. All I'm wondering is, could it be that such a relation as that observed in genetic organisation - fusion of capacities and networks of utility of different levels of operation - also exist within the mental and neural organisation?

By mind I'm not referring to some mystical idealistic capacity. This is just about whether the mental faculty is as layered as the genetic?

My point isn't that force and matter are separate but that they're different in how they are and that maybe we could recognise both in our mental faculties.

What should the purpose of education be?

To inspire and guide to knowledge. Then to assist us in converting the knowledge into wisdom.
(By knowledge I mean pertinent information for appropriate use and wisdom refers to the qualities that we imprint in ourselves as values for, and connections to, all of life (or existence/reality) and which we channel through understanding.)

If learning never ends, then education is the tool that never wears away.

Do you have any idea, since you talk of creating ''space'' for the new through death, whether death is something that evolved? — TheMadFool

I think death is a relation, not unlike time, between what was and what is or will be.

I mean could it be that at a certain point in time both mortal and immortal cells/lifeforms evolved but the latter were, paradoxically, ''unfit'' for survival?

Or is it that death is simply inevitable because cells are constantly under environmental stress and succumb to them, meaning that if not for these stresses cells would be immortal? — TheMadFool

I'm one of those who believe that if something has a starting point then it must have an end point.

Logically, I think death is just another form of change. For example, I have a friend who inherited a toyota starlet (early 90s model) and insists on keeping it in the family as an heirloom to be passed down to coming generations. However, other than the body (as of now), everything else has been upgraded with newer equipment and from what I see of the car, it won't be long before it gets a new body too. Personally, I think it's a new car with an old body even if he insists otherwise. I think the same would apply to life and death even if death stops being as jarring as it is now.
Maybe, sooner than we think, it will be possible to increase our life spans to over 150/200 years but it would still mean newer body cells, tissues, organs, etc and perhaps even a newer mentality/mindset. It's not like parts of us don't die off everyday. I think we just need to regulate the whole body as well as, if not better than, the parts.

I mean that the significance of life and death may lie beyond what we currently designate as nature/natural and which could only be realised as we unfold more of the working of existence/reality as we hope to do in the future. The reason I say that is, if evolution is to be believed as a process which develops the best out of life-forms (hypothetically), then it may be natural to do away with those that are imperfect for the sake of the greater good. So, it may be that death is part of nature's plans no matter how much we manage to prolong our lives. And, because nature is intelligent and vast, it is possible that the answer lies far beyond our immediate environment and capacities.

So, basically what you're saying is that to instill inhibitions in your behaviour there was deliberate application of will-power. Also, I'm thinking that even before the change in behaviour there still were other inhibitions manifest in other facets of life. So, perhaps, there is a level of will-power which designs those instinctive inhibitions that are not necessarily a result of deliberate and reasoned out processes.

I think another point I'm trying to make is that free-will or will-power is not necessarily the deliberate application of influence, but that, it could be in evidence in instinctive (sub-/un-conscious) mechanisms. Thus, we could look at free-will/will-power as just the capacity to generate distinct influences upon ourselves and the environment (inner and outer). Because, like you said, our lives are still governed by nature much as we change/adapt for different reasons and circumstances.

I don't think you can make a clean cut between life and death like that. Death is defined as the cessation of life. The two are co-defined as it were. — TheMadFool

Yeah, but the definitions have nothing to do with the identity or significance of either. It is more of a place marker in terms of when they happen. When we're alive death isn't happening, but that doesn't tell us a thing about either, and vice-versa. I believe the significance of life/death is in their purpose which we (humans) have not yet discovered and that it may lie somewhere between the immediate position of nature and its relation to the grand scheme of existence/reality. But, again, it's just a hypothetical.

My point has nothing to do with immortality. I'm merely insisting that the significance of life and death has nothing to do with their apparent contrast. That is, life is its own 'thing' happening and being what it is, while death is its own other 'thing' happening and being what it is. And that, neither death nor life is more or less significant because we value the other more or less.

I think will power can be in service of inhibition or lack of inhibition. — Andrew4Handel

Yeah, my thoughts are also thereabouts. I'm also wondering how the ability to will is affected by the centres of the brain which are associated with control and decision-making.

The problem with this idea is that many inhibitions have a neurological source that is not conscious and cannot be consciously rejected without great difficulty, if at all. — Judaka

I think because inhibitions affect our mode of expression, they will necessarily manifest as components of our psyche because all activity seem to begin there, from intentions to desires to reasons, whether we are initially or partially conscious of them.

