Authenticity itself is a behavioural-mental* property of a generalised ontological everyman, again with no development of formal structures for moods, social history, specific environment, relationships, gender, identity, sex, bodies... Even language and expression are essentially 'imperative otherness' - intrusive normativity - for an anxious person in Heidegger. A thou shalt and a call to guilt. Outside of his hermeneutic circle, they are also a means of self empowerment with an end of, at least, basic functionality. — fdrake

I will try to overlook the fact that you write annoyingly like Heidegger that it makes his Being and Time seem like a children's book. The development of our personality as children - due to our cognitive limitations - largely forms our identification with the external world and how we perceive and ultimately interpret our experiences that largely affect meaning. Our mind contains the instruments that enable us to think consciously and independently and thus as we mature, we begin to sense autonomous experience, but most often this experience shifts from our dependency on family or our immediate environment toward an identification to social experience such as friends and partners. How we identify experience is dependent on the quality of our mental states and how much we understand of ourselves, and thus anxiety manifests as this conscious alienation from any sufficient relatedness to our own being.

The phenomenological account of anxiety is a physical and emotional response to this alienation, from a capacity to fully recognise the 'self' and I believe the response is an attempt to direct us to this understanding as a thing as it is in itself, so where our perceptions are direct, realistic, rational and non-representational. Our understanding is relational and unfolds through social experience, but we each have the cognitive capacity to transcend this and become empowered to identify independently with our own understanding of our social history, environment, sexuality and ultimately identity - which is this authenticity - and thus human agency becomes autonomous.

Anxiety is an emotional and physical reaction where the authentic self is trying to communicate to the inauthentic self; becoming aware of why one has anxiety is really just unfolding and articulating something you already know but could not put words to it. It is not to abandon otherness, neither is it to deny it - free-will and determinism are not mutually exclusive - but to put it simply, authenticity is to interpret one's experience both past and present as one genuinely would want to and not through the lens given to them either from childhood or society.

My lilies in that picture were hand-reared and they have both spectacular colours and smells. Why they are beautiful to me is because of this connection I had through them with nature, I actually participated in the process. Very Tao. What is that species by the way?

I am trying to understand the biology of how to create a hybrid. I am planning on doing a plant breeding course; how transgenic flowers combine with my anti-GMO stance is going to be interesting and I am really eager to see whether genetic manipulation and plant breeding techniques can be achieved naturally. My neighbour showed me this amazing grafting technique where she was able to graft an eggplant and a tomato plant together.

This is wild Lily of the Valley. So subtle, beautiful, and smell wonderful. They are also poisonous, the floral femme fatale.

If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, all I need is a mirror to be happy. — Sir2u

That's pretty fucked up. :-!

j/k.. my story? Living in the moment. I am at the park, on a hot day, that happens to be a public holiday, listening to the sounds of people and kids, reading, writing on my computer and feeling completely relaxed. I think life is pretty beautiful right now.

You are quite the opposite of this thread right now.

Why just women and not men? I think women are beautiful, despite being a woman. Are you simply compelled instinctually? Funny that they happen to be celebrities. Nevertheless, I think TClark's daughter is very beautiful.

When you actually attempt to grow flowers from a seed or bulb and go through the process of germination until this, learning patience and protectiveness, it is the greatest feeling. I think the beauty in nature is this very process and it is a privilege to be able to work through the process directly.

My Stargazer Lily. The perfume is just the best.

Right, I like this way of looking at anxiety, your body is telling you something but you do not know what it is. I like this better than saying that a specific part of the body, the brain is telling you something, because the worst cases of anxiety seem to be the ones when the brain isn't in control of the anxiety. — Metaphysician Undercover

Depersonalisation or disassociation is that ability to mirror your actions and the intensity of this can vary, sometimes even to a point of mental paralysis (ever thought about the universe as a whole? or of God as a singularity, the very nature of existence? You get all fucked up). It is being conscious of consciousness that reality itself almost fizzles away; we usually have this switch that shuts that down so that we can form some benchmark where reality is quantifiable but that does not work sometimes because, in my opinion, of boredom. I work with disadvantaged children and I see those who are very intelligent are often very aggressive because they are not adequately being stimulated intellectually. It is as though the scope of their intellectual capacity and the stimulation afforded to them by the external world is not enough that they become anxious or they shut down. Imagine being in a relationship with someone that you do not intellectually connect with? You become anxious or you shut-down.

So it depends on the way you are looking at the brain and the mind and while they are not mutually exclusive, you do have to network and map the connections by allocating them in the right order. If we strip down the individual, our identification with the external world is determined as children because our brain is not yet developed enough and so our mind relies on our experiences being interpreted for us on our behalf, but the brain is a cognitive tool, an instrument that has - when we are old enough - a intellectual capacity and this enables our mind to recognise ourselves or become self-aware through our rational faculty. But, that pivotal moment often arrives at a point where we have never used this part of our brain and so we are caught in this impasse where there already exists the comfort of a determined reality as given to us and so we have to choose (freedom) whether we want to go down the rabbit hole of the matrix, the very elusive and complex one of our own that has not yet been used or exercised (subconscious). We feel we are alienated from ourselves.

It is easier to go back to that determined state and conform to the masses - hence slave morality - as popular conventionalism alleviates the feelings of anxiety and the feeling itself is painful. It is no different to going back to an unhappy relationship rather than being alone. We are wired to seek pleasure and avoid pain and so we confuse the sensation as being painful and attempt to alleviate it all the while our unconscious mind is screaming "no!" - it is like the battle between our brain and mind. When we actually start using this and our anxiety all but disappears, we realise just how easy it is and how much happiness it stimulates, but it is like this gauntlet produced by the fear work hard to prevent us from reaching it. As for fear, have a read of my response to fdrake - it is this mechanism that prevents us from proceeding to or transcending toward the next cognitive stage, to take advantage of the tool or instrument we have to actually think for ourselves.

As you described the situation, your anxiety preceded your accident, so it was not caused by the accident, if anything the anxiety contributed to the occurrence. It may be the case, that you are like I am, just a naturally anxious person, and your level of anxiety is prone to rising. Your experiences in the recovery period are not so much related to your anxious personality, but experiences which any person might incur, though the anxiety would contribute to the appropriate degree. But your anxious personality might be related to the incident occurring in the first place. And if this is the case you ought to determine how anxiety contributes to what you do in a negative way. — Metaphysician Undercover

There were a number of factors at play that I have had many people say that I am extremely strong-minded and willed. I have had childhood issues because my dad was psychologically and physically violent and my mother abandoned any affection for me and so I was pretty much on my own since I was very young. My siblings bullied me a lot and my worth here was only when I obeyed and did what they told me - so I identified my self-worth through this obedience - and therefore never had the chance to really understand what it meant to be 'me'. I never had my own identity both because I had no guidance and my environment forced me to be alienated from myself and to simply serve. That stayed with me as I grew up and though I left home very young, I continued to identify with the external world in the same way, as though my existence was worthless. There was no real angst here, it was that ingrained.

