1. Comment #385519 by mrgoodjob on June 6, 2009 at 9:28 am

Victory!

Other Comments by mrgoodjob

2. Comment #385529 by mig... on June 6, 2009 at 10:24 am

"Schizotypal personality disorder: social withdrawal, odd perceptual experiences, a tendency towards concreteness, metamagical belief."




Other Comments by mig...

3. Comment #385536 by Quine on June 6, 2009 at 11:48 am

Wish I could audit this class. I got hooked on Sapolsky back when I read his book, A Primate's Memoir, about his years studying the neurochemistry of stress in baboons.

I wonder if his comments about hypergraphia are applicable to some of the very lengthy and unfocused posts, we sometimes get, here?

Other Comments by Quine

4. Comment #385540 by Aztek on June 6, 2009 at 12:25 pm

I hope lessons like these, about the biology and psychology of religious behaviour, will be part of basic compulsory biology studies in the near future.

It would be great if high school kids would learn in psychology class that religions are nothing more but obejcts of research, like e.g. mental disorders.

Other Comments by Aztek

5. Comment #385546 by mig... on June 6, 2009 at 12:56 pm

4. Comment #385540 by Aztek


Sure. Everything can be an object of research... including science... politics... art, etc

Other Comments by mig...

6. Comment #385549 by gruebait on June 6, 2009 at 1:04 pm

Sapolsky introduced the lecture by strongly conflating "Evolution" with "Adaptatation" which put me off a bit.

After exploring the way many kinds of wackiness can be indistinguishable from religiosity, even to the point of becoming a social advantage rather than a handicap, and stressing the biological component of it all, there was nothing suggesting an evolved trait.

He never got to the promised 'evolutionary roots' and 'adaptive value' of religiosity, discussing only how the genes for various wackinesses might be conserved in a modern society. Not what I expect to hear characterized as "Evolution", in the sense of biological Evolution.

Interesting sociology, though.

Other Comments by gruebait

7. Comment #385566 by sauronlord on June 6, 2009 at 1:52 pm

"4. Comment #385540 by Aztek on June 6, 2009 at 12:25 pm
avatarI hope lessons like these, about the biology and psychology of religious behaviour, will be part of basic compulsory biology studies in the near future.

It would be great if high school kids would learn in psychology class that religions are nothing more but obejcts of research, like e.g. mental disorders. "

I hope you will get to see things in another ways and accept life fully. I know because I felt that way too when I would espouse what you just stated above.

I'm happily non-theistic/atheistic that I have known this for years.

But nothing should ever be "just the objects of research". In science we are confined by the limits of reason and explanation from any and all vantage points. The contradictions in this world are fundamental.
Take the concept of the Absurd (See Camus, Myth of Sysiphus. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udk0vRXGLlA)

Take Godel's Incompleteness theorems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems)

Take any other number of philosophies and human endeavers (Society, Family units, social structures, religion, desire to Know and Love) -- and study them and see their arguments.


All of which by the way are product of the Universe - nay, I say we ARE the Universe.
This means that, when you look outside, look at a telescope into billions of light years back in time -- it is really the Universe ITSELF that is peering back into its own reflection.

Read any of Zen, Taoism, Buddhism, etc. You will know what I mean by that point. Look up audio recordings of Alan Watts or read some of his books. (Hint: they're available on many sites).

Combine the truths or tautologies I have stated above with the great number of humanly corrupted social and political structures -- you would have a recipe for guaranteed failure to indoctrinate the children with a your particular world view of seeing others as "objects of your perception and satisfaction" -- as if for some greater good that we can call Knowledge that gives us the Right to put down and analyze other human beings as primarily objects of research or questioning.

I am all for knowledge and using the Philosophy of Science to guide us for the most part. But true Knowledge is not just technical facts or mere know-how. It is the interplay of social, political, psychological/biological and the irrational that drives brought it here, contains to, sustains it and permeates its biases and direction.

