Dear david f,
Of course, for those who DO NOT believe that the God of the Bible is real, the Bible is just an ancient text that can be interpreted as any other fictional text, positively or negatively. However, for those (Christians or Jews) who DO believe that, you are providing good arguments for the need of an authority - be it exegetic scholars or a “Magisterium” - to properly interpret the Bible, i.e. what can be taken verbatim as relevant for a believer’s faith in our century and what not.

It has become a standard objection that the Bible does not contain anything that could be interpreted as respect for other creatures (something that came into Christianity, or al least was emphasized, only in the brake of 13th century by Francis of Assisi) or ecological responsibility, whereas other sacred texts contain such references. This is only a relatively recent objection (allegedly, the term “oekology” was introduced by an Ellen Swallow only in 1892). So to some extent to blame the Bible for not containing hints about the limits of our resources or our biological kinship with the animal world is like blaming Genesis for not containing hints of Einstein’s theory of gravitation.

Nevertheless, I think “having dominion” does not have to mean “a recipe for devastation of nature”, an unintended consequence of the industrial revolution. A farmer who “has dominion” over its land and cattle does not want to have it devastated. [As for an original interpretation of the biblical God, I already wrote about Toynbee’s two visions of that God: one jealous, the other having its roots in the previous worship of a vegetation-god, c.f. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10496#179267].

(ctd)

(ctd)

>>I think it is part of our biological functioning and not a result of a mythical soul. I think you have implicitly and unjustly removed humanity from its biology.<<

I did not mention any "mythical soul" in claiming that life and consciousness are two emergent properties, albeit on two different levels. One definition of emergence: “the arising of novel and coherent structures, patterns and properties during the process of self-organization in complex systems" (http://www.anecdote.com.au/papers/EmergenceAsAConsutructIssue1_1_3.pdf). One can, but need not, seek a theist interpretation of this “self-organisation” but the concept as such is by now used by more or less all philosophers of science (biology).

Neither did I remove humanity from its biological or physical carrier, I only do not think mind, and human culture in general are reducible to them. I think contemplating an encounter on equal (intellectual) terms with a member of another species is not more realistic than envisaging such an encounter with an extraterrestrial intelligence. Both are perhaps possible in the future, the latter I think more than the former.

>>We have developed our curiosity out of a need to ascertain the most efficient way to provide food.<<

Whatever our curiosity developed from, I do not think Beethoven, Einstein, Shakespeare gave humanity what they gave just in order to provide food.

A more plausible explanation of why did humanity develop, say, relativity and quantum physics, is in order to survive as a species in the future, lest humanity meets the fate of dinosaurs, when a meteorite arrives. Or when the need arrives to move to other planets. This is not only extreme speculation, but it also contains a hidden purpose governing human evolution without us being aware of it. Nevertheless, I find it a more likely purpose of our scientific and philosophical curiosity than merely “providing food”.

.

Barbara,

.

George :

“ For many Edith Piaf continues to live on ...”

Edith Piaf had a successor. But it was not Mireille Mathieu (too bourgeois, conformist and stereotype to be authentic). It was Barbara – in her own, personal style – like Piaf, she too was atypical. Mireille Mathieu was not atypical. The French see her, at best, as a rather poor copy of Edith Piaf.

David:

“ ... may I quote you?”

You may quote me if you wish. Better still, you may simply take it and use it. I consider it a greater honour that you adopt it as your own rather than simply quote me.

.

Barbara was her stage name which she took from her Russian grandmother, Varvara Brodsky. Her real name was Monique Andrée Serf. Her song "L'Aigle noir" sold a million copies in twelve hours.

She was born to a Jewish family on the 9th June 1930 in an apartment at 6 rue Brochant in the 17th arrondissement of Paris,– just opposite “la Jaconda”, a Sicilian restaurant where my wife and I often enjoy a good pizza and a nice bottle of Sicilian wine.

She was ten years old when she went into hiding during the German occupation of France in World War II. She was ten and a half years old when her father commenced sexually abusing her while the family lived in Tarbes in south-west France. Nobody defended her, not even her mother. He abused her on numerous occasions during her childhood. She made several attempts to flee without success. On one occasion, when the family was living in Brittany she managed to escape to the local police station. The police called her father who came to collect her saying that she was lying. The police simply closed the case.

In her memoires, published in 1998, she explained that L’aigle noir was a song she composed about a dream she made on the incest of her father. She wrote that it was a metaphor of the saddest memories she had of her childhood.

.

(Continued) ...

.

.

(Continued) ...

.

Another song she wrote "Göttingen" (named after the German city) is said to have contributed more to post-war German–French reconciliation than any speech by a politician. On the 40th anniversary of the Elysée agreement, ex-chancellor, Gerhard Scroder, quoted from the song in his official speech in the Château de Versailles.

Returning to Paris, she met Jacques Brel and they became lifelong friends. She sang many of his songs. Later she met Georges Brassens, whose songs she began to sing and record. In the 1950s, she sang at some of the smaller clubs and began building a fan base, particularly with the young students in the Latin Quarter on the left bank of Paris.

In 1961 she sang at the Bobino music-hall in Montparnasse. Dressed in a long black robe, she gave a haunting performance, but the Parisian critics said she lacked naturalness and was stiff and formal in her presentation ( like Edith Piaf). She continued to perform at small clubs, and two years later at the Thêatre des Capucines she made a break-through with the audience and critics alike, singing new material she had written herself. From that point on, her career blossomed and she signed a major recording contract in 1964 with Philips Records.

In 1965, Barbara was awarded the Grand Prix du Disque. At the ceremony, she tore her award into several pieces, giving a piece to each of her technicians as a sign of her gratitude.