So, when I started this job I became attracted to a guy, but this guy was not normal himself and he was trying to get closer to me but doing a really bad job of it. I did not know what he wanted, he just could not say what he wanted but nevertheless my attraction toward him strengthened because I felt that there was a part of him I could identify with, a part that he himself has shut-away in order to manage his own environment. He was attempting to get closer to me through sexual advances but reacted to my confusion as rejection and therefore became aggressive.His aggression resurfaced those emotions as a child. You love your dad because it is natural to do this, but he treats you badly and you get confused and hurt. You like this guy, but he treats you badly. In addition to this, I started a relationship with my sister and her husband for the first time since I was young and who both swindled me that caused financial loss and reignited those days where I was bullied by my siblings.

This was an adult and so I could actually start seeing the facts, the actuality and so the 'me' or 'I' in this began to develop. It was as Hanover said both generalised and situational, both brain and mind as there was from the accident an increase in stress hormone glucocorticoid and the amygdala in the limbic system that manages our emotional responses is activated and remains activated because the hippocampus cannot translate that into past-tense from the influx of the stress hormone. The chemical imbalances affected my mood and physical experiences. In addition, I lost everything, I had no money, no family or support, no job together with those childhood experiences that I needed to confront and so while I had so many bad experiences hit me in the face in one go, I made every effort to work through them one by one. I got a new job/career, I started saving money again, I started writing, studying (finished a masters degree).

I have not had one moment of anxiety for a while now and I doubt I ever will again because I understand the system now. I have officially recovered and am at peace, but it just took a lot of courage to openly admit to that. I believe wholeheartedly in the honest, temporal communication. Anxiety only remains insofar as we continue to avoid the reason why it is there.

The predilections specific to anxiety are glossed over and, rather quickly, amalgamated in and subordinated to the proper metaphysical study of finitude and its underlying temporal structures in human life. — fdrake

What is questionable here - for instance through counselling, or writing, or art - is when one learns how to articulate or accurately communicate the reasons for the anxiety, the feelings all but disappear? No one, not even Heidegger, can explain these predilections for you because how you identify the external world epistemically or ontologically is determined by your experience and therefore only you are capable of identifying the impact of these experiences. This relies on the state of your mind, your capacity to think rationally and with common sense. So, Heidegger' attempt here is about those specific knots that prevent a person from articulating or communicating the real reasons, and the primary source of this is fear that prevents us from taking advantage of the cognitive tools as instrument to allow us to distinguish between what is real and what is not real (so something that is not real are those who are compelled to new ageism to overcome anxiety as an example); the inauthentic person who conforms to the morality as dictated by an inauthentic world to escape the angst of freedom.

As we stop questioning and conform to the masses, we lose our selfhood and this one such way of overcoming the anxiety. The other is that symbiotic attachment that we rather loosely call 'love' or that attachment that we have to our partner or our mother, this yearning to attach ourselves to an object to avoid thinking for ourselves. We are striving for harmony but for the wrong reasons and the primary impetus for this is the brain, which seeks pleasure and avoids pain. It is painful to recognise the futility of our existence because we become conscious of death or the existentiality, but if we dedicate ourselves to actually learning or questioning through temporal reflection, we begin to under the 'supreme possibility' of this freedom, of our capacity to produce and so we begin to form our own perceptions of the external world through this awareness of ourselves and our separateness.

Death is about recognising our individuality or separateness but death is not the violence of the experience but rather the fear itself that encourages us to conform to the masses. So, the point is to overcome this authentically and therefore our motivations vis-a-vis moral consciousness will enable us to correctly apply ourselves in love. Anxiety is just a feeling or a sensation without a language - subconscious - that is attempting to tell us something we disagree with or that something is wrong but that we cannot articulate because there is no language, no words to describe this. This is why we become dis-empowered or disillusioned and resort to a number of self-defence mechanisms - including things like disassociation - to try and manage the experience and this is why they either become consumed or paralysed by the experience.

It is about ascertaining the correct - or authentic - way in order to reach this harmony and in my opinion the only correct way is this self-reflective communication, by piecing the puzzles by talking about it, writing it, drawing it and not escaping it by other means as already mentioned. This is the intervention that enables one to engage in existence and ascertain the anxiety, give it a language. So, it is about engaging with genuine truths, confronting aspects to our existence that we may avoid - unhappy relationship, trauma from a past-experience etc - and overcoming them. It is to let-go of our developmental attachment to have reality given or dictated to us when young and to form our own reality.

What such engagement means is self-respect, we begin to respect ourselves, we begin to love ourselves, that our opinions matter, and we start to actually think rather than follow. This takes practice and in so doing we begin to authentically love others and it is all others, a capacity to give love. Love is rational, a practice and not some spontaneous feeling and it is also not about loving one object - like certain people - but about how we give it. The state of our mind and our rational faculty. When one does not transcend this need for others to think on their behalf and remove the toxicity of this fear, their love is superficial at best.

Thus authenticity precedes eudaimonia.

I don't object to the conclusion you draw about those that do not give, but only expect, I object to the implication (by your descriptions of such people) that you could identify them by their behaviour with regards to making themselves sexually attractive, by the standards of the latest cultural preferences. — Pseudonym

It is not to say that I myself do not participate in society. I too have pleasant manners, I too enjoy taking care of myself physically, but I actually give a great deal by supporting women and children, mentoring young girls and many teen boys, my focus is on human rights both practically and theoretically, because goodness does not stem from some 'self-sacrifice' - this image that you are only good when you give yourself up like some martyr - but rather being a part of society. It is all about intent or the will that drives us that determines whether someone is genuinely good and whether someone presents a false good. I have no qualms refusing to follow social expectations, for instance how I choose to wait for the right partner or my commitment to a personal virtue that is in stark contrast with how women and men want women to behave.