Forgive me if I have offended you.
I see this attitude here on these forums and others in lighter shades all to often.

Faith is important for our psychological make up as a result of evolution, but primarily will always remain due to the inherentness in the contradictions in existence and being itself.
Unless of course we do not remain as human beings.

If we returned to a lower life form in terms of sentience/consciousness, there will still be Faith.
We humans call Faith in animals "instinct" to make us feel happy and unique.

If we super-evolve into one or many more sentient or capable life forms -- we will still be limited by the inherent contradictions that I spelled out above.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts and everyone else's on this matter.
To make it through to a better world. It is important to not be heavy handed when dealing with those near or far to our common purposes.

"Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one."
- Friedrich Nietzsche

Other Comments by sauronlord

8. Comment #385571 by Vesha on June 6, 2009 at 2:08 pm

This guy does a great lecture for The Learning Company on Neurology.

Other Comments by Vesha

9. Comment #385591 by Animavore on June 6, 2009 at 3:49 pm

He looks like a Guantanamo inmate.

Good stuff though.

Other Comments by Animavore

10. Comment #385597 by cjnkns on June 6, 2009 at 4:07 pm

Very good lecture :) I really enjoyed it!

Other Comments by cjnkns

11. Comment #385602 by RightWingAtheist on June 6, 2009 at 4:19 pm

Just curious...

How many here have always thought, as far as they can remember, that most psychological disorders were just extreme versions of things "normal" people do?

Other Comments by RightWingAtheist

12. Comment #385610 by iType on June 6, 2009 at 5:35 pm

Fascinating lecture. Beautifully delivered.

Other Comments by iType

13. Comment #385637 by righton on June 6, 2009 at 9:01 pm

Is that Jim Morrison£

Other Comments by righton

14. Comment #385645 by theseanze on June 6, 2009 at 11:36 pm

Feckin Brilliant! I've always noticed that too RWA, we "normals" all probably have a healthy, balanced cocktail of Schizophrenia, OCD, ADD, DMT...haha. It's just the extreme forms that get recognition. Einstein had autism in his family...not that it makes him nuts, it just suggests his brain focused on things that most people are happy to be ignorant about.

Other Comments by theseanze

15. Comment #385651 by Wulfgar on June 7, 2009 at 1:23 am

brilliant. internet needs more vid like this one

Other Comments by Wulfgar

16. Comment #385655 by AfraidToDie on June 7, 2009 at 1:55 am

..we are permeated by irrationality

Fantastic lecture! Now I understand.

Other Comments by AfraidToDie

17. Comment #385662 by stephenray on June 7, 2009 at 2:40 am

If this guy is able to produce a tour de force like that for each of the lectures in his series then his students are among the luckiest in the world. That was a stunning piece of public speaking, just outstanding.

(Compare my undergraduate lecture on Joyce's Ulysses, which the professor began by saying 'I confess I have never read the book all the way through'. It still bugs me that I didn't have the nerve to walk out, which was what I should have done.)

Other Comments by stephenray

18. Comment #385666 by George Lennan on June 7, 2009 at 3:12 am

Absolutely riveting. Brilliant stuff, and no mean feat speaking so clearly with Darth Vader's helmet on.

Other Comments by George Lennan

19. Comment #385671 by j s bach on June 7, 2009 at 3:38 am

Hugely interesting and gripping. Lucky students to have a lecturer like that.

Other Comments by j s bach

20. Comment #385678 by Jeromex on June 7, 2009 at 4:31 am

Great lecture.. looked at some of his other stuff as well .. amazing my schizotypal personality kicked in and I could read his student's minds.. something to the effect of "slow down". I can hardly complete a sentence without a pause. A real treat to hear such a fine lecturer and researcher.

Other Comments by Jeromex

21. Comment #385683 by AfraidToDie on June 7, 2009 at 5:52 am

I'd like to hear if RD is familiar with these studies and conclusions involving schizophrenia as I don't believe I've ever heard him mention the "milder form's" relationship to religiosity in any of his debates? For that matter, I don't recall any debates bringing this up. I always felt like I must be missing something and that it was the reason I couldn't bring myself to believe or follow any religion. Now I know what I am missing, and even more glad that I am.

Other Comments by AfraidToDie

22. Comment #385684 by arwelroberts on June 7, 2009 at 5:58 am

Fascinating lecture.

I am wondering whether there is any connection between the prevelance of religion in America and the possible genetic concentration of Schizotypal personality disorder, OCD and Temporal Lobe Epilepsy which came over to the New Word with the Pilgrim Fathers etc.

Any mileage in that train of thought?

Arwel

Other Comments by arwelroberts

23. Comment #385691 by NewEnglandBob on June 7, 2009 at 8:15 am

arwelroberts @ 25:

Since tens-of-millions of people came to the New World, I doubt that anyone could categorize them by genetic concentration.

Other Comments by NewEnglandBob

24. Comment #385703 by kscally on June 7, 2009 at 9:57 am

This is really tedious, incoherent, and off-the point. I wish this was NOT on Richard Dawkins's site: (turns around three times and claps heels together).

Other Comments by kscally

25. Comment #385704 by mig... on June 7, 2009 at 10:05 am

27. Comment #385703 by kscally


wishfullthinking.

Anyway... it's impossible to please everybody.
No matter what you say or do, there will always be someone who will hate it.

Other Comments by mig...

26. Comment #385711 by Sally Luxmoore on June 7, 2009 at 10:43 am

kscally

I don't agree. I was fascinated. You don't have to share his views, after all. Part of the interest is in the reasoning and the new ideas. I don't personally see any reasons to reject his ideas at the moment; they just need to be further investigated.
I thought it was stimulating and I enjoyed it.

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

27. Comment #385718 by Crazycharlie on June 7, 2009 at 11:38 am

Fascinating! Religion analyzed as the psychological,(based in biology), phenomenon that it is. Great link,-- more like this please.

Other Comments by Crazycharlie

28. Comment #385719 by mig... on June 7, 2009 at 11:47 am

LoL. Has the Priest Lorenzo Albacete says, of course religion must have it's basis on biology. Where else?

Other Comments by mig...

29. Comment #385733 by ianrgoulding on June 7, 2009 at 12:22 pm

Superb. Thank you for posting this>

Other Comments by ianrgoulding

30. Comment #385749 by NewEnglandBob on June 7, 2009 at 2:26 pm

This is fascinating, coherent and cogent and spot-on relevant. It clears the way for understanding some irrational behavior.

Other Comments by NewEnglandBob

31. Comment #385753 by John_T on June 7, 2009 at 3:18 pm

Sapolsky sure does know how to get the ideas across.

Here's a good essay he wrote answering the question: "Does science make belief in God obsolete?"

http://www.templeton.org/belief/essays/sapolsky.pdf

I also enjoyed the book in the further readings by Wilson.

Other Comments by John_T

32. Comment #385754 by Logicel on June 7, 2009 at 4:57 pm

Fantastic lecturer! He blends so many disciplines together to make his point. My own lifelong notion is that my ability to have no god belief is mostly biological. I hope to be able to catch his next lecture. His focus on the biological link to god/lack of belief is a good handle, not that god belief is true or false. Though of course, it should make the religious believers who think that atheists are really just theists in denial wonder why their god made some us totally unable to perceive their god?


So religious leaders/believers are 'half crazy' or if you are the glass half full type, half sane? Like an half an eye/wing being more useful than no eye/wing at all, half sane is more useful/adaptive than fully crazy. However, in this case, the half-crazy part actually has an adaptive function also. The concept described does seem to have explanatory (that such metamagical focus does not prevent one from propagating their genes) and predicting ( someone like Koresh/Jim Jones will be too crazy to establish a new religion and could only set up a still born cult) aspects. It seems that there are studies going on that will identify more predicting/explanatory aspects of this approach. And of course, even more studies need to be done to test its potency.