Though I think some of your examples just demonstrate that people are contradictory, capricious and complicated. — Judaka

I'm trying to find the connection between inhibitions (the restraint we apply un-/sub-/consciously) and will-power (the motivation towards 'something') because they both seem to reflect a symmetry in the nature of force/influence they exert such that they could almost be said to be different phases of a singular factor.

I do not mean to imply that what we do under inhibitions is the real us. What I'm saying is that the influences we generate when we have the full capacity of our faculties is much far-reaching outwardly, towards others, as well as inwardly, towards our true selves. It does not mean such influences reflect the absolute truths about who we are but they do reflect as much as we have developed and unfolded in ourselves. This is because, everything that we refer to as a 'something' implies an organisation of limits which define that 'something'. Those limits are the inhibitions with which that 'something' maintains its integral form, character or conditions and which, when removed, we would consider the 'something' as different.
A person may go from being a prude to being sexually promiscuous and overt in behaviour and still there would remain certain inhibitions in them.

Perhaps, I expressed the idea in an inconclusive way. Intoxication just makes it harder to communicate/express our inhibitions but, what I seek is, how much of, or in what way do, our inhibitions define us (or something of our true selves) and how do they relate with our most primal influence, our will-power or the impulse we generate towards 'something'?

I believe we are aware of 'things' because they connect to us, whether they connect through our consciousness, senses, self, etc matters only after we accept the fact of the connection. Then we can investigate what the connection entails. Part of present day life is the realisation of the vastness of that connection in terms of cosmology, also in the depth of that connection in terms of micro-particles. As to our importance, I base it on questions such as, should beings whose ways are as chaotic, as ours clearly are, think as highly, as we do, of themselves? We have this idea that we belong at the higher part of the hierarchy (or spectrum) in this reality/existence but I think the inverse is more plausible.

The problem I see is in the lack of continuity. We can imagine life continuing without us but we won't know that. So we may be having false aspirations. — Andrew4Handel

We weren't here when life went on before us, and in like manner we know life will continue after us because we've seen it continue past those who've died in our lifetimes. It isn't that big a mystery.

As to aspirations, I think beings with a capacity for free-will have a right to determine where to next, regardless of nature's intricacies. After all, whatever we are is still a part of nature. I think what we have is a misunderstanding, kinda like when we say that plastics are not natural even though everything about them is derived from nature. And just as the best way to categorise plastics is as 'inorganic', I believe the best way to refer to birth and death is as transition of energies. At death, we may not know the where to, but we sure know the where from.
Considering how small we are, the bigger questions in life are not as difficult to fathom as we often make them out to be. For example, our life spans may be up to 100 years but we have billions of years in history; we can plan to the next minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, even to years, and make happen in our lives as much as we can no matter how much uncertainty and surprises there are to cope with and yet we doubt the second past our last breaths even though the significance of our lives is already superior to the need for breath because if such weren't the case, then sacrifice would not be possible and we would not have heroes or look up to them.



*** I may not convince anyone about what life after death could look like but, without doubt, I believe everything I will be up to my last breath will determine everything my energies will be in the moment after it. I say 'energies' because I know the range we refer to as physical may no longer apply and I'm too practical such that even when I say spiritual I would still mean it to be a 'something' in reality/existence instead of some impractical ideal. (I don't believe in 'nothing' or some kind of magical transformation where the energies suddenly refine themselves into a superior being. There has to be a natural process of which we are not yet aware that governs such factors as identity, will, intelligence, etc, because I don't believe in randomness, coincidence/chance.)
Also, if the birth of human life is dependent on pre-existent conditions then human death must be succeeded by posthumous conditions. ***

Death leads to pointlessness???!!!

Does it, really?

From what logic?

The organisation of existence and reality before the dawn of life-forms on this planet hints that a different conclusion may serve logic better. The organisation of planets, solar systems, galaxies, galactic clusters, etc, etc, hint at something bigger than what we think as limits of existence/reality. The idea that the big bang began everything everywhere is just as limited as thinking that this planet is the cradle of life-forms in the universe.
What stops there being other universes arising from other big bangs? We now have proof of the millions of super-novas (some even defy the limit of 'super') going off in the expanse of space which we are capable of observing, and considering we can't even imagine beyond the idea of this universe, what's to stop other phenomena from occurring beyond our meagre senses and sensibilities?

Humans, as we are now, are a mockery of the definitions of intelligence, wisdom, freedom, ability, etc, which we have developed so far in comparison to what nature has managed to develop without our interference. The idea that we should somehow pause to consider our significance relative to a scale we lack the capacity to comprehend is utter foolishness.

Yes, human death may seem pointless. But, so is the significance of human life against the greater existence beyond it. We should learn to accept our place - less than a grain of sand in the desert in equivalence compared to the part of the universe we have had a peek of.

And yet, minute as our lot may be, we must play our part because we are part of the whole akin to bacteria, suns, universes, etc. That's how significant we are.

As to people dying that we may never see again, remember there are people born whom we've not seen before. Whatever pattern life is/has, its limits are not governed by our inadequacies. There is birth and death, and for far longer and in more complex ways than we could claim to know/understand. Perhaps, just as we assign purpose to those less than us (the animals, plants, etc), in much the same way our purpose is governed by existence/reality greater than us.
And I don't mean God, how about we start with the planet, then the solar system. Much as we'd like to extend our boundaries, we seem limited by a much simpler design than we care to admit. For example, we may leave this planet but only if we carry a minute representation of it with us. Doesn't that say something about our interaction with/in this immediate form of existence/reality?

Emotionally, humans are predominantly instinctive. Instinctively, humans aren't that far off from animals in nature. Women seem to go for "jerks" because they are often more dominant than "non-jerks". It usually takes a greater input of intellect for women to process "non-jerky-ness" as more caring and humane, and its not yet an obvious process as experience keeps proving time and again. However, it's not about women wanting "jerks", it's about them wanting "alpha" males. Unfortunately, we're still at the physical prowess level and emotions which reflect a semblance of physical intensity are still seen as prime factors.
The same applies for men with beauty in women.

Isn't Buddhism just a political too to indoctrinate people to make them submissive and willing to be exploited with the existential promise to be saved in the next life? — pbxman

There's a difference between submission and acceptance. Buddhism teaches acceptance. Also, it teaches discernment. That is, how to determine what to accept and what not to accept. It teaches how to advance from a state or circumstance that is unacceptable to one that is acceptable - it could be said to be from ignorance to enlightenment, or from bondage to liberation (nirvana), etc, etc. Buddhism teaches that the path to enlightenment/liberation begins here and now, any future life is a result of incompletion. It teaches people not to follow others blindly but to put in the work themselves since enlightenment/liberation can only be achieved by oneself for oneself.
Also, much as some people would look forward to a future life, it should be seen as more of a caution and motivation against the delays one must suffer through if unable to complete the journey in this lifetime.

What's the psychological impact of reincarnation, karma and only looking trying to fix things only from the inside? — pbxman

For those who choose to believe in such (myself included), I believe it offers a coherent and continuous outlook into life. The mystery behind life and death becomes something trivial compared to the present moment in which the opportunity for work and progress is within one's grasp.
Trying to fix things from within is the right order of things and, also, working on oneself before attempting to work on or influence others. For example, a car could still move without the body if it has all the inner components functioning but with just the body without the inner components, it is practically useless. Or, how can one teach what one doesn't understand.
From what I've learned, the hierarchy of significance is such that the inner supersedes the outer and therefore intelligent work requires us to follow the same order. It's the whole 'charity begins at home' (but should not end there) thing.

As to monogamy, I don't think genetic propagation accounts for any ethical guidelines we may have formulated after evolution had already determined what and how our sexual activities will be. Also, I think having power of choice capable of overriding the sexual drive (unlike animals) is a factor which prevents either mono/poly-gamy from being the default state.

While it is true that we can reason, it is true that we can gain self-understanding (not that we always do, but we can to some extent), while it is true that we can control our emotions (sometimes, at least) it is not true that we can be anything we want to be, that we can feel however we wish, that we can reason at any level of complexity we want, and so forth. — Bitter Crank

I get how people may have limitations but, in general, can't we really discipline ourselves to alter our emotional or personality traits or awareness/response mechanism, for example, with the appropriate impetus like how some people change when they join the army or face near-death experiences, etc. (I know sometimes it's a result of trauma but it's still change, right?) There are some (exceedingly few) who do it on purpose (I'm thinking people who choose to follow certain spiritual paths).