There is no 'automatic' implication that such individuals are unable to contribute further in society, but the intention or will of the actions in those that present a false image relies on the congratulations they will receive and not because they actually care, which is why they often showcase their charity (just like those who pray publically to apparently showcase religious devotion). It stems from a vulnerability, but can lead to evil; think Cain and Abel, where the intention was to receive love from God but when this was not returned in favour of the other, he committed murder. It is not about trying to be loved, but about knowing how to give love and, further still, that this is genuine and that therefore 'good' is only possible in this intent.

So, the woman who stands in stark contrast to me, the opposite of who I am, are those women who attempt to make themselves attractive by forming pleasant manners, by focusing on beauty and attempting to be popular, who use 'good' only as a way to further climb this ladder such as pretending to be a vegetarian because they think about animals and animal rights (when it is likely just an image that they follow or for weight loss) all the while wearing tonnes of make-up that contribute to issues with animal and even social welfare, and all this without any purpose other than the presentation. How often do such women bully other women who are more attractive then them, or tries to actually be them? The primary impetus in their will is about their image.

So, you could be a man who enjoys life, but your intentions would be to disagree about negative views or opinions despite a bunch of other men holding them, that you could care about the environment enough to actually be conscious of what you and others are doing, to help the elderly lady, just as much as for a man who stands in stark contrast to you would attempt to be successful and financially secure or physically strong or other attempts at being socially powerful they they would not even see that elderly lady even if they walked past them, or any other type of moral consciousness unless it was socially a positive way to reinforce this image that their will pushes them to identify with. Such men have 'trophy' partners, people who are popular and would turn their back on love.

How are such men living?

If you agree with me, that anxiety is concerned with "looking forward", then you should also agree with my designation that anxiety is not always bad. After all, "looking forward to" generally has the connotations of something good. If anxiety is not necessarily caused by fear, but could be caused by other cases of looking forward, then anxiety may in some cases be good. Even fear in some instances is good. Perhaps we can take Plato's model, and class anxiety as a passion. — Metaphysician Undercover

I totally agree that it is not always bad, I would even go so far as to say that since anxiety is using both our emotions and physical responses to articulate a subjective concern that we are not aware of, that it is in fact good that we have these responses despite the negative sensations, because we are trying to speak to ourselves without words or a language. There is that saying most men lead lives of quiet desperation and die with their song still inside them, and people who feel anxiety don't like something but are not conscious of what it is that they do not like. It is like the emotions and body is trying to tell them.

In Plato's description, the passions in themselves, are neither good nor bad. If they are aligned with reason then they are good, but if the person's disposition is corrupted and they no longer align with reason, then they are bad. — Metaphysician Undercover

(Y) Spot on.

I described this anxiety as irrational, and bad, but some other intuition tells me that it's completely natural and reasonable to be afraid of the unknown. I tell myself it is completely unreasonable to be afraid of the unknown, but at the same time I know my intuition, and it is extremely difficult to approach the unknown without being afraid. There is something important about the solitude which you describe, because approaching the unknown is not frightening if I am not alone. — Metaphysician Undercover

From an evolutionary angle, this schism in fear can be biological - a natural mechanism of our brains in order to protect and preserve ourselves, but also the psychological, which is socially constructed where we are taught to believe in one thing, but we reason rather quietly that something is wrong with this belief. We don't think when we speak, language is so much a part of us that it naturally flows, and the things that we are taught when younger form the same bond with our perceptions; children can hate really intensely someone from another race because they are taught to believe that. That is an extreme case, but the point is that our perceptions could be flawed because of what we have been taught or our environment; we need to articulate it, bring to consciousness using reason but most never reach that point because we instinctually want to alleviate the anxiety, it is a natural reaction to want it to end and so we go on avoiding this all-important conversation we need to have with ourselves.

The problem with anxiety and it's cousin depression is that they are highly individual because it is dependent on a number of factors, predominantly your experiences and why articulating it or reasoning why it has manifested is the only way to really understand and overcome it. This is why communication is the key, whether in writing, to a friend or psychologist, through art. I found that talking about it - despite it being broken and problematic - allowed me to eventually piece the puzzles.

Approaching the unknown without fear is different from approaching the unknown with fear. So it's not the approach to the unknown, nor necessarily, the anxiety which goes with it, that is bad here, it is the fear itself. — Metaphysician Undercover

I have a saying to explain this. There was once a young man who went hiking and he fell off the side of the cliff. As he was dropping, his jacket got caught on a rock and he managed to grab hold before his jacket tore completely. As he was hanging onto his life, he could not see below him because of the mist, and suddenly he heard a voice telling him that if he let's go, he will live. But, because of fear he refused to let go and instead he died that way, only if he did let go, he would have dropped only a couple of meters to safety. People hold onto this fear and so afraid to live that they live and ultimately die having experienced nothing.

I admire you for this, not taking medication. That is a strong will and a tough fight. An event like that will change your life, and this cannot be avoided. The easier route is the medication, but far too often the medication becomes lifelong. To be on medication for the rest of your life means that the event has changed your life for the worse. But if you can fight back without the medication, in time you will overcome, learn from the experience, and perhaps become a better person from it. — Metaphysician Undercover

Thanks. It really took a lot of out me, but I have indeed become a much stronger, more affectionate and loving and indeed far more happier person then I ever was before, even before the experience. This peace is only recent, so I can imagine how the continuity of this improvement will grow over the coming years. When you get that clean slate and start writing your own language that you use to interpret the world and not the one given to you, nothing is greater.

Not everyone has the intellectual capability to be a CEO, and not everyone buys into the modern crap about productivity. — Pseudonym

The standard I speak of is Kantian moral autonomy and while you may endorse a type of hedonism, which is neither 'good' nor 'evil' what I was attempting to convey is if there is anything wrong with humanity, it stems from those who are incapable of loving themselves, since love is about giving or being capable of giving love (which is goodness) and one cannot give love if they are incapable of thinking correctly because love or goodness is a practical attitude and a part of our rational faculty, not some random, spontaneous feeling independent of our will. It is also not directed to one object, but all.

Most people work very hard - usually through popularity or sex appeal and even presenting qualities that pretend to having some moral compass - only to attain the love from others, but what is 'bad' here is the inability to give love despite presenting themselves as 'good' people. To 'give' love is to produce and what that means is produce independent or morally autonomous thoughts, the person who will defend someone who is being hurt rather than being a bystander or looking the other way; being professionally successful is no different to having sex appeal, it is meaningless without this capacity to think with moral consciousness.

This boils down to intent, the will, authenticity and this is largely - particularly if you think of the Ring of Gyges - what distinguishes us morally, not the presentation or this false image.

A woman (or man for that matter), is doing less harm just prettying themselves up as a object for someone else's' affection with animal-tested make up than the CEO of the company making the product, who has real power to change things but doesn't in order to impress her colleagues with what a 'productive' hard-headed businesswoman she is. — Pseudonym

I am a woman and the comparative and original rationale was about me (you should read the quote I was responding to), that is, what stands in stark contrast to me. Which is real, which is not? The only way one can distinguish this is about the output, the rational output and indeed I may be professionally successful, I may have studied and travelled the world, but none of that matters in comparison to my capacity to give love, which in turn means the young men and women who I have supported, mentored, loved and I do this while additionally taking care of myself and enjoy this world just as much as I would want anyone too. But, there has been numerous times where it has been suggested that 'good' is self-sacrificial and even your statements here appear to be contrasting with this notion, this 'well why can't we just live and enjoy life' and you certainly can while additionally being capable of giving love. In fact, you need to take care of and respect yourself to correctly and common sensically be capable of giving love to others.

What is peculiar is that while people attempt to make themselves attractive and popular within this social pattern of exchange, the intensity of this exchange - that is automatic 'truth' that being popular equates to being lovable - only exemplifies the depth of their loneliness just as much as material success and the commodity market governs values. This is the power of discourse that Foucault speaks of. It is about very thoughts and perceptions people have because a CEO just like a politician only has enough power that we give to them. If society believes that they should buy the latest lipstick and spend millions of dollars on them, isn't that being complicit, given them the very power?

Now the real timeline has stood up. — Bitter Crank

This is where I find myself agreeing with the biblical suggestion: "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits." What is being authentic and in being so, does that enable one to actually be 'good' or to have moral autonomy? I think so.

People adopt an appearance and women can do this by presenting themselves as attractive - hence the disease fed into society through make-up and cosmetic surgery - but also through 'pleasant manners' and behaving in a way that will make them lovable all the while appearing unique or different from the rest of the herd despite blindly moving with the masses. Through this as though there is some collective delusion people actually believe that by being popular and having sex appeal that somehow it amounts to some satisfactory existence, that they deserve to be loved when - despite presenting themselves as 'good' people - they actually produce nothing.

The sophistication of how to present oneself as 'good' is getting better and better; there are some girls here who have lived a privileged life, who spend hundreds and even thousands of dollars on cosmetics, and who publicly pretend that they hold some sort of concern for the bad things that go on in this world. 'I am a vegetarian because I love animals and animal rights' while wearing lipstick with animal in it or used on it, wearing clothing made in sweat shops, taking selfies while saying they are heartbroken about Syria before spending two hours doing their hair. Being morally concerned is now an image and a false one used to increase popularity. Even when I say 'you must learn to love yourself' they think that taking selfies is a form of loving yourself when it is actually turning your back on this wave of faux appearances.

Perhaps this is a product of capitalism and the marketing schema that feeds into the vulnerability of the masses and they, in turn, respond by purchasing what they are told they need and a certain way of looking becomes symbolic of truth, that it is fact and so convincing that by feeding back into the system by buying the beauty products, they can reap the rewards of popularity. It is only the courage to transcend this and to act - to give love and not to work hard at trying to be loveable - that one actually goes against the grain of this system and produces. So, only through this autonomy, this consciousness can one transcend to a mental state that can enable the person to think for themselves enough - first of all - to not get swept into this wave, but also to start helping others, doing or producing.

Working hard to appear loveable usually means spending years and years in that cycle and never producing anything, never changing or improving. They are stuck.

I don't see this kind of behavior so much in younger men, like 20s to 40s. Younger men do seem to usually have better attitudes toward women. Do you find this to be true? — Bitter Crank

It is everywhere, just done differently to those who are older. I have had several experiences only over the last few years where men have actually become aggressive towards me because I do not respond to them sexually and while it is not physical violence, they are dismissive when I talk, insinuate things I do not think and even slander me in some strange endeavour to get me to submit, like some alpha-gorilla thumping his chest. I believe there was a ridiculous discussion even here about how women apparently respond to such men, but this attitude has largely resulted in a shift in women who do respond because of the social pressure.

It doesn't work with me and the young girls that I mentor because they are learning what self-respect actually is. And that is all that equality is. Respect. The social pressure to behave and appear a certain way that is apparently acceptable is like rearing a fatted cow ready for slaughter.

While in the west there are some cultural shifts where equality and respect for women is reaching a level of consciousness, it really exists in the minority.

I have been an anxious person all my life, for as long as I can remember. This is not to say that I have been diagnosed with any anxiety disorder, but that I have been consciously aware of my anxiety for a long time, such that I could look back at my young childhood in a way that I could see how anxiety influenced my psychological response to many different events. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think it is more fear and this fear is divided into two; fear of the known - something physical - and fear of the unknown, something we cannot consciously ascertain and so we experience an emptiness that we cannot control. I am attempting to interpret your suggestion using Heidegger's angst, which is to become aware of ourselves and in doing so we become aware of our separateness, of being independent, alienated and such individuality is frightening because we are compelled to identify with the external world using our own perceptions. That would mean that everything that we once were, the perceptions, the ideas, the opinions, are not concrete because they are not actually our own, which means that our identity is not our own and we would need to start from a clean slate, start creating our own language. It is first-person experience and such intentionality enables our mental acts to be directed outwardly to the external world (rather than inwardly by the external world through others).

This is initiated by this relationship with the future and the future is death; you have free-will, existence precedes essence, purpose, and one is thus enveloped by an existential crises. We can save ourselves by conforming to patterns of social behaviour, by forming a symbiosis to a partner or our mother or friends and allow them to think on our behalf (by doing what they want) or we can have the courage to learn to articulate and develop our own language authentically, by understand Sein. Anxiety is that point between one becoming aware or conscious of their separateness and being able to articulate our own language and this point between or 'limbo' is nothingness where one has not yet reached that level of consciousness. They are aware that something is really wrong with their perceptions or identification to the external world but cannot yet think for themselves.

Transcending to that next level of consciousness is where most people fail because the angst itself, the anxiety - whilst subjective - is nevertheless painful because the mind is using the body to express this fear. It is evolutionary in that when we feel fear - say we encounter a deadly animal - our body reacts with the same surge, but that is a physical response to a physical experience. The mind, however, reacts the same way to a non-physical fear. In addition to this, our cognitive processing from an evolutionary perspective always attempts to alleviate pain and is drawn to pleasure and so one is drawn to give up, to submit to the masses or conform or refuse to think for themselves, because it takes away that anxiety and therefore is pleasurable. This is why people stop questioning and conform to the masses and choose to lose their self-hood.

