He writes books "as a delightful way to relax as I enjoy trying to relate my life experiences in an entertaining way that my friends will enjoy".

A very small readership then. This man's hubris is stunning.

Why is it that it’s so easy to be sceptical.

I don’t think that trait is a sign of the times either.

I now wonder of the life of a sceptical cave man. No need for scepticism when a courtship consisted of dragging your woman to the cave by her hair while carrying a club in the other.
A sceptical observer would conclude the need for the club was to deal with maybe suitors on the way!

Caveman scepticism..nothing changes but socks and under ware.

If we were an Asian community wisdom acquired through the years would be considered valuable. Here you are past your use by date and need to be put somewhere or offered euthanasia.

Moreover, not every oldie is computer literate and may not have grandkids willing to devote the time to the task.

Besides, what constitutes wisdom today. Is it science or just how to do this or that or operate old machines horse drawn carriages and such?
Alan B.

Good on you Everald! You are an example to us all!

I don't know how much longer I have or if anybody will read my bio. Nevertheless, I have started it. It is called "Discarding the Spiritual". I enjoy writing about what I can remember. Since I have not kept a journal I can't be sure what I write is accurate or merely remembering elements of my life that have been edited in my mind. It will not be a true confession as I don't want to dwell on the seamier parts of myself or embarrass others. However, the process is enjoyable.

While I was away in the US in 1993 my wife got a caravan and drove around Queensland. She filled three notebooks with an account of her travels, encounters with people, poetry & philosophical musings.

Shortly before she died, she gave me those notebooks.

They contained the following:

I think it's the absence of any goal that has given me this freedom just to be. We are always told we must have a goal in life, whether it be to accumulate wealth, achieve professional success & recognition or to make the world a better place. One must have a goal. I have always unconsciously rebelled against this idea, the idea of an "ultimate aim in life." There are always "goals" in the plural that give life zest & meaning - the goal to reach the mountain top & enjoy the view, the goal to help a friend in need, the goal to pass exams so one can work in an interesting field.

The "ultimate aim in life" I think is life destroying, a negation of the present, which is after all, all we ever have, and ultimately, I believe unachievable. When is rich, rich enough, power great enough, recognition satisfying enough?

The meaning of life is life itself. How it came about is a wonderful question to explore. "Why" is meaningless. It implies purpose. It implies a creator. It implies that we have a purpose in the mind of the creator....

Her words have inspired me to write my bio

Write a book. Why do that?
Why would I read a particular book?
How long does it take to read it?
People generally won't have the time to read a large amount of published material.
They are more likely to latch on to a single, well expressed, principle?
The writer might feel he has done something worthwhile.
But that is how HE feels.
I doubt the value of thousands of 'wise' books stacked up around us.
We need a better way of condensing fundamental principles in to a palatable essence.
A documentary would do a better job?
It has the addition of visual impact, which helps with understanding its message.

I should add that we all need escapism.
So; well written fiction is valuable.
The stories are written for profit.
An honorable venture?
And the best of these stay with us.
So, thank you Ian Fleming.

David f. ... love your post!

Good luck with the bio.

(On another subject, has anyone commented on the fact that Foxy is no longer posting? Maybe I missed it in my brief glances at this forum, Foxy has been such a long time poster, I would hope that some recognition would be given to her in her absence ... did I miss it?)

"People generally won't have the time to read a large amount of published material", says Ipso Fatso.

Sadly, too many people don't read at all - apart from the main stream media, where fiction is hard to distinguish from opinion these days.

There don't seem to be many well-read people on OLO: hence the ignorant BS posted here. Only people who read extensively - books, not the press and Google - on history, politics, philosophy etc. can be taken seriously.

Good for you Everald. Keep waking up every morning and writing.

Hi David,

I second what Poirot said, good on you.

What is WISDOM, I wrote this to my 40 year old son recently as he is still very much riding the roller coaster of life; "Wisdom can't be bought or sold it has to be acquired through experience and personal development. Some receive the gift, others unfortunately never do. Wisdom is not simply intelligence, its more than that, its understanding through perception."

David may I ask, what do you think is WISDOM?