Individually we are unique (within limits) and we do not have control over how we become who we are (because by the time we can take control of our own development, the concrete is already pretty well set). — Bitter Crank

Ok, I think I get you. Basically, ideally, we would like to think that we can accomplish anything but it's usually within certain range of limits. So, even those who've changed can only alter the part that was changeable, right?

Perhaps, another question I should have asked is, "how polarised is human nature?" For example, do the dimensions of good/bad, moral/immoral, play a part in human nature or are these factors we use to develop control measures for our activities and interactions?

I don't know of any specific goal or target which makes life significant or meaningful but, from what I've observed of life, human life predominantly, it seems significance and meaning is tied to consciousness of life. By this, I mean how we cognize, how we respond, how we appreciate the ideal, the practical and in relation to others (people, objects, subjects), etc. This is because everything we consider to be good or worth any value is dependent upon its attributes/features in our consciousness. Also, the basic levels we have of happiness are often dependent on alteration of state of consciousness in one way or another, e.g. through change of awareness in mental states, emotional states, physical states, etc. So, perhaps the objective meaning of life is to develop our consciousnesses.

I think we've both gone off topic. How about another discussion about, "where do values come from?"

I believe that space-time is a real continuum; i.e., it is as it is regardless of how anyone thinks about it. — aletheist

I feel like the dimensions we're discussing (the 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D) exist within the space-time continuum thus making it impossible for either space or time to be its own distinct dimension since they designate the entire field of interaction.

And I accept, this is one of those arguments where we just have to agree to disagree.

How is that relevantly different from marking two points in time in order to measure duration? — aletheist

Not marking two points in time but marking points on the object while the frame of reference being considered is static.

Yes--at least from a phenomenological standpoint, thinking has temporal extension but no spatial extension. That is one way to differentiate the mental from the physical. — aletheist

I believe both temporal and spatial dimensions are virtual in the mind, that is, mental time and mental space.

Again, how is each dimension of space any different in that regard? You need to mark at least two points in order to measure linear distance. — aletheist

This can be on the same object thus making it possible to maintain a static frame of reference for the object distinctly.

A static state is a hypothetical construct in which we examine the three dimensions of space without considering time. We can likewise omit one spatial dimension and evaluate how a hypothetical two-dimensional state changes over time. We can also omit both time and one spatial dimension for static analysis of a hypothetical two-dimensional state; in fact, this is a very common simplification in my field of structural engineering. — aletheist

Can time by itself be considered without any other dimension?

There is no such thing as an object at rest. — aletheist

I don't mean an absolute state of rest. I mean considering an object through a static frame of reference as is often done in physics.

What exactly do you mean by "relative"? How is each dimension of space different from time in that regard? — aletheist

Time, for me, is the relation between the transiency (change) of states, objects, etc. It is dependent on at least two distinct values for its delineation. It is not a factor when a state or object is considered by itself without relation to change. For example, length, surface area, volume and force can be considered in a static state or a static frame of reference. Can the same be said of time?

I think education for a technological society is a problem only if we think technology will solve all human problems which we (as a human collective and especially governments and institutions) have began to realise the limitations.
What we now have is governments, institutions, companies rushing to reach the technological 'limit' which was initially the ideal. However, there are many other movements which are rising to fill in the gaps being left behind and your concerns are a part of that wave of thought.

Education for technology should not be stopped but it should be complemented with other practical values. I think the whole intense focus into one channel shows where we are as a humanity and it's just part of our progression. Near history shows a time when we had education for industries, further back and we can observe education for statecraft and philosophy (greeks and romans), there was also education for religion/spirituality (egyptians, babylonians, chaldeans with their astrology and stuff), etc.

We're not at an unprecedented state or stage in human development (we're within reasonable margins) and I believe we're gradually working towards a better way of life.

Let us start with how are the masses suppose to know what you said? Unless we have education for democracy, the masses will not know what you have explained, right? — Athena

Home values. Charity and learning (education) must begin at home then advance to institutions. Seeking equality, knowledge, compassion, etc, all the values we deem virtuous, must begin with the individual before it can be shared with or transmitted to others. By the time people meet to interact, it's too late to comprehensively instill values because their instinctive mechanisms have already been initiated. However, if those instincts can be modified by knowledge and proper discipline from an early and more personal stage ('home') then there's the possibility of less chaos and conflict in human interactions.