To distinguish between what is real and what is not real takes courage because the anxiety is a type of dread where one realises that they are drawing away from reality and so their significance becomes unheimlich and our mind is the instrument that unlocks this capacity where we completely transform our thoughts from being a subject to our environment to being empowered to use free will.

So, I think anxiety is caused by fear but I agree with you that this is due to a consciousness of 'looking forward' and that anticipatory reaction. It is particularly potent existentially when we look forward enough to become aware that we are going to die, ultimately raising the most important question relating to 'significance' or our very significance existentially.

Full-blown panic attack is marked by very high blood pressure (although that is normal - there is nothing wrong with it, unless you're in panic-attack mode 24/7 - it also occurs during strenuous aerobic exercise). — Agustino

Panic attacks are an example of how those temporary spikes in blood pressure can impact the overall health of your heart but it needs to be persistent and regular. I had several of these the first few months after the car accident and it was terrible and terrifying in addition to other symptoms. The biggest problem for me - and I suspect many others - is this alienation from any self control and awareness and that makes it tremendously difficult to know what to do both you and for others around you. I did not take any medication and in a way I kind of appreciate your understanding of this 'fight' because you really need that to overcome it.

Sleep well dear one and enjoy the sweetest of dreams, knowing that I will stand vigil until the first rays of sun beg you to rise again. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I am fully at peace, healthy and content now as the accident was three years ago, but it took a very long time to overcome because I had a number of other things that I needed to face and overcome along with it. Which I have. So thanks you lovely and sweet thing, but the worst time in my life only made me stronger. And I sleep like a log.



Thanks MU - I will respond to you this evening when I get home as I am only on my lunch break at the moment.

I catch myself feeling contempt for someone from time to time. It is one of the darkest, ugliest emotions. I feel dirty, sick to my stomach. One thing I have come to recognize - when I feel contempt for someone because of something I see in them, it is because I see that same thing in myself and can't face it. — T Clark

Because your perceptions are flawed. You have attempted arrogance, then guilt, now shame.You are having some imagined battle with me but the effort here is merely to justify your flawed perceptions.

When I speak to some men in the field of science and sometimes philosophy, as a woman, it does not matter how logical and correct I am, I am wrong. They have a perception that women are not capable or intelligent enough to discuss certain topics and sometimes their sexism is so entrenched that even with quotes from actual scientific figures, it is still not enough. And, others follow suit because a man is supposed to be more right than a woman. Just like the delusion of neo-nazis who deny the holocaust, the imagined ideology remains fixed despite the evidence to the contrary.

So, when men speak to me in general, they often assume that being a woman I am required to give more leniency, that I am supposed to be genteel and support others emotionally, that I am not allowed to say no or that is wrong and if I do then I am 'fierce' or 'angry' because the idea is that women are supposed to be unconditionally obedient. So, it is paradoxical to such men that I am morally compassionate but not exempt from conditional standards.

Try all you like but the continuity of my pity towards you remains unchanged.

You are such a compassionate person, I am always surprised when you are so quick to judge those of us who do not live up to your standards. — T Clark

I did not set those standards. If you see a crime and choose to look the other way when you are at capacity to assist, telling yourself that the choice is justified and that you are not morally contemptible, that is really your problem and it is a shame. The contempt here is moral and not personal.

Why are you asking? I like them, but I do not think they are beautiful.

I heard this when young and it changed my musical life. I was the only one at school who listened to rock and I felt intimately connected to them for a long while. Is it the nostalgia that's beautiful?

Isn't there a reason why emotions are said to be "of the heart"? I wouldn't say that anxiety is an emotion, but it's likely more closely related to emotions than to thoughts. Emotions have great influence over the thoughts. The reason I said anxiety seems to be of the heart, is because of the way it feels, like it is centred in the chest, and radiates outward through one's whole body. — Metaphysician Undercover

While there is an intimate relationship, what is questionable is whether anxiety disorders contribute to heart disease or the other way around. PTSD symptoms, for instance, where there is a persistence of anxious thoughts, poor and irregular sleep, poor eating etc could be the factors that cause heart problems and so anxiety contributes to the overall health of your heart, but it is not the heart itself that causes anxiety. It is no different to other risk factors including smoking, eating foods in saturated fats and not exercising etc., and I assume that regular episodic experiences of anxiety can elevate blood pressure. The risks either way are multifaceted as there is no doubt that bad health can lead to somatic sequelae just as much as psychological vulnerability can cause bad health.

It is centered in the chest and radiates outwards likely because of blood pressure; anxiety, I believe, is caused psychologically and it effects the body that likewise prolong the anxiety because of bad health such as sleeplessness and a poor diet.

This is a very good description of my life. — T Clark

Then I pity you.

As in emotionally or the actual heart?

Yes we are alive. How would you know? — T Clark

Be kind to yourself. If you are conscious of shutting down intentionally then I would probably suggest a psychologist. If you are consciously being mean than I would pity you.

It's one thing to describe a woman's breasts as beautiful (it's been done quite often) but much rarer to hear a man's penis or testicles described as beautiful, even less to hear someone's asshole be awarded the prize of beauty. — Bitter Crank

You are like Santa Claus on acid sometimes. A man's dingle-dangle is hideous, but I am sure there are some people out there who phallic worship.

What would make the scent of a rose "beautiful"?

It may be the case that the breeding required to achieve a certain color an shape will have resulted in the loss of scent. Is a bright pink, but odorless rose (or one that smells like damp newspaper) really beautiful? — Bitter Crank

I grow my own flowers and I have been dabbling in seed germination, soils, hybridisation and grafting and have worked with beautifully scented flower species including Lily of the Valley and Stargazer Lily as well as Jasmine. A positive scent gives one pleasure because the brain has nerves that are stimulated by scent and when it reaches that area of the brain the information networks into the amygdala and so one feels emotional; we like that feeling and so we want more. So, it is actually pleasure that is beautiful. However, I have a specific fondness for peonies not just because of the smell and the pastel pink colour that I love, but because of the memories and other relational aspects that connect me to them, so it transcends merely evoluntary or instinctual reactions and it objectifies a reflection of who I am. This 'beauty' is therefore eternal, a forever bond. Love that is genuine is also beautiful for this reason.

