> On Aug 5, 6:35 am, ta nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>> On Aug 5, 12:40 am, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>>> On Aug 4, 3:39 pm, ta nc.rr.com> wrote:

>

>>>> A physicist and and a programmer "know" a great deal about their
>>>> respective fields of study. Their truths can be objectively
>>>> ascertained and their products can be rationally tested and analyzed.

>

>>>> Their knowledge represents one level of understanding -- a level that
>>>> is very useful and valuable in living our lives on a day-to-day basis.

>

>>>> But this type of truth is not all there is.

>

>>>> One can obtain a deeper level of understanding through the use of
>>>> symbols and metaphor. Unfortunately, many of us only think at the
>>>> literal level.

>

>>>> For example, much of the scriptures of the major world religions can
>>>> only be understood when dealing with them metaphorically, not
>>>> literally, and this is why "fundamentalism" has wreaked so much havoc
>>>> on the world.

>

>>>> You can take the Chakra system literally, and proclaim that no such
>>>> physical bodies can be identified. Or you can take them
>>>> metaphorically, and come to a greater understanding of the connection
>>>> between mind, body, and spirit.

>

>>>> You can believe that Jesus Christ was a man who was physically
>>>> crucified and who then literally ascended to a physical place called
>>>> "heaven", where the omnipotent, gray-bearded "God" reigns as King. Or
>>>> you can look at his crucifixion as a dying to form and a discovery of
>>>> spirit, and "heaven" as a state of consciousness.

>

>>>> The Bible is not an instruction manual, it's a poetic story filled
>>>> with symbolism and metaphor. But just because the story can not be
>>>> taken literally, it does not mean that it contains no truth.

>

>>>> It just contains a different, more sophisticated kind of truth that
>>>> the fundamentalists of the world just aren't ready for.

>

>>> Maybe the ability to see things symbolically like you describe them is
>>> part instinct and part learned. If so then everyone probably sees some
>>> things symbolically. The decision about which things we should see
>>> symbolically is like trying to decide which music is better or worse.

>

>> I think it is a quality that can be cultivated, but it requires a more
>> flexible way of dealing with the world. That is one of the primary
>> values of poetry and literature and story telling -- they provide an
>> avenue to a different level of understanding that cannot be obtained
>> with the more rigid, black and white thinking that dominates modern
>> western civilization.

>
> How did we get along as a species for the last 50,000 years? Are you
> saying that we easily learned this skill back when but modern society
> unlearns it?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -