fullpost.here
http://www.celestinevision.com/celestine/forum/viewtopic.php?p=15054#15054

sir/ac/doyle..foreword..in..this one
http://melodybard.com/BlueIsland.pdf

but lawrence..of A..is..the better read

A priori..and a poste-riori
Analytic propositions..are thought..to be true..in virtue/of..their meaning alone,..while..a priori synthetic/propositions..are thought..to be true in..virtue of..their meaning

tracking down/the pope's saying,]..in..its original context..?
so much reading..for so little fruit
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html

im thinking its..a derivative quote
derived..from another source?

http://www.google.com.au/url?q=http://atompluseve.com/files/2011/11/Ulanowicz_Life-Processes.pdf

<<..John Paul's..concern prompts..the question,
“What does “a false absolute”..imply.>>

or some form..of irrelevant..a-thiest/relativism
to avoid comment..on..the texts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism

<<Relativism..is the concept..that points of view..
have no absolute truth..or validity,..having only relative, subjective/value..according to differences..in..perception and consideration.[1]

As moral relativism,..the term is often used..in the context of..moral principles,..where principles..and ethics are regarded..as applicable..in only limited context.

There are many forms..of relativism
which vary..in their degree of controversy.[2]

The term..often refers..to truth/relativism,..
which is the doctrine..that there..are no absolute/truths,..

ie/that truth..is always relative.to some particular..frame of reference,..such as a language..or a culture..(cultural relativism)

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:UNDnr5fL5i4J:

http://atompluseve.com/files/2011/11/Ulanowicz_Life-Processes.pdf%2Bpope+john+paul+false+absolute&oe=utf-8&

Pope/John Paul II..(Wojtyla 1988)
..<<..succinctly put it:..A more balanced/conversation..should
consist..not only..of science..purifying religion..of error..and superstition..*but also..of religion..warning..science..against idolatry..and false absolutes...

<<John Paul’s/concern..prompts the/question,

“What does..“a false absolute”..in science*..look like..>> ?

<<science..an endeavor..that professes no absolutes,..>>..

reply..to the bloggers/own thought/bubble?

<<I do not..have sufficient time..to address..the root assumptions of science here,..but..I..would like to single..out a few..propositions..used by some*..in science..to challenge faith.

There exists,..for example,..a..widespread conviction..on the part of..secularists..that the laws..of physics..are universal..and,.never violated,..and therefore*..they..will..determine everything..that we see.>>..ende'

one..can lead..to water..
but..see no..thirst

my respect..for you..remains undiminished..
i..look forward..to..many/more..'barter' exchanges

'you cant..please..every-one
so i..just..gotta please..myself.'

so wasted an..hour..
looking for janes..other texts..then found

<<..So..far,..every attempt./.carried on..through..a "medium.">>

that/explains..why they..were hard..to find.
.for good reason...[they are/not..first/person..accounts]

<<..*.But*..in this little book,..I..shall..describe scenes..of the Spirit/World..which I have witnessed*..with my own eyes,..and I shall relate conversations..with spirits in..which I have actually taken part.>>

http://new-birth.net/booklet/CarolineDLarsen-My_Travels_in_the_Spirit_World.pdf

<<..I did not,..of course,..see all/but I saw enough
to know..that there every/spirit..is free to follow..his own ideals and..inclinations...His/destiny..is in his own hands,..limited/only..by..his past life.

edit..<<..There is..but one path..upward—that..of personal effort
*to..become fit..for a higher type..of existence.EDIT..

<<and..for/this..end..that..order and discipline..prevail...For no_one..is permitted..to interfere.with..the efforts..*of others...[here]

here..<<..On/the whole,..life..is good..edit..
<<..but words..cannot express..the dark /hopelessness..of the completely earthbound-souls...I found..no.."Heaven"..nor.."Hell"—except..as it..*exists..in*..the spirit.>>.

Dear oug,

In my opinion heaven and hell are just creations of the human imagination as is the spirit world. Arthur Conan Doyle was a brilliant but gullible individual. That is fact and not my opinion.

http://www.openculture.com/2013/01/arthur_conan_doyle_the_cottingley_fairies_how_two_young_girls_fooled_the_creator_of_sherlock_holmes.html tells of one instance of his gullibility.

Dear George,

All I was trying to point out in my statement about idolatry is that one religion’s belief system is another religion’s idolatry.

The criticism by the Catholic Church and other religious groups of materialism is a legitimate critique of our society. Atheists can also condemn the meaningless amassing of possessions. Much of our advertising is based on the idea that your worth is a function of your possessions.

Scientism is an ideology of those ignorant of science. Those ignorant of science have several attitudes toward it – an inordinate faith in its ability to solve all kinds of problems – a fear of it – a lack of interest – a desire to learn. One of my teenage granddaughters is very interested in biology but doesn’t like mathematics. Possibly she has a poor mathematics teacher. I hope to arouse in her a sense of the beauty in mathematics.

I question your trinity of materialism/naturalism/anti-theism. Materialism has more than one meaning. One meaning is the philosophy that all is either matter or energy, and there is no other reality. I subscribe to that. Another meaning is that one’s meaning and worth is found in one’s possessions. I do not subscribe to that. Naturalism holds that all natural events have natural causes. That somewhat overlaps materialism in the first sense that I mentioned.