I own expensive perfumes and it took me quite a while to learn how to accurately place the right amount of perfume on me just as much as it took me practice to find the right perfume for me; when I used to put perfume on a while ago, people would always compliment my 'perfume' but that actually shows that I had too much on. I now have enough on to make people think I smell nice but all on my own, that it is me. It evokes pleasure and draws people closer, but it is temporary; to admire who I am, the values that I hold, the things that I do, they are important and not my smell or appearance.

As for the rest of us, we're fine. Not good, not bad. Human. I like people - almost everyone. I really don't dislike anyone, although there are people I don't want to hang around with. I love lots of people - most of them normal, fine, but not good in the sense I'm talking about. — T Clark

I am tired of this idea that 'good' people somehow stand apart as though they are martyrs, saints, pure, deep, but that is simply not true. If I see an elderly person and I want to help them, I am not being 'good' and if I meet a girl with a bad attitude and treat her sternly, I am not being 'bad' because it is all about intent. It is like an equal playing field where I am balancing the scales in order to effectively create the best outcome for everyone because my motivation is happiness both for myself and for others; supporting and empowering the vulnerable is to remind the arrogant to be humble. Being good is to simply be confident to have empathy and show kindness, to do the best that you can do without following the herd; genuine kindness and compassion is only possible when one can articulate their own autonomous moral trajectory. That is why a person who cannot love themselves cannot love others.

If there is something 'bad' it is those people that hide who they really are, shut down their own happiness because they are afraid to take risks, to disappoint, and such people are not really alive anyway.

"To fear love is to fear life, and those who fear life are already three parts dead."

Right, that is my experience with anxiety. it always comes on as a general feeling, over my entire body, especially in the chest area, almost like an extreme form of anticipation, as if my whole body is prepared to act, but with no particular act being imminent. This inclines me to think about what needs to be done. I may experience it day after day, but if I manage to maintain a high level of activity, directing my mind toward this and that, as important objects, and things already determined as needing to be done, this is effective in expending the energy build up, subduing the anxiety and the urge to think about what needs to be done. If I allow the anxiety to well up, I may be overcome by irrational thoughts and beliefs. — Metaphysician Undercover

When I had a major car accident, this feeling was ongoing for months after and it was a long while later that realised it was PTSD from the accident. Just prior to the accident, I was being harassed with indirect threats and it re-surfaced some childhood memories to add to the anxious confusion and I was always physically shaking. I could not sleep, eat, and for some weird reason was terribly afraid as though everyone and everything was 'bad' and because I was out of work and on my own together with an injury, the severity got worse that in the space of four months I lost 15kg.

All I probably needed was a bit of a hug at that time and someone to say it is going to be OK but some of us don't have that luxury.



Physical reactions were from an increase in stress hormones including glucocorticoid and where the amygdala (limbic system) that forms our emotional responses remains activated for a long time after the trauma and so one continues to feel like they are identifying threats and risks when there is actually nothing there as though that moment of shock and anxiety you feel from the accident remains long afterwards. Because of the elevation of glucocorticoid, the hippocampus is also interrupted and this area of the brain is where new memories are formed and stored as something past-tense. So, the person cannot make a memory past-tense and the experience - though not present in the physical world - remains and so the anxiety remains amplified. This is why I could not sleep and all the chemical imbalances altered my mood dramatically, making me terribly afraid.

I recovered from all of that by communicating it, talking about it as psychotherapeutic treatment that enabled me to bring up to consciousness things I was unable to articulate with language (since we do not understand or know it). It is a massive task and mine was extra huge that it took years of work to really overcome it all and my awareness of the process now has enabled me to block/ward off any potential threats of anxiety in the future. Mostly, my eating habits, working life, building a new environment and space for myself and in particular the removal of toxic people helped me get my shit together.

This gives me perfect peace. I have not experienced a moment of anxiety for over six months and I doubt that I ever will now that I understand it.

I see beauty like I understand love; while we have a number of objects of love - erotic love, familial love, brotherly love, motherly love - along with other functions such as our instinctual drives or passions or subconscious needs and intimacy, is there 'love' that stands outside of this, something universal? We have become accustomed to the notion that reason is a part of some rational faculty, but love itself is also a part of this faculty, a part of how we process and interpret objects outside of us. It is subjective or from within us that we project to the external world and all problems that flow from this such as hedonism, narcissism, even idealism is a problem of our rational faculty, of our ability to have a mature interpretation of our responses.

Our responses are feelings or sensations that are not objective despite these feelings being aroused by objects external to us and so it is not those objects that have some pleasurable, empirical substance, but it is a representation that signifies something important to us. That is the most enjoyable aspect when trying to ascertain why we are drawn to things we consider beautiful as we attempt to define the sentimental, the ontological, the memories and emotions to an object. Is beauty socially constructed or are we drawn to what we have been taught to consider is beautiful or attractive and that our tastes are universally defined according to our culture?

For me, beauty is not attractiveness per se, it is an aspect of it - that we are compelled to it - but this attraction is induced by the pleasure it evokes, which can to a degree be evolutionary as our brains are naturally compelled to the feeling of pleasure, hence we are drawn to or find pleasurable objects attractive. The pleasure itself is entirely subjective even though we attribute the pleasure to the object and so we objectify the intrinsic feeling.

Without it being objective, it leads to a certain triviality or futility in the experience unless we try to interpret the fundamental value. Beauty fades, or the feeling of pleasure fades away. That, to me anyway, means that it is not truly beautiful, just like something is not 'true love' but that it stems from something else, social constructs, emotional attachments etc. For something to be beautiful, it needs to have that universal value, a part or relation to a Form where the object and the subjective experience is embedded into a knot. It is unchanging.

My favourite flower of all is the Peony, not just because it is attractive. Indeed, it has attractive qualities, namely the soft colour of pink intertwined within the white, the fragrance draws me closer to it because of the sensual scent. But, I have a fondness for peonies because I found them once when I was young, there is a memorable connection, it reminds me of certain people, it reflects my tastes, a celebration of nature. The flower emerges, for a brief moment, as me.



Similarly, I was attracted to a man once, but it was not his physical persona that only drew me closer. Indeed, he was physically attractive, he had qualities that I appreciated and that drew me closer to him, but it was something else entirely that made him stand out as different to other men. It was something subjective, a goodness inside of him and despite the riddle of all other aspects to him that made it difficult to penetrate, I felt that it was there, a real, authentic good. It was this hope that I was correct that made me curious about his potential and that made we want to know him. But, it also symbolised a part of me, that he reflected my taste, my celebration in him the potential of this value of good, of authenticity and so for a brief moment emerged as me. I found that part of him beautiful.