If malaria and TB is vanquished will then sickle cell anemia and Tay Sachs die out?If the need for metamagical thinking is lessened, then will those genes be weeded out gradually? Are they being weeded out at present? Is that why with each generation, religious beliefs are getting more dilute and secularization increasing? What kind of jobs other than religious ones will utilize some people's milder propensity to OCD? How can there be a kind of communality that would successfully compete with the religious version so as to keep our depressive tendencies at bay?

Our push for metamagical thinking focuses us on the content of religious beliefs while OCD tendencies have us focusing on content-free ritual? Religious leaders/followers have such a push/pull struggle with these two aspects of religion. Leaders that are in demand and considered to be inspirational probably pull off a balance between these aspects well—they give their market what they need.

Ritualistic religion does not eradicate anxiety, just allows the followers to bear it better. Shared anxiety is a great idea: diluting its personal impact.

Religious/superstitious pigeons! I forgot about that study. Too funny.

Other Comments by Logicel

33. Comment #385759 by Alternative Carpark on June 7, 2009 at 7:38 pm

This may just be the best way of fighting religiousity! This is without a doubt the most cogent explanation as to how religions cames about I have ever heard.

It just makes so much sense. If I were religious, I would fell pretty embarrassed after hearing this.

Excellent lecture!

Other Comments by Alternative Carpark

34. Comment #385784 by Roland_F on June 7, 2009 at 10:30 pm

Good staff, and finally science is starting to investigate religiosity like any other psychological phenomena without any tip toeing around and the usual ‘respect’ to any kind of delusion dressed as religiosity.
When someone is hearing voices of his dead ancestors or from Cinderella she is considered insane when she hears voices of angels or the holy ghost she has to be respected and her ideas about morality are considered superior.
When someone is haunted from and interacting with Mickey Mouse he is considered insane, when someone talks and interacts with a half nude mail hanging on the cross he is respected and has a seat in ethic commission, school boards, TV program boards or even in parliament.

And again Saul/Paul of Tarsus the most respected and influential biblical author of the NT is outed as a temporal lobe epileptic suffering from hypergraphia, and visions during his epileptic seizures are declared as enlightenment from the holy ghost.

Other Comments by Roland_F

35. Comment #385793 by Beachbum on June 8, 2009 at 1:29 am

I have seen the videos of extreme religiosity in patients with schizophrenia, but I have often wondered how this would, in a mediated form, propagate through the gene pool. Schizotypal personality disorder explains so much, I just love learning new things.

Very good Thanks!

Other Comments by Beachbum

36. Comment #385808 by gcdavis on June 8, 2009 at 4:34 am

Sapolsky looks at the evolutionary mechanisms that underpin religiosity without touching on the subject of “belief”. It is clear that the need to believe is strong in humans and it permeates all aspects of life not religion especially. The market economy is driven by the need to believe that a particular product will bring benefits. An example: there are a huge number of cosmetic products that claim to reduce wrinkles and all now include scientific sounding strap lines in their advertising along with animated graphics to explain what they do. Having watched them on TV with my wife, who used to work in the advertising copy clearance department of ITV, I have often remarked that she would not have let that ad through as it was clear that the claims made could not be justified by evidence and she seemed to share my cynicism. To my surprise last week I noticed she was using one of these creams that we had both laughed at.

Although my wife is an attractive 50 year old she does have some wrinkles that I think are very attractive but she is concerned about aging. She just wants to believe in its effectiveness even though she knows that the claims made are 90% spurious.

Belief usually requires trust in an external authority whether it is BMW, L’Oreal or god. That even intelligent, well educated people are able to suppress their scepticism when the need to believe is so strong shows how far off a truly rational world is.