Secondly, this is all about organization, and the more efficient a government is, the less power the people will have. — Athena

This is a misleading idea. A government is only effective if it can transmit its power to the people. This means that the people should be better informed, better prepared for duty, there should be better channels of association and communication, etc. The idea that a government is so efficient that people don't do anything is a lie because it perpetuates laziness/complacency. A government should teach everyone to be fully responsible for every aspect of their lives. It doesn't mean that a person is supposed to do everything but they're supposed to know and choose (accept-initiate-conduct-appreciate) everything in their lives.

I am not willing to accept it is my fault we are failing, when for years I have attempted to get the necessary discussions going and people do not participate in the necessary discussions. — Athena

People can't be forced to be ready for situations just because you are. That's why in my previous post I mentioned that there is progress even though it is slow. We may not make a step in our lifetime but even a fraction of it is okay because it is still movement. Also, you should realise how insufficient your ability is in influencing others and work on improving it (it applies to me too, attempts without success means back to the drawing board).

Confusing education for technological society with education for science is not good for democracy or liberty and it is not education for science. The driving forces of education are International banking and the Military Industrial Complex and our ignorance that leaves us wide open for being ruled by authority. — Athena

This is not an all-consuming problem. Look into domains where some success has been achieved (look into countries like Sweden, or possibly all scandinavian countries, Japan, Canada, etc). They're not perfect but they've realised some of these problems and are somewhat working away from it. Other nations will eventually follow suit when they realise they're lagging behind. For now, that is also part of how we progress.

I don't know if you are really as negative as you seem to me, but you miss the point of what it means to interact with others. It's not just about one person or faction and their ideas, values, purpose, etc., everyone should get equal consideration. We cannot ask of people to do or be more than what they choose (it's part of the equality package). I believe when enough people get on the right track then the rest will follow and even then, it's still a long way to nirvana. For me, what I see around is a consequence of our collective influences and capacities.
In some domains, my influence will dissipate to nothing as soon as I apply it because of the counter-influences in that sphere of interaction; in other domains, my influence may last a decade or more because of the complementing influences. The best I can do is realise the best mode of work for the outcome I need. And, sometimes, the best is not good enough but it still must be done. Sometimes, in some circumstances, all you need is to benefit just one other person; in others, all is needed is your participation regardless of any positive outcomes. To deny oneself those opportunities to provide that little which is necessary because one is too focused on a 'picture' that is 'too big for one's britches' is a crime against integrity.

Yes, institutions and governments are a problem, but we (humanity) have had problems for more millennia than we could name. Just remember, the way forward is one small step at a time, which could mean one small step every few years, decades or centuries. The positive take on things is that, every human wants what is best for them and as we learn how bias is detrimental to the collective and the individual, we begin to work towards eliminating it.
The solution to a global problem will be a global revolution. It begins with a few movements which build to a larger movement and so on. Right now, according to the state of the world, we're not yet ready for a world-wide revolution, so we should learn to be content with the little we have.
To those who can engineer global movements, then god-speed to them, otherwise, we just play our little part and learn to appreciate our efforts and lives. What's the point of life without happiness and, from personal experience, humans are tenacious and we can learn to be happy in whatever situation we're in.

I don't know about time, I find it to be purely relative. Can a dimension be relative?

I mean forces like gravity, magnetism or weak and strong interaction forces which are generated from a body's inherent mechanism. Mass and acceleration would still be factors but the force still exists even when there is no external acceleration on the object in question. Even when the object is at rest there would still be forces influencing it, generating and maintaining shape/form, generating attraction and repulsion, etc.

Also, I think with the advances in investigations of dark matter and dark energy, it's a safe bet to presume that mass is itself a product of interacting forces since quantum physicists would have us hypothesize that an object's distinct gravitational force is generated by interaction of dark matter and dark energy.

I've been trying to work on this for a while, so far what I have is some kind of pseudo-science which anyone should feel free to reject.

I think it is possible to conceive of 4D. Personally, I consider the fourth dimension to be that of force. If force, or the lines of force could be delineated like we do with magnets and iron filings, then we could have an idea of what 4D is.

From my investigations (if they could be called that):

1. Length represents 1D which delineates a line,
2. Area represents 2D which delineates a surface,
3. Volume represents 3D which delineates a solid (or bulk/amount for fluids),
4. Flux represents 4D which delineates a force or the lines/field of force.