She really is beautiful.

Summit of Mauna Kea. Despite the difficulties with the climb and my inability to acclimatise properly to the high altitude, reaching it was just phenomenal. I also went to see the volcanoes and trekked back at dusk and the crunching sounds of my feet on the surface of the lava at night with the stars above and the milky way in a different position to what I see here in Australia actually gave me goosebumps.

These are mine.

This is a self-defeating question; people, particularly those from dogmatic positions, often assume that there are selfish qualities in loving yourself and so believe that conversely there is moral superiority or virtue in loving only others at the expense of yourself; not doing this makes one 'bad' to others, but this is not true. Moral consciousness or being good is the capacity to give love and to give this to all people, a type of brotherly love without prejudice. This includes yourself.

Having a love for yourself is not synonymous with being selfish, that it is ok to say that you respect who you are or are trying to be a better person. This sacrificial giving up yourself for some greater 'good' that implies some sort of evil to independence or free thinking is ideological. Why would the golden rule imply LOVE others as you would your SELF. It is to love all human beings and not including yourself in this formula is to imply some non-human quality to your being, as though you stand outside of the world around you. If you become a part of the world, then you are bad. Those who are incapable of loving others are incapable of loving themselves and so most people will say either yes or no to this question because their understanding of good is parallel to social constructs of good and evil (and thus flawed).

Should the question be whether or not a person is good to themselves?

I don't want to restart the battle, but I'd like to know how much of what you've discussed is at least theoretically verifiable either through direct observation or extrapolation from what we can observe. In particular, the existence of other universes within the possibly infinite universe. It has been my understanding that this particular version of the multiverse is unverifiable, thus meaningless. — T Clark

I would not say meaningless. The study of cosmology itself deals with the universe at an extremely large-scale and so it is constrained by observable parameters where we rely on probabilistic or statistical models to predict possibilities. When we learn about those constraints, numerical variations or simulations can be methodically applied to enhance the accuracy of the formulations. We are taking steps toward understanding length scales or scalar quantum fields by formulating quantum theories that unify general relativity with length at a much larger scale and inflationary theory - particularly by Guth - has had some predictions verified and with an accuracy that legitimise the possibilities much more than say string theory or M-brane theory. Einstein' cosmological constant, for instance, is used in the equations that allow us to understand how gravitational fields can carry negative potential energy and as I was discussing earlier, verifies the parameters between mass density and critical mass density Ω that make spacetime homogenous and isotropic. The observational findings from WMAP have shown data that verifies some aspects to inflationary cosmology and so it is about piecing pieces together.

As we continue the attempt to verify the components and geometry of the universe, we discover and learn like the recent gravitational waves that is an interesting leap in the right direction, although with LIGO is really about the verification of general relativity. So, there is Newtonian physics where gravity is a force that directs space, general relativity understands gravity as a field within 'space-time' and this field can be curved by mass; these gravitational fields are curved by planets and stars, for instance, but nevertheless locked into this geometry where space and time reacts by directing how matter should respond.

BICEP2 is also searching for these waves, but unlike LIGO where these interferometers have detected gravitational waves from collisions between black holes or pulsars over a billion years ago, BICEP2 is attempting to detect signatures left by gravitational waves much older than that (very early universe, around 14 billion years ago) by studying the light from the CMB, because if inflation happened there would be similar gravitational waves left from quantum fluctations that distribute a very particular kind of light-wave across the universe. While the initial findings were actually contaminated by space dust and other things, the problem is really the limitations of our equipment and not the inaccuracy of the equations. These waves are primordial imprints and so detection is extremely difficult, but verification of these predictions or the conditions of the universe are certainly on its way.

At the shops, on the radio, at work, at the gym, I felt like I was being stalked by the song. I finally gave up and decided to actually listen to the lyrics and I liked it. I wouldn't mind kids listening to this, better than all that other rubbish pouring out of the pop genre.

Sorry, buddy. I have others who have looked over what I said and their approval is enough for me; you are just a screamer picking and probing parts of what I say in some nervous hope that if you pounce hard enough that it would somehow justify your ego in all of this.

I’ve given you an explanation several times now. So you will have to explain what your problem with it is. — apokrisis

This is your explanation:

Obviously the comparison was between the size of the visible universe at the end of inflation compared to the inflated whole. — apokrisis

How does that explain the problem? The "bang" of the big bang?

So old school inflation says the visible universe is just 10^-55ish of the whole shebang. Hence the whole is "humongously larger", but not infinite, to use the technical description for that cosmic scenario. — apokrisis

As I said, it is you that has no clue what he is talking about.

So the isotropic state of the CMB was a puzzling observation. Guth proposed a scalar field with a special property - some kind of repulsive spacetime expanding phase before it decays - as the possible solution. — apokrisis

I know. That is what I said. That is, again, you agreeing with me by pretending that I am wrong and then re-phrasing what I said.

The problem is not that, Apokrisis, the problem is that you are intentionally and incorrectly misunderstanding my comments and then responding to an article I have given you by implying I meant something that I did not mean. It is impossible having this discussion with you because - from the get-go - you seem fixed on this notion that I am actually attacking you. I'm not. I am interested in what you have to say, but your behaviour and your responses have only made me lose my respect for you completely and I am confident that the reasoning behind that behaviour is because you are uncomfortable with my presence.

Attacking people as stupid or incomprehensible does not make you right; the louder one screams only makes other people quiet as an attempt to overpower them.

Remember that you decided to focus on my use of the term "humongously large". You were asking relative to what? I answered several times. Obviously the comparison was between the size of the visible universe at the end of inflation compared to the inflated whole. — apokrisis

Indeed, and you went on a torrent of abuse because I sought an explanation, and an explanation you still have not given.

It is the fluctuations of the CMB we observe. Any scalar field responsible for inflation is then imputed via theory. — apokrisis

Here, read. Now, I could turn around and say something like just because you go over the heads of others, doesn't mean you know what you are talking about or screaming like a little baby boy doesn't actually suddenly make you right but I am going to ask you once and once only, speak and question properly. If you do not understand something, it is you that has the problem and because you know a bit of physics, your attitude is nevertheless ungenerous.

And it is the isotropy of the CMB we observe, thus making homogeneity a reasonable belief. And likewise, the massive size (much bigger than just the visible universe) a reasonable belief. — apokrisis

I know. That is what I said.

