> On Aug 6, 2:33 am, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>> 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?

>
> Cultures emphasize or de-emphasize behaviours, and so they either
> become more deeply entrenched in the culture through practice, or they
> dissipate. Modern western civilization has been gradually de-
> empahasizing storytelling, symbolism, and myth and instead emphasizing
> "technique" and rationality.
>
> So we have all of these wonderful technological and scientific
> advancements, but at the same time, we are losing a very important and
> valuable part of our human behavioral repertoire.
>
> No doubt the effects of such changes can be observed rather easily.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -