HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Aug. 18, 2006 This article moves along at a pretty fast clip. Hopefully you will be able to fill in any gaps you perceive. If not, well, that introduces the problem of following your own intuition and/or following the intuition of another person. One who follows writing or conversation has some intuition. Creative research requires intuition. To that end, the practices of brainstorming and synectics both stimulate the intuition. Then comes the testing of intuited ideas. That testing is the reasoned proof, the calculated proof, or the experimental proof. But the proof of an idea comes after the idea has been intuited. Without the first intuitive leap there is no creative research. So on that basis, here goes. Santa Claus is a personification of the Christmas spirit which we know is being merry, kind, thoughtful, polite, and passing out lots of gifts. Santa Claus exists in the world of theater, celebration, and ritual. Jesus Christ is a personification of the Ruler of everything (Greek word Pantokrator). Again, Jesus Christ is real in the world of theater, celebration, and ritual. Persons can know Santa Claus and Jesus Christ many years before they ever know differential equations well enough to understand the science of magnetism, sunlight, X-rays, electricity, and other natural processes. One fact is, however, most people don't ever study differential equations. Another fact is that human brains grow and develop the most when they are very young and so the impressions gained first tend to mean the most and last the longest. Therefore ideas about Santa and Jesus are deep in young children years before any ideas about algebra, calculus, and differential equations are present. Santa Claus and Jesus Christ are caricatured role models even young people can relate to and follow. In theater Santa and Jesus appear bigger than real life, as do modern movie stars. Even if a skeptic says that Santa and Jesus don't "really" exist (even though Saint Nicholas really DID exist,) theater brings these characters to life even in the rapidly developing brains of young children! One therefore can question the idea that science is the only path to knowledge. It would be nice if people could just follow the maxim: "Live and let live," but often this tolerance rule isn't followed. One problem is that theater can get out of hand, as it did with Adolf Hitler. Sci-tech can also get out of hand, as it did when atomic bombs were developed and used in warfare. Now what about the myth of Jesus Christ and the skeptics who dismiss Jesus? There actually is a "Pantokrator" that rules over everything and everyone. There is also a vast polyglot of popular human languages, and so not everyone will agree that the second sentence in this paragraph is the most accurate way to describe the TOE (Theory of Everything) that is to say the universal total control over everything the universe. The words "Supernature" or "over nature" can also be used, as in Nietsche's "Superman" and "Overman." The "Supernatural" can be equated with the "Pantokrator." Many people personify this reality and call it "God." In theater this "God" often takes a human form or an animal form or "Avatar" or "Incarnation" of "God." What gets people into trouble is their insistence that only one form, word, or character is the "correct" one. For example, at the kingergarden stage big brothers and big sisters lecture their naive younger sibling on the "unreality" of Santa Claus" or "God" and "educate" the naive sibling to "reality." The trouble is that a vague term like "Theory of Everything" or "Grand Unification Theory" means nothing to a little child whose brain is absorbing information faster than a dampened sponge can soak up water, and most adults don't understand these terms either. A theatrical person grabs the attention of both children and adults, however. You know how kids love to watch cartoons and action movies! This is a bit of a jump but I've recently read David Gleeson's articles on atheism at americanchronicle.com and his article Atheists, the ACLU, and Michael Novak. In his articles Mr. Gleeson's emphasis is on facts and what he calls "reality." Mr. Gleeson even states, "When reality is so inspiring, what need do I have for invention?" But theater is invented and theater is real. Play is real and play is invention. In fact healthy young children play for hours a day. This inventiveness is a major part of human brain development! One wonders if David Gleeson has done much playful creative work. It's clear that Mr. Gleeson is very intelligent and articulate about his passion which appears to be his own particular idea of "reality." But many people are not as articulate as Mr. Gleeson is. It is also a fact that many persons are gifted in other ways. In addition, personal experiences differ. Consequently they probably don't think and feel exactly the way Mr. Gleeson does. Like it or not, this fact is a part of global human reality. Furthermore, many adults are very inventive and playful, and for example such a person will look up at the starry sky and see an umbrella as