...explain the isotropy and homogeneity along with the massive size — TimeLine

Why do you repeat what I say and then scream that you don't understand?

If you could write proper sentences, then it would be clear what you think should be compared to what. — apokrisis

What? I think you should probably take your own advice.

And the original inflation story - not the one Linde is pushing that is the subject of the OP - speculated the extent of the scalar field would double every 10^-37 seconds or so. That was its exponential rate of growth. So presuming the decay of the grand unified field into the strong and electroweak fields happened at 10^-35 seconds after the birth of the universe, thus triggering the onset of inflation, followed by the further decay of the inflaton field by about 10^-32 second, then you could easily get 50 to 60 doublings into that fractional period.

So old school inflation says the visible universe is just 10^-55ish of the whole shebang. Hence the whole is "humongously larger", but not infinite, to use the technical description for that cosmic scenario. — apokrisis

This is odd. It also explains nothing. It is all well and good that observable fluctuations and perturbations in scalar fields in the CMB radiation can explain the isotropy and homogeneity along with the massive size, as well as the expansion of the universe as accelerating, you stated that the initial region that "banged" was already massive. Going back 13 to 14 billion years, this makes no sense. If the universe was large and infinitely dense, you are merely comparing the size or shape to the observable universe.

As I have already said, I appreciate Guth' suggestion that the early conditions were about the size of 10^-28cm - the size of a marble - and with energy at 10^16 GeV the scalar field in this false vacuum state dominates the total mass-energy density enabling the volume to expand at a constant; the negative pressure enables it to grow exponentially and no energy is actually needed, or at least the energy of empty space (dark energy) and something we still have no clue as to what it is. In a fraction of a moment, the universe expanded at the speed of light, actually probably faster than light because there are no limitations to how far the universe can expand according to GR. Then the repulsive gravity begins to decay at 10^-33 seconds after the big bang and we get what we have now in the observable universe.

You see how right from the beginning you were mangling the science. The free lunch story is that the kinetic mass of the universe nicely balances its gravitational potential. So the energy to drive expansion is matched by the energy wanting to re-collapse that expansion. However, gravity is held in suspension until the electroweak symmetry breaking releases a flood of gravitating particles via the Higgs mechanism. It is only then that the potential is actualised and collapse becomes a real issue. Mass can start to clump and unbalance the expansion. — apokrisis

I get that inflation is the physics of matter and scalar fields and that the particles that make universe from initial conditions to the big bang is in the Higgs fields, but these separate suggestions are intentionally fused to help ascertain a number of other factors that have - like the flatness problem - but also have not yet been raised in this discussion; as mentioned earlier, the second law of thermodynamics and the arrow of time, the low-entropy early conditions, cosmological parameters and these problems in inflation also need to be considered, hence the fusion and I believe that I have already made it clear that I appreciate Guth.

Inflation doesn't push omega anywhere. It washes out the early fluctuations that would have destabilised the show. So the problem is that overall, on average, the Big Bang could have had a perfect flat balance of omega = 1, but quantum fluctuations would have made it grainy. So it would have been unstable due to inhomogeneity. You need inflation just to deal with that separate problem.

Your own citation says this - carefully distinguishing between omega(m) and omega(lambda), or the critical density of the mass contents and the critical density of the dark energy: — apokrisis

From my understanding, it does; when you consider the effect of the cosmological constant as it explains the rate of expansion with time, particles that make up the universe following inflation are merely the quantum explanation of a Non-Zero Higgs field that forms elementary particle masses; it has positive and negative contributions at a constant at every space time point, which would mean that omega would equal to omega(m) + omega (lambda) as it explains the rate of expansion with time. I get what you mean, but there is no distinction.

Went apeshit at a dance sesh after work today

Alright, i'll admit my late-night writing was lacklustre and to prevent such another prospect, ill respond when I get home rather than on my phone. (Y)

I'm taking Apokrisis' side, this isn't relevant to the comment you replied to, and not least because it doesn't contain a thesis of any sort. — BlueBanana

Poor me. I have BB disagreeing with me. :-d

That's just awkward.

Whoah, you are a cranky one. But really, your posts on cosmology are a garbled mess. And being polite to you was clearly wasted breath. — apokrisis

You are talking rubbish and I am probably one of the few people here who can see straight through you. How can a question that you are not answering be a garbled mess? This is the third time I am going to ask you:

What is this "humongously" large you are speaking of? What are you comparing it to, exactly?

You don't know, do you.

This might help you.

Who mention singularities? I didn’t. And what is the relevance of a length scale 100,000x the Planck length? I’m not following you at all. This is another series of irrelevancies. — apokrisis

To speak in your language, I mention singularities. Let's return back to the problem, shall we. What is this "humongously" large you are speaking of? What are you comparing it to, exactly?

Inflation doesn’t have to balance the kinetics of its expansion with its gravitational attraction. So an Omega balance is irrelevant. Inflation is about a scalar field that stays the same energy density while expanding exponentially. Repulsion dominates and gravity is simply impotent. — apokrisis

Omega is irrelevant? Friedman just rolled in his grave. >:O We are talking about the universe right and all start at Einstein-de Sitter points. I already know that inflation is about the physics of scalar fields and matter, the particles that make up the universe following the initial phase of inflation are the quantum representation of Higgs fields. The problem though is not that the emergence of elementary particle masses that contains both positive and negative contributions together with a constant value at every space time point, because that is only attempting to explain quantum density fluctuations in scalar fields as a source of temperature anisotropies in CMB radiation. It ends at the de-sitter dSn point. If inflation is pushing omega to 1 with omega being the mass density divided by critical mass density, it means a universe with 0 matter density and critical mass density in the cosmological constant; the expansion of the universe is accelerating and the vacuum energy of this empty space has a mass density (which would mean that it is not actually empty). So Omega is relevant.

However, it's a very big leap to attribute miracles to God or something supernatural. I think that's where people make the mistake. — TheMadFool

If you think of things like quantum entanglement, there is a possibility that such phenomenon is attributable to interactions we do not yet understand, but the problem is mostly where people are vulnerable to believe in unrealistic and even irrational things and project that psychological experience to the natural world. They explain the experience using religious themes mostly because the latter allows them to due because of the all-encompassing supernatural content.

Look at theosophy - this cohort openly believe in the devil and that there are spirits in higher plains surrounding us. They went so far as to try and make Krishnamurti into the Maitreya of whatever bullshit they believe in.