Dear Paul,

What is wisdom. It is being humble enough to say, “I don’t know.” I don’t know what wisdom is, but I have a few ideas on what it might be. In addition to admitting you don’t know it’s asking questions to find out. Sometimes you can think or experiment and find the answers for yourself. I think one doesn’t find out anything by faith. Faith is the enemy of wisdom. Better doubt than faith. I believe there is only the world we can encounter by our senses, instruments to extend our senses and conclusions derived from the observations of those instruments and senses. We can make abstractions such as a circle, a figure whose boundary called its circumference is an equal distance from its center. There are no existent circles, only the abstractions. The glory of humanity is that we are the only animal we know that can make such abstractions. The ripples on a pond that spread when a stone is thrown into it look circular, but the center of a geometrical circle is a point with no dimensions. A real stone is an irregular object. Be aware that an abstraction is an abstraction. Ask for proof or find evidence for the proof or falsity of what you hear. Wisdom can be doubting what I or anyone tells you unless they supply evidence or proof. Sometimes Polonius makes sense. Doubt me or anyone else who has the presumption to say what wisdom is.

My thinking is that wisdom is a bit more than knowledge gained by experience.
Having knowledge, and a modicum of intelligence, we can deduce or reason our way beyond that knowledge.
I wrote that before I checked the dictionary.

The very first thing I read in the dictionary was:
It is the ability to use your experience and knowledge in order to make sensible decisions or judgments.
So it is not such a mystery after all; is it?

Thank you David and Ipso for your input there, very incisive.

I believe wisdom is distinct from knowledge, although without knowledge you can not have Wisdom. Certainly not putting anyone down, Albert Einstein had great knowledge, King Solomon had great wisdom, both a function of their intelligence, but distinct in what they allowed each to achieve.

Wisdom allows one to work through the complexities of an abstract problem in life, by drawing on both knowledge and experience and with perception come to a meaningful and rational conclusion.

I give an example of wisdom in a story of King Solomon. Two women came to the king with an infant, both claimed to be the mother of that child, both want possession of the child. The king, without knowledge of who the real mother is declares that the infant should be cut in half, and each woman given a portion. One woman says, please your majesty do not do that, give the baby to that woman, With that the King gives the child to her, saying; only the real mother would give up her child because of love, rather than see it killed. That's wisdom.

A 15 year old can have more wisdom than a 65 year old i.e. like most of those in authority !
Age without sense is more destructive than sense without age !

Dear Paul,

The woman who was not willing to see the child cut in half might not have been the mother. She may have had compassion, and her compassion may have outweighed the desire to have a child.

There is a story about a rabbi who heard the complaints of an unhappy wife. He listened and said, “You’re right.” She was followed in by the husband. The rabbi heard the husband and said, “You’re right.” The rabbi’s wife had been listening outside the door and said, “How can she be right, and he be right?” The rabbi said, “You’re right, too.” Sometimes, you just don’t know

Wisdom is when the intellect controls the mind, overcomes its lower tendencies and makes the best use of one's knowledge.

Thus without knowledge, one could be stupid but one cannot even be a fool.

Not knowing that a share is about to collapse, is stupidity: knowing and still investing is foolishness.
Same with knowing that our bodies are mortal and our very lives will eventually be forgotten, but still investing in them and their memory.

---

Dear Paul,

«King Solomon had great wisdom»

If he even existed, King Solomon is described in the Bible as a horrible tyrant who enslaved his people so he can build his spacious palace and the Jerusalem temple. Archaeology doesn't support this: if indeed he existed then he only built a modest palace and a modest temple in his small town which is now a tiny fraction of Jerusalem.

What most likely happened (if anything happened at all) when these two women came with the baby, is that Solomon lost patience and just ordered to kill the baby and what happened afterwards was unplanned.

It is also said that Solomon polished (not himself of course, his slaves!) his palace's marble floor like a mirror so he could see under the skirts of the ladies who came to visit him (legend says that it's not what we think, but rather in order to detect whether his visitors were human or Djinns because Djinn ladies have hairy legs...). You call that "wise" - I call that "cunning".

Solomon's father, David, presumably wrote: "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" [Psalms 111:10]. That tyrant had no fear of God!

---

Dear David F.,

«"Why" [life came about] is meaningless. It implies purpose. It implies a creator. It implies that we have a purpose in the mind of the creator....»

I cannot see why either is implied - can you?

«The "ultimate aim in life" I think is life destroying»

An ultimate aim does not preclude intermediate aims: even if there is an ultimate aim, who said that you are already sufficiently qualified to pursue it?

Dear Yuyutsu,

I was quoting Marie. She is dead. If you could reach her for comment on her words, I would love to hear about it.