In the latter part of the 1980s she became active in the fight against AIDS. She recorded SID'Amour à mort and handed out condoms at performances. In 1988 the government of France awarded her the Legion of Honour.

Barbara died of respiratory problems in Neuilly (a suburb of Paris), on November 24, 1997. She was buried in the family grave at the Bagneux cemetery in southwest Paris.

Here are some of my favourites:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aad4Bm_Y0So
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUE80DTNxK4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8--b6frQWL0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zh3qei9dbAc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkuPAa8fcQ4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2s-JYoGh6Mg

... just another glimpse of the popular culture of the Paris I have come to love ...

.

jesus..previously..explained..the difference..between..a miracle/revelation..lies in..its perception[our consciousness]

anyhow..i thought..this bit..relative..as well

There is nothing..about me..that you cannot attain.
I have nothing..that does not come..from God...The main difference between us..is that..as yet..I have..NOTHING ELSE..but..that from god..to..distract..me from hearing..his voice clearly..[ie no fear..no hopes/no dreams..no-0bsessions etc]

<<..This..[lack of distraction]..leaves me..in a state..of true/holiness,..which as yet..is only a POTENTIAL..in you..in the flesh state

to explain..“No man cometh..to..the Father..but by me”..is among/the most..misunderstood statements.in the Bible...It..DOES NOT..mean that I am..in anyway separate..(or different)..from you,..*EXCEPT IN..our sense of..real-TIME.

*Now,..[those..in the..spirit-state]..we know/that time..does/not exist...Actually,..the statement....is much more..meaningful..if it is considered..on/a vertical..rather than..a horizontal-axis.

AS..Regarded..along the/vertical,.[acceding/descending]..axis..man stands..below me,..and..I stand..below God...In..the process
of.“rising up”,..I AM pushed up..ever higher/further..away.

This is..because..without me..the distance..between God and
man..is too great..for material-man..to encompass.

but see..I bridge..the distance..as an Elder-Brother..to man,..on the one hand,..and..as a Son of..God..on the other...as are/we..all

<<..My devotion..to..my brothers..[fellow suns/of the father]..has placed..me..in charge of..the Sonship,..which..I can render..complete only to..the extent..I can.*SHARE it.

This..appears to..contradict..another statement:
“I..and my Father..are one.”..but..It doesn’t...There..are still separate parts..in/the statement,..in recognition..of..the fact..that the Father..is..far GREATER.

Actually,..the original/statement..was..“we..are of one..MIND.”[of one kind/mind..[revelation]..The..Holy Spirit..is..the Bringer..of *ALL..Revelations,..*not miracles.

Revelations..are INDIRECTLY..inspired..by me,..because I am..close to the..Holy Spirit,..*and alert to..his-revelation-..ever..in readiness in/the service..of my brothers.

I..can thus..BRING..DOWN to them..more..than they..can DRAW..down to
themselves...Jean Dixon’s..description..is perhaps a better statement..of my position...Because..my feet..are on the ground..and my hands..are in heaven,..I can/bring..down..the glories of..Heaven to*..my brothers..on earth.

The..Holy Spirit..is the Highest/Communication Medium.
Miracles do/not involve this..type of communication,..because they are TEMPORARY..communicative devices...[thus subjective to..flaw/law]..

*When..man can return..to his original form..of communication with God by direct REVELATION,..directly..and the need for 'miracles'..is over.

EDITED

In..the longitudinal..(or horizontal)..plane,..the true equality.of all men..in the Sonship..appears to involve..almost endless time...But we know..that time..is only..an artifact..introduced
as..a learning aid.

41.The miracle..is a learning device..which lessens..the need for time...The sudden/shifts..from horizontal..to vertical perception..which..the miracle entails..introduces an interval..from which the doer..and the receiver..both emerge..much farther along..in time..than they/would otherwise..have been.

A miracle..thus..has..the uinque property..of abolishing time
by rendering..*the space/of time..it occupies..as unnecessary...There is..NO relation..between the time..a miracle TAKES..and the time it COVERS...It substitutes..FOR learning..that might/have..taken thousands/of..years...

from/page35
http://miraclevision.com/acim/urtext/acim-urtext-2003-upe-ready-edition.pdf

Dear George,

I appreciate your thoughts and the way you connect and express them. I am delighted to see posts from you.

One attribute of conscious life is to make choices. We decide to move one way or another. I was watching a David Attenborough program on the origins of life. From the fossil evidence the first forms of multicelled animal life were rooted organisms which survived by filtering out organic matter from the water and incorporating it into their tissues. Both the rooted forms and the mobile forms which followed were soft bodied organisms without bony tissue so the only evidence for their existence are the impressions their bodies made in the mud which later became rock. The shape of the mobile organisms exhibits bilateral symmetry, a head with sense organs and a mouth, a segmented structure with some of the segments developing projections which moved the animal and a pore at the back to eliminate waste. It is reasonable to assume that the criterion by which it chose to move one way or another was to put the mouth in contact with a food source, a plant or an animal. From that beginning, the ability to make choices and the motivation for the choice, everything else developed.

Of course you didn’t mention any mythical soul, and I didn’t say Beethoven, Einstein and Shakespeare were only seeking food. However, Beethoven, Einstein and Shakespeare are descendents of remote ancestors who were only seeking food. If that ancestor had curiosity or questioning I assume it was limited to the question of how best to obtain food. That’s where it started.

I was taken aback when you wrote: <Exactly, this is what I wanted to point out, namely that there are human needs that cannot be reduced to mere biological functioning and survival, like the need for food and sex which we share with other “beasts”>

I don’t think biological functioning deserves the adjective ‘mere’. I think it is wonderful, and I appeal to Occam’s Razor again to ask why we have to assume anything else.
(Continued)