Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 17, 2007 23:21:49 GMT
Bros. Stewart, Maat and WayseerStewart's question to me "What Would You Accept as Proof?" prompted Maat to commence this thread and, well into the dialogue, Wayseer suggested I had posed the question to myself, as a Dorothy Dixer. Having seemingly exhausted the topic from my perspective, I would be interested to learn from you and others, "What Would You Accept as Proof" of, for instance, the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
|
|
|
Post by a on Mar 18, 2007 4:53:55 GMT
Bros. Stewart, Maat and WayseerI would be interested to learn from you and others, "What Would You Accept as Proof" of, for instance, the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Flying Spagetti Monster - that is a new one on me Over the past few years Tamrin, I have come a long way. When I see something that works, then I am happy. The last time I chatted to a relative who does something in the quantum physics field I could see that some of what he knows is the same as is taught in the esoteric field. But he tells me that scientists scorn esoterists. Which is interesting given that the esoteric knowledge has been here for millenia, yet quantum physics is just now coming up with identical conclusions. What the Bleep..... Also as had been recently discussed scientific proof is a funny one, for what is accepted scientific knowledge today are tomorrows incomplete or incorrect theories. Don't misunderstand I am not knocking science - for science is very important. But if you work solely from your head, you will, I would suggest, risk missing out on so so much of the inner beauty that can only be seen with a balanced heart. So, if it works - then great. That is proof enough.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 18, 2007 6:41:10 GMT
Bros. Stewart, Maat and WayseerI would be interested to learn from you and others, "What Would You Accept as Proof" of, for instance, the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Flying Spaghetti Monster - that is a new one on me Over the past few years Tamrin, I have come a long way. When I see something that works, then I am happy. The last time I chatted to a relative who does something in the quantum physics field I could see that some of what he knows is the same as is taught in the esoteric field. But he tells me that scientists scorn esoterists. Which is interesting given that the esoteric knowledge has been here for millenia, yet quantum physics is just now coming up with identical conclusions. What the Bleep..... Also as had been recently discussed scientific proof is a funny one, for what is accepted scientific knowledge today are tomorrows incomplete or incorrect theories. Don't misunderstand I am not knocking science - for science is very important. But if you work solely from your head, you will, I would suggest, risk missing out on so so much of the inner beauty that can only be seen with a balanced heart. So, if it works - then great. That is proof enough. StewartI am glad to see you do not label and limit a scientific / rational approach in the way some appear to suggest its advocates disregard the mystical approach. No doubt there are skeptics on both sides. However, there are also those who can appreciate both sides—the difficulty being that, despite the convergence of some ideas, AS scientists, there is not a lot they can say about mysticism, and AS mystics, there is not a lot they can say about science—Or about the Flying Spaghetti Monster (only we Pastafarians and pirates know the true scuttlebutt...Arrrh!)
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Mar 18, 2007 7:11:41 GMT
As I have said previously - Bro Tamrin, you argue exceedingly well within the idiom of your own belief system. You taken a point at the sublime extremity and ask for some 'rational' response - then use such 'statement of proof' as another yet bullet in your attacks on those who believe otherwise. Sorry - not playing. Remember, all, that is ALL, scientific endeavour will prove falible at some time in the future and while present theories might satisfy the present generation such theories only hold good until the paradigm shifts - which it must. To claim any form of final Truth is therefore somewhat arrogant.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 18, 2007 7:33:11 GMT
As I have said previously - Bro Tamrin, you argue exceedingly well within the idiom of your own belief system. You taken a point at the sublime extremity and ask for some 'rational' response - then use such 'statement of proof' as another yet bullet in your attacks on those who believe otherwise. Sorry - not playing. Remember, all, that is ALL, scientific endeavour will prove falible at some time in the future and while present theories might satisfy the present generation such theories only hold good until the paradigm shifts - which it must. To claim any form of final Truth is therefore somewhat arrogant. Where have I claimed any form of final Truth? If anything, I have been arguing why I personally do not credulously accept such 'Truths', when asked, "What Would You Accept as Proof?" If anyone (or their beliefs) has been on trial in this thread, "It was...I."