Hi David,

Point taken, I was giving that King Solomon as a 'story' and in my opinion it is only a story, to illustrate wisdom, I don't consider the story to be literally true, but a fable to make a point.

BTW, Albert Einstein not only had knowledge, but he must have had wisdom as well, he knew when was the right time to get out of Nazi Germany.

Dear Paul1405,

Albert Einstein was an important scientist with many supporters. Other Jews with equal awareness of the dangers facing them did not have the help Einstein had in getting out of Germany.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis

The Jews on the St. Louis did not have the support that Einstein had.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=evian+conference

Most countries were not willing to admit Jews.

Hi David,

What you say is true, Albert Einstein was of great value to the Americans for his scientific knowledge, and was able to exploit that value to facilitate his own safety, we cannot begrudge him that. Others unfortunately did not have that privilege and subsequently paid the ultimate price with their lives in Nazi death camps.

What I have learnt on this topic is knowledge is a rather common commodity, we all posses some, whereas wisdom is like gold, much more difficult to come by, and some people are totally bereft of that particular commodity.

Dear Paul1405,

I would like to see a world where we give a transvestite addict the same respect we give an Einstein. The transvestite addict can have feelings to as much a degree as Einstein. For that matter a possum may have feelings to as much a degree as Einstein. The philosopher Singer and my son Seth are both vegetarians as they regard sentience as entitling an organism to equal consideration. I do not agree with them and am not a vegetarian, but I try to give all humans equal consideration even though I prefer to be with some humans more than others.

Hi David,

Something that may interest you, I go on most Wednesday nights to a Christian Men's Fellowship, small group 5 there last night. never more than 7 After general small talk as what we have been up to since last meeting etc, is then followed by a passage from the Bible for reading and interpretation. This week it was Herbrews 2 2-10, wont bore you with the discussion other than to say I raised the issue firstly why the passage fails to mention the female of the species, all references are to the male. That was swiftly dealt with by my 4 compatriots, all men of faith, one a Anglican Priest of over 40 years standing, they quickly agreed it was "understood" that references to males was inclusive of females as well, but just not stated, except in the case of God who although referred to in the male, is of course no gender at all.

Secondly, what I extracted from that particular Bible passage was the reference to "Angles" and my topic for the night become "Who are Angles, and what is their function", even the priest in attendance found angles difficult to understand, saying that they were "messages from God", and not "Messengers of God" I raised the devil and his followers in Heaven as being once angels with free will, guardian angles, the 7 archangels. I think at times interpretation of these matters is anything that sounds remotely plausible.

Dear Paul1405,

I regard the following as evil.

HEBREWS 2:8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.

Non-human species and the very earth are subject to man (may mean humanity). Man has the right to exterminate other species, pollute the environment and destroy the earth.

It echoes the evil in Genesis.

GENESIS 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

The Aborigines did an effective job in eliminating the megafauna, and modern Australia is justified by that book of evil, the Bible, in continuing the destruction.

I hope humans may reject Biblical evil and care for the other life on earth and the environment that sustains it.

Hi David,

Christ said; "Blessed are the cheese makers" but that is not to be taken literal as it applies to all manufactures of dairy products. (Life Of Brian).

I some times think much of the biblical interpretation is just that above, simply wrong or given a false meaning to suit today's narrative. There are those who want the narrative to reflect what is their beliefs and values of today, and not those of some medieval time, so there you go.

BTW, I attend Christian fellowship, not as Christian, being an agnostic willing to learn, but for that its rather pointless.

Dear Paul1405,

I hope Christians have great fellowship and love for each other and non-Christians.

I am rather sensitive on the matter as I have been targeted for conversion many times. I have become friendly with Christians. Some Christians when I tell them I am not a Christian react with "I hope you will become one" or similar remarks. They can somehow imagine that living in places that are predominantly Christian all my life I can be unaware of the concepts of their religion. I have an interest in Christianity as I have in religion in general. I find it fascinating that people turn to religion. My father as a young man was an atheist. As he got older he returned to the religion of his childhood and became a religious Jew. That was fine w me. He could be whatever he wanted to be. The problem was that he wanted me to accompany him on his spiritual journey, and I wanted no part of it. I find religion fascinating and like to learn more about it but as an observer not a participant.

I like the words of Jimmy Durante. "Why can't everybody leave everybody else the hell alone?"