The problem I've encountered is the many varied influences (forces) which impact any one object. I don't know how far we can delineate the sum total of the confluence generated by all the forces present and interacting with any distinct object in the many states and circumstances it may be in.

Does this make sense?

Excuse me, where do you get your information? It is different from the information I have. The World Bank has influenced education around the world and the citizens in all countries are unaware of why education was changed. — Athena

The world bank has acquired its power from what people collectively have given it (the implicit trust in the financial institutions which latter, modern, doubters have failed to convince people otherwise). Banks didn't just roll out of hell and begin to subjugate people. They offer services and people were, and still are, blinded by comfort so much so that they would set aside work for pleasure and enjoyments. It's that kind of mentality that presents that other 'ugly' side of reality. Institutions operate as designated by governments and governments are run according to people. The larger percentage of people are 'mindless drones', which is a bad commentary on their hard work but sadly true in terms of why and how they work. Your statement is testament to that, "and the citizens in all countries are unaware of why education was changed." There's no collective responsibility without personal responsibility. Governments and institutions don't work for people, people work for themselves through them. These (the governments and instituions) are just tools and means. I think it's sad when people turn up in the tens or hundreds of millions to vote for a leader without realising that it's more important to vote for leadership.
Yes, there's lots of statistics about which institutions have the capacity to do what and where but, the truth of it is, against the collective power of a united people, all that ability means nought.
My point is, people keep wasting their energies in all the wrong activities. If we wanted to regain the power and resources which institutions have and which is obviously denied to the majority, the answer is not to beg for it. People must first realise their power, and then use it to take what's theirs, what they're owed.
Our biggest liability is our lack of unity. We speak of many human societies which exist ideally but not practically. Practically, there's no collective humanity against oppression, no collective humanity against racism, no collective humanity for environmental protection and recovery of ecosystems, no collective humanity against world hunger, no collective humanity for any of the far better ideals we find being thrown around everywhere. There's many semblances but no practical collective endeavour. There is, however, in practice, a collective humanity for accumulation of resources and not with the collective in mind, a collective humanity for pleasure and entertainment (the likes of sports, music and video industries) whose main contribution is distraction from the real important issues, and so on and on.

I have worked in institutions, and as far as I can tell, one could go up the ladder seeking the 'devil' and all you'll find is people who claim, "what else can we do? That's the way it's done everywhere."
So, I'm not about to shift responsibility away from those who must bear it - each one of us. At some point, we must realise the collective failure of all humanity and partake of our individual shares of it no matter how undeserving we think we are. It's our fault that there are biases, negativities and bad mentalities being propagated within our communities; it's our fault that we have such inadequacy in our governments, institutions, facilities, etc, etc.

However, it doesn't end there. If the likes of Martin Luther King Jr. had stopped at just complaining then we wouldn't have even the little there is to be proud of. So before we think to change the bigger or biggest picture, we must make damn sure we've changed the smaller picture, our selves and the environment of closest proximity (our families, friends, neighbourhoods, etc). If we all have equality at home, then there's no way it could be denied elsewhere, not for long anyway.

And for religion, my goodness teachers took the Texas school system to court in a fight over if science book should include the Christian creation story, and the teachers won at the supreme court level. — Athena

For me, that's a good win. We need to learn to see everything, religious teachings included, from an investigative, analytic, logical, idealistic and practical perspectives, which is something science (philosophy included) does better than other fields of knowledge. Science is, at present, one of the biggest propagators of a 'think for yourself' mentality, far superior to religion in that respect.

At this point, I have no idea what you think we should fight for and what we are fighting against. Of what do people complain? I am saying without the education the Christians stand against, everyone is prepared to be owned by the banks. We may be saying the same thing in different ways? If not we need to continue the argument until we have an agreement. — Athena

First, we are saying the same things. Our difference is the perceived point of impact or the pivot point of all this madness. I'm saying it begins with us individually before it can build to a collective. We need to communicate better and about more significant issues. We need to focus more on what is important than the frivolous and biased. I wish we paid less attention to celebrities and controversy than to how the people of the world fared. I wish our governments and institutions had the duty of equalizing resources according to need and purpose. And, most of all, I wish we could reconsider what merit meant to a collective humanity because in a society where people have different capacities, merit runs the risk of being another connotation for bias. Therefore, I wish we could establish a limit for personal merit in favour of the collective because nobody can earn millions or billions of anything by themselves.