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 18, 2007 20:09:36 GMT
The Flying Spaghetti Monster was recorded in prehistoric rock art (OK, one is just a piece of toast), scrolls and on ancient pottery. S/He became confused in Greek legends with the Kraken and with the head of Medusa (it is in fact the Flying Spaghetti Monster which Athena bears on her shield). S/He was worshipped in King Solomon's Temple as the "Cloud upon the Sanctuary." Later S/He was the 'head' the Knights Templar are said to have venerated as Baphomet (some confusion has crept in here as 'Baphomet' is more accurately the delicious pasta sauce which drips from the God). When the Order was dissolved, it was S/He who commanded the knights to turn to piracy, as David Hatcher Childress described in his book, Pirates & the Lost Templar Fleet: The Secret Naval War Between the Knights Templar & the Vatican. The most famous of thse Templar pirates was Noodle Beard (illustrated below). This is why, in some rituals, the newly raised Master Mason is told he [or she] is now, " a brother to pirates and corsairs" ( J.J. Robinson, Born in Blood, p.166). Having betrayed these secrets, my fate is now to be boiled in salted water until al dente, drained, smothered in meatballs and Baphomet sauce, and served to the Brethren as the main course in a true Pasterfarian Eucharist.
|
|
jmd
Member
fourhares.com
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by jmd on Mar 18, 2007 22:28:23 GMT
Bro Tamrin,
I now realise you have access to the lost volume by Abu Abdullah Mohammed al Edrisi whose title, translated into English, is something like The Long Worms of the Gods, being an account of the transmission of succession of the Divine Will of the Sacred Name ∴ ⊕⊗⊕⊥ ŠÿÐþ ⌈⊥⌉ and how to prepare buff-Homme-Lyet.
In the book, recounted details are made of the sacred rituals the eventually permeated European Masonic (and other) rituals.
I was really under the impression that this book had its seven seals unbroken!
|
|
|
Post by maat on Mar 18, 2007 23:17:58 GMT
Bros. Stewart, Maat and WayseerHaving seemingly exhausted the topic from my perspective, I would be interested to learn from you and others, "What Would You Accept as Proof" of, for instance, the Flying Spaghetti Monster? ;D ;D ;D All around the world, women know that common man thinks that his God lives 'down under'. Those great meatballs lead all ways and thither, pulling him here, pulling him there leading him on to the promised glory. Ever he seeks, but seldom he finds the joy his god promises him. 'Know' that they will lead you nowhere but down if abused. Adam knew Eve, and she begat Cain; Adam knew Eve and she begat Seth; Mary asked Gabriel how she could be with child, when she had ' known' no man. Beware of the Tree of 'knowledge' from which man should not eat. Gives a whole new pause for thought when you next "fall" for someone ;D Nothing to prove here tamrin, self evident.... (joke, joke, joke,.... ;D ) Maat
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 19, 2007 0:20:25 GMT
Bro Tamrin, I now realise you have access to the lost volume by Abu Abdullah Mohammed al Edrisi whose title, translated into English, is something like The Long Worms of the Gods, being an account of the transmission of succession of the Divine Will of the Sacred Name ∴ ⊕⊗⊕⊥ ŠÿÐþ ⌈⊥⌉ and how to prepare buff-Homme-Lyet. In the book, recounted details are made of the sacred rituals the eventually permeated European Masonic (and other) rituals. I was really under the impression that this book had its seven seals unbroken! Bro. JMD,The book of which you dare to speak, is veiled under the guise of The Magic Pudding, purportedly by Norman Lindsay. The ineffable name is rendered therein as ‘Albert,’ which is as close as mortals can approximately frame to pronounce without choking. As a ‘magic pudding' the Flying Spaghetti Monster is but barely recognisable: However Pastafarian adepts readily penetrate the seven veils concealing the true nature of the book (for all others, the seven veils or seals have remained intact, until now). They also recognise the true import of the “Noble Society of Puddin’ Owners” as being but a further veiling, concealing the Society of those touched by Her Noodly Appendage, who have guided humanity in the ways of Pastaferianism, since time immemorial. Lindsay had been Grand Pasta of the Order—Strand Length 1.618... (I am a longer strand in one of the appendant Orders, of which I cannot speak—Yes Bro. Maat, in the context of your post, I guess size does matter). Incidentally, for those wondering "how long is a piece of spaghetti?" The unit length is relative to that of the least worthy Noodle amongst us (having a benchmark value of 1). Thus, the unworthiness of one diminishes us all.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Mar 19, 2007 2:46:48 GMT
If 'we', as you suggest, can see past the nudity to the inner person - Why does anyone therefore have to be stipped naked? I'm not aware that anyone would "have" to be stripped naked. I don't know that anyone *has* to do *anything*. I didn't write the ritual, any ritual. It was handed down to us by others, composed much as is any ritual. Complete with its own set of symbols and its own system of wisdom (the origin of which we could expound upon in many threads). And symbol in ritual is very, very important to a lot of people for a lot of reasons. Nudity (corresponding with the idea of rebirth, coming into the new world as naked as you did the world of manifestation and all that), I believe, is one of these symbols. That this symbol got narrowed down into a few bits (presumably to respect the modesty of the initiate. After all, most of us are taught to be ashamed when we're naked) is what happened. Wiser than me, I'm sure, decided that. That it *had* to be that way . . . I dunno. Doubtful. I just know that's how it came to be handed down. And to what degree would we have to enact the symbol for it to be effective ritual? That, also, I do not know.
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Mar 19, 2007 3:28:41 GMT
After all, most of us are taught to be ashamed when we're naked That is the point I was endeavouring to address - the assumption that 'we' are ashamed of our bodies and that this assumption is given proof when one hesitates to strip in order to prove a point. Perhaps what you determine as 'ashamed' might be more to do with the 'control' one can exercise - if not the world then one's own body. The body is personal space - the one thing that the individual can exercise control - and the increase in the 'decoration' of that body with needles, pins, chains, tattoos etc perhaps says much about individual expression rather than group mind set. If I had to strip and appear naked before others in order to satisfy some bizarre rite then I would quickly withdrawn - not because some might think I am 'ashamed' (I was a regular at a nudist beach for a while) but I don't hand over control of my body to satisfy some groups mind set.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 19, 2007 10:57:11 GMT
The Long Worms of the Gods is, as stated above, presently available only under the veil of The Magic Pudding. The proper understanding thereof is only for Pastafarian adepts, the Pastafecti. Credents and Auditors are only made acquainted with the parables contained in the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The truths of the inner Temple remained concealed from those admitted only to the Tabernacle of the people. The Pastafecti oppose String Theory, not because of its errors but because of its sacrilege in approximating the Super Spaghetti means by which the Flying Spaghetti Monster traverses time and space, through ‘ worm holes' (more accurately described as hollow noodles). S/He is especially located at the centre of the Universe, where lies the Spaghetti Nebula.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Mar 19, 2007 14:06:22 GMT
If I had to strip and appear naked before others in order to satisfy some bizarre rite then I would quickly withdrawn - not because some might think I am 'ashamed' (I was a regular at a nudist beach for a while) but I don't hand over control of my body to satisfy some groups mind set. (little smile) I'm not at all sure what this has to do with the requirement of ritual that certain parts of us must be b*red and its roots to a time when a the candidate would be nude but . . . As I mentioned, I live in Oregon. For many people, that's 'nuf said (smile broadens) When I first moved here, I would have thought much the same, that to be naked is to be ashamed. And mind you, I don't strip down for just anyone. However, I can tell you that I now know being naked in front of poeple in no way gives them any control over me unless 1) they seize it from me physically (which they could well do with my clothes on) or 2) *I* say so. I've had some experience with the former (fully clothed each time), none with the latter. I do empathize with anyone who has trouble understanding this for, as someone who once felt this way and came to understand it, I fully realize how difficult a concept this is to grasp. So I've done my best