Dear David F.,

When a Christian wants you to convert, that does not usually mean that they want it for religious reasons - they probably just like you to join their tribe!

Likely also the reason for your father to rejoin Judaism.

You say that you are fascinated by religion - but is it religion that you are fascinated by, or the behaviour of people who claim to be religious?

Churches today are essentially social clubs. People like to be surrounded by others whose ideas are in agreement. That is still much better than the days when churches were centers of political power and influence.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Wanting you to join their tribe is for religious reasons. God and many other religious concepts are nonsense. They are totems which keep a tribe together.

I agree with your last paragraph. Churches are social clubs. I favour social clubs. They bring people together. Perhaps, someday, people may accept the idea that religious sects are social clubs, and members of one social club can be friendly with members of another social club.

Better a social club than the craziness that burns heretics at the state.

You wrote, "You say that you are fascinated by religion - but is it religion that you are fascinated by, or the behaviour of people who claim to be religious?"

People who claim to be religious are religious. The content of religion is mostly nonsense. Social clubs can be friendlier groupings without the god nonsense.

Dear David F.,

You cannot be serious when on the one hand agreeing that churches are essentially social clubs and on the other hand claiming that they are religious institutions:

- If people essentially go there to socialise (and/or to gain social influence and/or acceptance) then they do not go there for God!

(I believe that there are some who are sincere and go to church for God, but they are a minority - they also tend to move from one church to another when they find that the others are there just for the social benefits and do not take religion seriously as themselves, or as you say, that they only use the name of "god" as a tribal totem)

To claim that "People who claim to be religious are religious" is like saying that "People who claim to be a doctor are doctors" - as if no qualifications are required, just claim to be an astronaut, join a club where everyone pretends to be an astronaut and voila - you are an astronaut...

«and members of one social club can be friendly with members of another social club.»

It does not usually happen: bikie gangs, sport clubs, nations, corporations, it just seems to go against human greedy and competitive nature.
Had churches been indeed religious, then they could stand a chance of transcending human nature, but as we agreed, they are essentially just social clubs.

Hi Yuyutsu,

Maybe they are multi-tasking, my wife's church is certainly a social and religious institution, which is the more important to the parishioners, that's debatable. I also believe many seem to place the rituals and practices of the institution above any spiritual benefit they may perceive they are obtaining. That's not to say there are not good people, in my view they are.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I really don't care for your God crap.

Dear Paul,

Certainly there are people who use churches for both the social and religious opportunities they can provide, and your wife could be one of them.

Whether her church as such is indeed a religious institution, is in doubt, but even if it isn't, if your wife is sincere then she can still make a good religious use of it.

«which is the more important to the parishioners, that's debatable.

That's personal, each to their own. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' - those who want social connections go for them and those who want God go for God.
The former benefits are temporary, the latter eternal, yet people should make their own choice.

«I also believe many seem to place the rituals and practices of the institution above any spiritual benefit they may perceive they are obtaining. That's not to say there are not good people, in my view they are.»

So true!

---

Dear David F.,

«I really don't care for your God crap.»

Fair enough, the whole world can be viewed as God's crap.

Why can't everybody leave everybody else the hell alone?"
Davidf,
The parasites would scream discrimination & genocide if we left them to their merits !

Let's be clear about something.
The concept of a god is man made.
The truth is there is no reason to think such an entity exists.
Talking about something non-existent is an empty and almost foolish pastime.

And the bible, which some treat with such reverence, is merely a collection of stories.
All written my man over a space of about three centuries, if I remember rightly.
And what you see today is not the original.
We wouldn't be able to understand that.
So it is many times translated to reach the way it is.
And translated so it is easy to interpret in a particular way too.
Inconvenient statements are discarded.

Religion works for some people because they want it to.
They need the 'escapism'.
They need to feel they are being looked after too.
I see no harm in that if it works for them.
But I worry when they become involved with disturbingly outrageous religions.
And there are cults which draw them in too.
People are easily led it seems, and will suffer greatly as a result.
And that troubles me.

Why don't they do their homework?
Look back just a few hundred years to see what religions were up to?
They would be horrified.
I think they would slam the door on them, immediately.

Dear Ipso Fatso,

«The concept of a god is man made.»

Yes, ALL concepts are man made.

«The truth is there is no reason to think such an entity exists.»

Good heavens - of course not!
We have many good reasons to think that God does NOT exist, and had He existed than we, presumably religious people, would have been worshiping an idol!