did Dr. John Nash in the movie, "A Beautiful Mind." Now perhaps Dr. Nash didn't really do that bit of Hollywood theater, but the movie scene illustrates the playful inventive creative mind of John Nash. Dr. Nash was in fact very ingenious in his theorizing- in economics and in mathematics. So if David Gleeson doesn't care to invent, well, many other people aren't like him. Perhaps Mr. Gleeson needs to pay more attention to the diversity in humans and not try to force everyone to fit into the same box, that is to say his idea of optimal brain functioning. Clear and persuasive as Gleeson's writing is, nevertheless he states (1) "I doubt any religion, per se, will ever take up Mr. Sagan’s challenge, and so it is incumbent upon atheists and humanists to lead the way. There are wonders enough in the universe without our having to invent any." (See paragraph 5 in "Spiritual Atheism and the False Comforts of Faith") and (2) "How could I ever invent a god or a belief system that could even approach the awe and wonder I feel under a canopy of stars on a cloudless night? When reality is so inspiring, what need do I have for invention?" (See paragraph 6 in "Atheists, the ACLU, and Michael Novak") Well, to make one point I think you will agree that many humans make a living by being inventive, and to make another point, just think of the millions of persons who live in Mexico City, Detroit, Los Angeles, Tokyo, and other modern cities. These people scarcely ever see many stars at night because of the smog and all the bright city lights. These persons never witness the brilliant starry night sky that Mr. Gleeson celebrates. The faithful can, however, go to a local church. Inside the church their favorite awesome visual spectacle is readily accessible to them. David Gleeson's favorite awesome visual spectacle is not. On the other hand, to many theists, that which is an awesome visual spectacle is not confused with the idea of God. God to them is greater than just something that is visible or otherwise palpable. Here's yet another point. David Gleeson's plea to rejoice in physical reality actually includes the tacit or implied plea to restructure human societies so that the grinding poverty is eliminated in the suffering Middle East and in other places where so many great multitudes of people suffer, yes and even in the health-deprived and otherwise impoverished parts of the USA such as in the numerous homeless shelters. Such lack of housing and affordable health care and such chronic poverty and related chronic suffering prevents hundreds of millions of children from being well educated in science the way David Gleeson hopes for. But if the New Society doesn't yet exist, then David (or some other champion of physical reality) will need to become very inventive and invent the New Society, since right now the New Society doesn't really exist. It can be argued that the social paradigm shift that David dreams of actually depends upon shared wealth and equal privileges and rights for all human beings, as well as purification of the atmosphere so that all these people can view the stellar displays that were such strong selling points for Mr. Gleeson as well as the famous promoter of science and media personality Carl Sagan. Related to this issue is that a genius like John Nash might not actually be God, but in his imagination or his "schizophrenia" in the theater of his home and his research environment Dr. Nash might play the God role and act strangely in his episodes of enhanced ideation. Moreover, as a mathematical economist, in his "schizophrenia" he might compose a theoretical basis for the New Society in which every form of wealth is shared and every person is as privileged as any other person. Dr. Nash then would do what no proclaimed "Messiah" has ever done, and there have been dozens of proclaimed "Messiahs." But if Dr. Nash stopped being "schizophrenic" and wondrously inventive and thereby was just inspired by reality as reality is, the way David Gleeson wants everyone to be, well, then no new revolutionary economic or social theory will originate from Dr. Nash. The demonstrated creativity of this proven genius would be stopped dead in its tracks. ------------ About the author: sixty-six years young, and vigorous in mind, body, emotions, and spirit, John L. Waters is an independent researcher on self-healing, integration, creativity, and unity. To help demonstrate the effectiveness of his research, John has created thousands of drawings, paintings, instrumental music pieces, songs, prose pieces, poems, and other inventions. John has used his research to help persons remove a mental block and solve a problem. John also gives personal presentations which illustrate his research results. Each one of these works demonstrates the effectiveness of John's research. For more information, read John's letters of recommendation: about John's self-healing and integration: about the mystical energy or yogic force and related topics: about John's independent research: about John's seeking an agent or a publisher: Email: blueguntwo@yahoo.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