What you have said is very important, and I want to know what education do you think leads the character you speak of? — Athena

I have no problem with the kind of education systems available. It's not about the system, it's about people's expectations. People think that systems do things, they forget that systems are tools for people to work with. If we realise that systems are just tools, then there would be less opposition to changing them to fit our needs and purposes. Personally, I think there should be as many education systems as possible, and we could teach our young ones how to discern according to suitability, purpose, etc.

In the bible it says "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"

I don't know how you can interpret a bald statement like that, or a commandment and it is clearly an incitement to kill which I cannot offer the principle of charity to. — Andrew4Handel

And suppose, like Jesus said, the laws were made for man, not vice versa. Also, those commandments which direct to kill a witch also demand that adulterers be killed. Then, consider Jesus' example with the adulteress. In the end, it's about logic, practicality, context, purpose, and many other considerations.
Humans are not machines and are expected to act with forethought and sentiments like compassion and forgiveness and such, according to moral and logical wisdom.

Consider this: If I download the Vedas with a good translation, or say I learn Sanskrit to read them proper: and I derive articles of faith and commandments from my own reading, am I a Hinduist? Or am I creating an entirely new religion using the text as a personal or communal oracle? — DiegoT

If the personal interpretation has nothing to do with the teachings of the scriptures in terms of principle, context, related teachings and texts, etc., then it can be said to be contrary to the scriptures. But, if there's a relation, then it's not really separate from or in contradiction to the scriptures because the scriptures (all of them as far as I know) allow and ask us to consult our own understanding and to transcend limitations born of bias by applying the wisdom to as wide a variety of circumstances and factors as possible. What you're saying is that there are those who have the sole authority in determining what and how the scriptures should be understood. That is shown to be the wrong impression by Jesus when he gave an interpretation of the laws (ten commandments) different from what the 'churches' had been teaching and accepting. In fact, a common feature of the bible is the re-interpretation of the teachings given by different men of God to suit the variable circumstances. I think validity is determined by the relation which the interpretation bears to the texts of the scripture. If the relation is flimsy (logically, practically, etc), then there's a case for fallaciousness but, if it matches several factors (the right principles, comprehensive context, historical and cultural associations, psychological consideration, etc) and is logical and practical, I see no reason not to accept it, even if in a provisional capacity.

Check out this article:- https://www.goldcountrycalvary.com/images/pdf/HAClass7Principles.pdf. It shows there are many more considerations in hermeneutics.

"the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" is correct if we understand "the tree of knowledge", without references to good and evil deeds. — DiegoT

We can't ignore the reference of good and evil because it is made explicit in the conversation between God and adam &eve. Also the change in perspective is clearly explained by "their eyes were opened and they knew they were naked." Further conversation between God and adam & eve shows that their latter state of awareness is not considered ideal by God (hence somewhat 'evil') and so God gives them instructions or directives on how to deal with the consequences of their choices, a life considered cursed.

I must also point out that your interpretation of the passage is personal and not justified hermeneutically. — DiegoT

What do you mean by this? There is much context in support of my interpretations.

So you can read that God recognizes this change of status, derived from culture (knowledge) that expel us from Paradise, that is union with Nature. — DiegoT

Considering the story is about the primordial state of life (mainly human), I don't think culture is a factor. I believe it's more about naivety (perhaps curiosity) than inclinations and trends.
I think culture (inclinations and trends) are properly dealt with in the Noah story (or in the story about Lot and his family in sodom and gomorrah).

Just checked with my bible and it's the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. — BrianW

Sorry about this. It only matters because I kept omitting the words 'the knowledge of' and I had to check to remind myself what the correct designation is. Anyway, I mentioned it to avoid any confusion that might arise.

Just checked with my bible and it's the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

For example, when we read in Genesis that there was a Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, the scholarly likely conclusion is that the translation was wrong, and it is better to translate "The tree of all knowledge". Because we do not have a pre-biblical tradition of trees of good and evil, but we do have a tradition of trees of knowledge: Hom tree, Soma tree, and there are also Egyptian examples. — DiegoT

If the 'hom' and 'soma' tree can represent the same idea, why can't the term 'good and evil' be used alike? It's not about identical words or terms just equivalent meaning. Why would "the scholarly likely conclusion" be that the translation was wrong?