Other Comments by gcdavis

37. Comment #385851 by KRKBAB on June 8, 2009 at 1:35 pm

Mr sauronlord (comment #385566)- You could cite as many important thinkers of the past as you want, but it seems like you're a faith apologist of sorts (not that there's anything wrong with that). You come across as an enlightened preacher.

Other Comments by KRKBAB

38. Comment #386001 by Koldtoft on June 9, 2009 at 1:11 am

@ Comment #385550 by JDM2
Why do you feel the need to shame other material in multiple threads?

I happen to enjoy the Dawkins / Dennett raw interview as much as I enjoyed this lecture. I hope more lectures like this will be posted and I hope more of the raw interviews from the recent DVD release is posted here.

Who are you to judge? Where is your contribution?

Other Comments by Koldtoft

39. Comment #386002 by lbalough on June 9, 2009 at 1:18 am

As one of the few people diagnosed with schizophrenia on this forum, or perhaps the only one, I find this lecture a continuation on the spectrum of willful ignorance of those of us who have evolved out of the technical definition (translate: those of who have been restituted to the pre-diagnostic functioning) of this condition.

By willful ignorance, I mean that the psychiatric industry does not study successful cases. The 10,000 study was interesting, but certainly this shot gun approach would leave to chance the unearthing of lessons learned for helping folks with schizophrenia recover.

I had the opportunity to spend time at both Stanford and Yale and only encountered one psychiatrist who was willing to discuss the content of the internal voices. The trending in psychiatry of ignoring the voices in the name of "illegitimizing them" is medieval; it's akin to treating cancer without patient input as to the source of the pain.

I recovered because I was tirelessly scientific about alleviating the causes of my psychological misery. I was not sidetracked by the non-innovative "me-too" drugs so commonly found in a for-profit health system, nor did I buckle to the truthiness and non-scientific thinking of the psychiatric "shaman." Fortunately, I was older and quite accomplished.

I'm writing a memoir about my experience and the role of religion in furthering the misery and supernatural "thought loop" of those who fail to recover.

Ironically, "hearing voices" was once a sign of divinity. Now, it's just plain undesirable.

Other Comments by lbalough

40. Comment #386005 by decius on June 9, 2009 at 1:31 am

Comment #386003 by NoodlyBlessing

Flagged as spam.

Other Comments by decius

41. Comment #386018 by gcdavis on June 9, 2009 at 2:11 am

lbalough
I guess you have read the Divided Self by R D Laing, does it resonate?

Other Comments by gcdavis

42. Comment #386103 by lbalough on June 9, 2009 at 8:10 am

gcdavis -

Nope, haven't read it, but found the idea behind the book compelling.

Based on my experiences, psychosis is poorly understood by both mental health practitioners and mental health consumers. For me, it was the phenomenon of believing the unsolicited data (i.e. voices) prior to disproving them by the passage of time. I was complicit in this state. Religiosity, unfortunately, keeps unfortunate sufferers forever in this state. There is no process of disproval ... it is just a continuation of the "meta-magical" thinking that encapsulates the rest of the lives. To me, the fault for prolonged psychosis lies in the programming of the religious person, not the experience of the symptoms.

Props go to sauronlord who states the scientific hubris of psychology in the West. I'd like to tweak the notion, though. The psychiatric industry is the driving force behind the codification process via the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which is fueled by old-fashioned greed. Psychologists are simply handed this key and told to run with it if they want to get paid.

Unfortunately, schizophrenia is big business ... as are the other thousands of entries in the DSM.

I suggest that everyone know themselves as the emotion police are hard at work defining a narrow band of behavior that doesn't require psychotropic medication.

LB

p.s. The book that resonated most with me during my recovery process was "Strangers to Ourselves," by Timothy Wilson. This lays out a perfect roadmap for the downside of an evolved brain ... parallel processing (between the conscious and unconscious) without a set of shared instructions.