Atheism means without a belief in God. Anti-theism means opposition to a belief in God. They may or may not overlap, but they are different. Anti-theism was practiced in the Marxist countries where they promoted atheism and persecuted those who believed in God. Although I am an atheist I oppose anti-theism. I am not trying to convert others to my worldview but wish to explain it. I believe you are doing the same.

continued

continued

As I mentioned in an earlier post I left the humanist society when they supported the Chinese persecution of Christians. Years later the current president invited me to rejoin. She is somewhat more than a cultural Catholic. Not only does she appreciate the cultural heritage of Catholicism but she also admires and supports the social justice teachings. She cannot accept any of the belief system.

I appreciate what it means to be a cultural Catholic or to be culturally connected to any belief system. I am a cultural Jew. There is a great heritage in those and the traditions of other religions.

We cannot fully appreciate the culture of any society without knowing about its belief system. The totalitarian societies in banning or denying the cultural expression of those whose ideology, religion or ethnicity they disapproved of were culturally impoverished.

<<..Materialism..has more than one meaning.
One meaning..is the philosophy that all..is either matter or energy,>>

i agree..all is..energy
[did you..notice..

<<..Scientists..create..*never-before-seen..form* of matter
http://phys.org/news/2013-09-scientists-never-before-seen.html

managed..to coax photons..
into binding together..to form molecules..
a state of matter that,..until recently,..had been purely theoretical

Lukin also suggested..that the system might..one day
even be used to create..complex three-dimensional structures..such as crystals..made wholly..out of light.>>

like i said were made
from music harmonics vibration../sic*

[noting they..ran the photons through..a chaotic fog]

Explore further: MIT researchers build..an all-optical transistor
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature12512

Read.more
http://phys.org/news/2013-09-scientists-never-before-seen.html#jCp

matter/energy..<<.and there..is no other reality.>>

<<..Naturalism holds..that all
natural events..have natural causes.>>

i suppose..we get down to
what is..the reality..of perceptions..
[which depends on what you are able to perceive]

at present..im re-reading..lawrence..he at first could only..'percieve' shadows..but now is able to perceive more
[as he develops..the spirit sight/means..of seeing]

super natural..is only the natural..made more special
in affect..the spirit realms..are totally*..natural..[with a marketing spin]

[at what point..did natural..
get mean..*only the seen/heard..of the material*..realm alone]

ENERGY*..cant be created..nor destroyed*!*

[it can..change state..*!*..into a more ethereal condition..
that yet..dosnt conflict in anyway..with..your two prime parameters..?

<<..In my opinion heaven and hell..are just creations of the human imagination..as is the spirit world.>>

again..you are mainly correct
but..seemingly..there is a bit more..to it

[from..]
http://www.divinetruth.com/PDF/People/Other/Jane%20Sherwood%20-%20Post%20Mortem%20Journal.pdf

<<..They make their own atmosphere..
by the emanations of their own rather horrid emotions>>..

<<..a strong desire..could be used as a directing agent..>>

<<..my present body,..solid as it seems..is now
really composed of..a kind of matter..which on earth..I thought of as ‘emotion’.

<<..the change..must have been obvious..to him
for he said:..‘Don’t do that,..for God’s sake,..or I can’t stay>>

in response to him..simply FEELING..<<..I felt suddenly..constrained and diffident..>>

<<..learn..that your feelings..create..an atmosphere..[aura].about you..*that alters..your relationship...to those you meet.>>..

<..he explained to me..that my..present body,[aural]
..would express..in its colour and emanations..every emotion I felt so..that not the slightest change of mood..could be hidden.>>

..<<..At first..one is all over the place..But
the less you worry..about other people’s reactions..to you the better;

<<..the more happy..and at your ease you can feel
the easier it will be..for you and..for us‘.

<<..‘This is going to be difficult,..I said.
‘I have less control..over my feelings than I thought possible;..in fact,..they hardly answer to control it all...Great waves of emotion take me off my balance.>>

<<>.This new body..is very responsive to incoming impressions;>>

<<..This feeling stuff..is now exterior..to the real me
and..has no physical drag..to slow down its activity...Hence the frightening release of emotional energy..and the impossibility of masking it.

I now have to practice.. not to mask my feelings..because this is no longer possible,..but to control them..and to work getting rid of the undesirable ones..altogether.>>

which in time..reveals our true body..[soul]
made of pure light photons..[energy]

<<>.I make an atmosphere..which drives everyone away..>>

yeah..me too....but..i..MADE it..for myself
[as we all will]

Dear david f,

Thanks for your considerate post that I mostly agree with. Only two points:

>> Scientism is an ideology of those ignorant of science.<<

Wikipedia: “Scientism is a term used, usually pejoratively, to refer to belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.”.

I admit that it is often used pejoratively to express disagreement with those who think science can answer questions outside of its competence, traditionally dealt with by religion, or more generally, philosophy. These people might or might not be “ignorant of science”. For instance, Lawrence Krauss, who tried to use science for those purposes in his recent series of Australian lectures, is certainly not ignorant of science.

[There is Aldous Huxley’s, “The Perennial Philosophy” (1945) offering a perspective on existential questions usually asked (and attempted to answer) by traditional religions but not necessarily grounded in any of them.]

>>I question your trinity of materialism/naturalism/anti-theism.<<

This is not “my” trinity, only a careful reference to the kind of atheism some people were converting away from. Probably too careful in order not to upset people here who objected when I associated the Communist praxis with atheism (no Christian is upset today when you associate Inquisition or Crusades with Christianity). So I used anti-theism instead of atheism (although the Comrades called themselves atheists, not anti-theists), and dialectical materialism (that, as you know, has nothing to do with materialism in the sense of consumerism) which was the official name of their version of atheism.