The tree of good and evil is not about God denying humans knowledge or anything of such significance and necessity.
It was about God knowing that humans were not ready for the choices that come with free will, and so He (God) asked them (adam & eve representing humanity) to trust His (God's) judgement and decision on their behalf. In the bible, the tree of good and evil represent choices which we acquire through knowledge. God was ready to share knowledge with humans but asked that they trust Him to make their choices for them until they understood enough to make choices for themselves.
Substitute 'tree of good and evil' with 'acts of good and evil' or 'words of good and evil', what we get is that whatever they became a part of (signified by consuming the fruit), would entail choices. Choices they were not ready for. Having 'eaten' of the 'tree of good and evil' they realised they were naked and hid. That means they were introduced to perspective outside of God's, which would imply a limited perspective and consequently somewhat born of ignorance, hence, shame and fear as consequences.
It's like when children realise they can make choices beyond their parents control. The parents often have no choice but to give them the freedom to experience the consequences of their choices. Except in the case of adam & eve it meant denying themselves the choices that derive from divine wisdom instead of parental wisdom as is the case with children.

The point is, that the level of certainty in the interpretation that a religious, or oracular reading of the Bible requires to avoid making the Bible say what we want to say is excessive, even impossible for us. — DiegoT

My point is, there is no certainty, so the best that can be done is determine which interpretation is most logical, in the sense of least chaotic or most harmonious and comprehensive, and work with it until better understanding is achieved. This is primarily aimed at those who seek faults in the bible (or any scriptures) without realising that it's their understanding which is often at fault.

The truth that makes most sense considering it's context. Words by themselves are meaningless, words get their meaning by the context they are placed in.
Hence to understand the word, one must read the sentence.
To understand the sentence one must read the paragraph.
To understand the paragraph one must read the chapter.
To understand the chapter one must read the book.
To understand the book, one must know the society/culture it was written in.
To understand the society/culture one must know it's circumstances like:
existence in time, geographical location and (pre)history.
All those are minimum requirements in order to understand them in an even greater context like the devine. — Tomseltje

The above statement (which I believe bears repeating again) is significant because there's much wisdom in it's precise and concise form. It portrays a semblance of logic in it's hierarchy of seeking meaning from an overarching frame of reference. It's almost as if to say:

To find the value of an individual consider the family (close associates, even close friends) they belong;
To find the value of the family consider the society (also culture) they belong;
To find the values of the society consider the nation they're in;
To find the value of the nation consider the world;

* (By consider, I do not mean make a direct connection or surmisation e.g. that the individual is identical to the family in character. It just means that the role of the individual in the family expresses much about one's individuality.)

Even though it is not definitive, it is comprehensive and there is also some consistency, in principle, about it. Perhaps, it's that we cannot escape the influence of our collective associations, therefore, everything about us has a connection which is also a reference point to others. This means, to suppose that an individual (also an individual's words, actions, etc) can have utility independent of everything and everyone else, would smack of a lie. Therefore, to understand any aspect, its frames of reference also matter, and that applies to the bible's teachings too.

What are the values held by international banking and how do you feel about the bankers determining what our children learn? Which do you think is playing a stronger role in determining our reality, religious organizations or the bankers? Do you think these people share the same values? — Athena

I think we're lost the moment we fail to realise our ability in determining our circumstances. The parents and care-givers determine to a far reaching extent what the children learn. When the children see their superiors subjecting themselves to institutions as if they (the institutions) have any real power over them, then most of them (the children) suppose they have no choice but to comply with the stat quo.
Neither banks nor religions determine our reality. We (humans) have given them too much influence over us but, if we determined to, we could reclaim it. The only deterrent is, unlike the collective handing over of power, those who wish to reclaim are often individuals who cannot muster the resources of the collective.

My answer to those who seek a revolution which they can't seem to propagate is to nurture strength of spirit to shield them in misfortune (from Desiderata). The current state of affairs of the world is such that people will lose money, people will lose their houses, people will lose their loved ones, people will lose their livelihood and even their lives. Only those who can muster the resolve to keep fighting are worth anything to humanity. (That is what I tell my family - It's not what you have that determines who you are but who you are determines what you have. Also, that it's more important to be than to have because, in the end, all you have is who you are.)

People complain due to many reasons, primarily desperation, and all those reasons are signs of weakness. I have it and so do many others too. The only solution is to fight against the weakness and resolve to fight even if by oneself. But if someone is only willing to fight if supported by others then they should also be willing to wait until those others are ready and willing, even if it means never.