Other Comments by lbalough

43. Comment #386181 by sauronlord on June 9, 2009 at 10:57 am

Response to:
" 41. Comment #385851 by KRKBAB on June 8, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Mr sauronlord (comment #385566)- You could cite as many important thinkers of the past as you want, but it seems like you're a faith apologist of sorts (not that there's anything wrong with that). You come across as an enlightened preacher. "

Perhaps I may sound like that. However those are just appearances, and you will have to dig deeper to find out.

I may have thrown a few names in there, however that is only a fraction of what seemed most applicable to this discussion to help others understand more.

I am not an apologist for any kind of faith. I was merely pointing out the attitude of people against - faith/religion.

If you have a particular point to take issue with, then let's please discuss it.

Other Comments by sauronlord

44. Comment #386217 by BeyondBelief on June 9, 2009 at 1:23 pm

My video cut out right as Sapolsky said, regarding the effects of hippocampus damage on rats.."And this comment is designed to be as provocative as it may seem..."

What was the comment!?? What did I miss? Did anyone else experience this?

Other Comments by BeyondBelief

45. Comment #386263 by KRKBAB on June 9, 2009 at 3:04 pm

sauronlord- you say "Faith is important for our psychological make up as a result of evolution BUT PRIMARILY WILL ALWAYS REMAIN (caps mine) due to the inherentness in the contradictions in existence and being itself". How do you know this? BTW- please don't be over courteous- it inhibits fun. Also, I agree with Azteks comment (that you took issue with) although it may have been overstated and blunt.

Other Comments by KRKBAB

46. Comment #386270 by mgidio on June 9, 2009 at 3:14 pm

Are repetitive/compulsive disorders (related to potentially destructive religious beliefs - when they numb people out to reality similar to a destructive drug)genetically related or is this human nature in general in response to stress (learned adapative behavior) or a predisposition for a certain genetic makeup? I have a lot of complulsive bad habits but none that are life threatening. Just wondering.

Margaret Gidio

Other Comments by mgidio

47. Comment #386306 by NoodlyBlessing on June 9, 2009 at 5:23 pm

SAURONLORD, YOU SAID IT BEAUTIFULLY. THANK YOU FOR BEING THE VOICE OF REASON! PSYCHOLOGY IS SO YOUNG IN THE WEST, I ALWAYS SEE IT AS A LITTLE CHILD GOING AROUND PROUDLY NAMING EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD TO CONQUER WHAT CAME BEFORE IT. FOR THOSE WHO ADVOCATE REASON TO YAY AND CHEER SAPOLSKY, LIKE A BUNCH OF BULLYING CONQUISTADORS OUT TO NAME AND CLAIM THE HUMAN MIND, AND MAKE A STRAWMAN OUT OF ANYTHING THEY DO NOT WANT TO UNDERSTAND. YOU PUT IT BETTER, THOUGH!

Other Comments by NoodlyBlessing

48. Comment #386310 by KRKBAB on June 9, 2009 at 5:44 pm

Noodly Blessing- sounds like you (and perhaps sauronlord) are romanticising mystery.
And you say "...for those who advocate reason..." huh? If you don't advocate reason, then what do YOU advocate?

Other Comments by KRKBAB

49. Comment #386360 by Layla Nasreddin on June 9, 2009 at 8:10 pm

Just to add my own two cents, I can definitely attest to the connection between obsessive-compulsive disorder and certain religious rituals. For me, one of the most unpleasant parts about being a Muslim was the enormous emphasis placed on doing the many rituals (ablutions, prayers, fasting, etc.) absolutely correctly. This certainly brought forth some OCD tendencies in myself that were absolute hell to deal with! Here's an example: flatulence invalidates ablution, so if you're in the middle of doing your prayer and you, uh, let one go, you have to wash again and start all over again. I recall I would actually obsess over whether I'd "really" farted or if it was something else. Then I'd obsess over whether I'd prayed absolutely correctly, because if you do it wrong it may not be accepted by Allah -- or so the scholars say. I was completely neurotic! I suppose one could be unkind and say that not much has changed...but at least I don't have to obsess over that kind of rubbish anymore.

If you go to fatwa sites you'll see endless pained questions from devout Muslims asking about the most nitpicky aspects of Islamic law -- must a woman cover her feet during prayer, what if she's wearing socks with holes in them, if breathing cigarette smoke invalidates fasting, whether touching a woman renders a male ritually impure, etc. It's truly insane!

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

50. Comment #386363 by sauronlord on June 9, 2009 at 9:10 pm

Reply to:
" 52. Comment #386310 by KRKBAB on June 9, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Noodly Blessing- sounds like you (and perhaps sauronlord) are romanticising mystery.
And you say "...for those who advocate reason..." huh? If you don't advocate reason, then what do YOU advocate? "

I think Noodly Blessing may have meant something more along the lines of:

"...for those who blindly subscribe to reason as the only primary driving force in life..."

I am a Rationalist myself, so I advocate reason and understanding completely.
However, as Godel's Incompleteness theorems show is that basically all systems are incomplete by nature of the laws of Mathematics.
We will never have a complete picture of anything. Yes you may say you will get a more and more finer understanding because it "approximates the real thing really well". I do general agree with that statement.

The one problem with that is our focus, bias, methodology, language of the problem space and in/extrinsic motivations shape the direction we pursue and study. "True Understanding" does not exist. Not only is that fallacious, you would be closely invoking a kind of "Divine Truth". If you find yourself talking about "True Understanding" -- then you need to reflect on how you got thinking that way and for a split second imagine how others less-educated just might jump towards "Divine Truth" (Once again, whatever that means).

"There are no facts, only interpretations"
- Nietzsche

And my favourite from "The Act of Creation" by Arthur Koestler:

"Einstein's space is no closer to reality than Van Gogh's sky. The glory of science is not in a truth more absolute than the truth of Bach or Tolstoy, but in the act of creation itself. The scientist's discoveries impose his own order on chaos, as the composer or painter imposes his; an order that always refers to limited aspects of reality, and is based on the observer's frame of reference, which differs from period to period as a Rembrant nude differs from a nude by Manet."

In some sense there is something romantic about a mystery.
The mysterious questions like:
"What happened before I was born?"
"What will happen after I die?"
"What is the nature of consciousness?"
"How could the world be so beautiful?"

How can you not fall in love with those questions no matter how you answer it? I believe there are "better" ways to answer it than others. Typical religious answers seem hollow for me, and I tend to go more on the philosophical, reflective and meditative approaches as more rational and acceptable.

We can answer the question of love by many different ways:

- Bio-chemical reaction evolved in Humans and other animals
- Sociological understanding in group theory and such
- Purely from a descriptive point of view such as Anthropology
- Group/Kin selection pressures
- Selfish genes
- Given to us by a greater power (whatever flavors)
- List goes on and on.

Which one is more "true"? May sound like a straightforward question. However in what sense do you mean "true" then?

I can see you might mean it as "useful" -- but leads back to what I was saying above.

We act as though all there is to life is words written, spoken and thought. We act as though if feelings cannot fit into these categories then they must not exist. We categorize, sort and recognize. That's our nature. Just because we do those things does not mean there really IS a fundamental difference in objects, perceptions and possibilities. Start thinking about the double-slit experiment, or the cosmic delayed choice experiment, or cosmic eraser. Just think about how little of a shit anything actually it matters whether we happen to have a differential on these 5 senses and categorize things as such in our little spectrum of possibilities we perceive.
I am not advocating any thinking along the lines of ghosts or spirits from different dimensions and all that -- get that out of your head ;)



If all we do is be practical, level-headed and have disdain for mysteries and keep rushing forward without falling in love with the wonder of people and the universe along the way --- we will be on an endless quest for the ultimate contradiction.

Other Comments by sauronlord