«Talking about something non-existent is an empty and almost foolish pastime.»

But only ignorant idol-worshiping people think of God as "something".

«Religion works for some people because they want it to.
They need the 'escapism'.»

Yes, there is nothing wrong about being sick and tired of and wanting to escape the illusionary clutches of the world.

«But I worry when they become involved with disturbingly outrageous religions.
And there are cults which draw them in too.»

Just because dangerous cults describe themselves as "religions" doesn't mean that they actually are, so please don't you too fall for their deception.

«Look back just a few hundred years to see what religions were up to?
They would be horrified.»

These organisations you refer to were not religions, they were pretentious and cruel political systems: again, please don't you too fall for their deception.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Ipso Fatso, I think, deals with reality. All concepts are man made. However some human concepts rely on evidence and others do not. The various creation stories of tribal people and the Biblical ones do not rely on evidence. They are attempts to explain the world by creating imaginary entities like gods or God for a pre-scientific mind. The concept of evolution has much evidence from fossils, adaptations of viruses and micro-organisms and experience of livestock breeders. God is a concept without evidentiary support. A person is free to believe in a concept without evidentiary support. Apparently, you do. I would rather not.

Dear David F.,

«Ipso Fatso, I think, deals with reality.»

Don't we all?

«All concepts are man made. However some human concepts rely on evidence and others do not.»

Either way, that's all they are - just concepts.

Reality is not a concept!

«The various creation stories of tribal people and the Biblical ones do not rely on evidence.»

OK, but why do Ipso Fatso and yourself need to even mention them here?
How are they even related to the topic?

«They are attempts to explain the world by creating imaginary entities like gods or God for a pre-scientific mind.»

I happen to disagree (not that it matters to me personally) - I don't think that the various authors of the Bible were interested in explaining the world, I think that this particular pursuit is a modern disposition, which incidentally, also does not appeal to me (and my post-scientific mind) and I fail to see why it would appeal to them.

We digress, but just to make the language clear, I agree that gods (real or imaginary) are entities, but God is not. Those who consider God to be an entity are idol-worshipers (and if that indeed was what the authors of the Bible believed then that's what they were!).

«God is a concept without evidentiary support.»

You could be referring to any concept of God and in that case I would agree with you that it has no objective support, yet God is not a concept and thus must not be mixed up with concepts of God (of which there are many, not just one).

«A person is free to believe in a concept without evidentiary support. Apparently, you do. I would rather not.»

Maybe you rather not, but try as you may, I think you also do.

Don't you believe, for example, in the concept which equates you with a human, called David?

The world we live in is a physical and practical one.
Our reality should be based on this view.
However, there are also things we cannot see, which we know affect life.
So science attempts to explain them.
It creates theories for them.
And there is constant investigation of those theories.
So the theories can eventually become near certainties.

With religion it is all statements, with no attempt to validate anything.
Why would I go along with such an absurd arrangement?
And religious bodies always seem to be flush with cash.
So could we say they are all about control and money?
Courtesy forbids me from being too explicit.
But one could be 'forgiven' for thinking along those lines?
To a brain which processes information logically, their irrational ideals are horrendously distasteful.
They are an affront to honesty and truthfulness.

So rejection is more than not accepting such silly ideas.
It is instead a sensible way of retaining personal integrity and decency.
Were we to stray from the path of reason, and live in their false reality, it must lead to mental irregularity.
And we see many examples of this in the news.
Luckily, we are not entirely controlled by our instinctive behaviour.
We have reason to help us.
So it is more than possible to live effectively, without resorting to truthless notions.
But for those who want their thinking done for them, there is an easy way out.

Dear Ipso Fatso,

«Our reality should be based on this view.»

Reality is not based on anyone's view and does not ask us or anyone else what it should be - what is is.

«With religion it is all statements, with no attempt to validate anything.»

Your barber too may make all kinds of statements without validations while they snip your hair - his/her role is to cut your hair, that's all. You only judge them by how your hair looks after, not by their statements.
Your barber is there to cut your hair and religion is there to bring you closer to God.
If you want to cut your hair - go to your barber.
If you want to come closer to God - follow your religion.
Neither religion nor your barber are there to explain the world - if that is what you are after, then for that there is science!

«And religious bodies always seem to be flush with cash.
So could we say they are all about control and money?»

What you could probably say in that case, is that these are not at all religious bodies, even if so they claim!