to explain it. Those who can understand it, I think will do so. And since I can recall this, and can still fully place myself in a position in which I can still remember how that felt, I am in empathy, as well as sympathy. That said, I will also say I am far more uneasy about the former than I am the latter, largely because I'm in full physical control of the latter (not of the former). Shortly before my initiation, I heard . . . certain things ;D And after much soul searching, I decided that I would, if needs be, endure it, though doing so h*d-w*ked before strangers was unnerving to me. For many of my, now, brethren were then strangers to me and instrinctive concerns over any possibly loss of physical control was very real. However, I'd already bought into the philosophy. I understood it. And I was, at that point, about 75 percent certain that it would be done for my own good and not to gain physical control over me. As it turned out, shortly before my initiation, I received certain assurances (without any specifics) that my every sense of modesty would be respected. Since I understand what this, conventionally, means, I very muich respected and appreciated the assurances. And, throughout this beautiful experience, in which I felt many things, one thing I did not feel was any loss of physical control. I believe I would have felt this way, had I been wearing nothing at all. THAT said, I think this symbol was enough for the ritual to be effective for me. So I guess it was more than enough.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Mar 19, 2007 14:30:54 GMT
Bros. Stewart, Maat and WayseerHaving seemingly exhausted the topic from my perspective, I would be interested to learn from you and others, "What Would You Accept as Proof" of, for instance, the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Maat Having studied this photo , having been the unwitting recipient of a number of solution to penis enlargement. I have often wondered how do this people who make up these email lists know I have that need ? Having studied the photo / picture closely , I feel much relieved and maybe I should not spend that much money, without further research. !!
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 19, 2007 19:58:07 GMT
Bro. Bill,I must point out that the above image represents the moment BEFORE being Touched by Her / His Noodly Appendage. As I pointed out in Reply #168, size does matter among Pastafarians. Despite my exulted strand length (modesty prevents me from being more specific), I have yet to be instructed in the special recipe for Baphomet sauce. This is jealously guarded by a special class of Pasta-men. I understand their choice of herb is of utmost importance and is a wonderful appetite stimulant. Bob Marley had also been Grand Pasta of the Order. Check out the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Of particular interest on the current home page are reports of contests featuring The Flying Spaghetti Monster vs the Invisible Pink Unicorn! (among Pastafarian adepts the Invisible Pink Unicorn is recognised as being the Antipasta).
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 24, 2007 0:45:18 GMT
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 30, 2007 11:38:28 GMT
After having raised the unicorn proposition, as an example of not being able to prove a negative, and having others insist that unicorns were indeed real, I half expected the same response when I raised the preposterous Flying Spaghetti Monster proposition. Well it’s happened and the person responsible is, “…it may surprise you to learn, one whom your present interlocutor is in the habit of defining by means of the perpendicular pronoun."—It is I. Last night I saw a fascinating documentary, " Cuttlefish: The Brainy Bunch” I had long been used to cuttlefish when diving and had been intrigued by them (and they by me). After watching the documentary I found I had grievously under-estimated these magnificant creatures. Experts of disguise, they not only change the colours and patterns of their bodies in an instant (or rhythmically), they are master shape changers, able to compress, elongate and raise variously shaped segments all over their bodies, to produce the most wonderful illusions. They are said to be the most intelligent of invertebrates (indeed, we may lack the capacity to fully comprehend them). One segment of the program featured the Australian Giant Cuttlefish (the god, the seagod, exists and S/He's an Aussie! —below, left) engaged in diverse, complex breeding strategies and another segment featured the Broad-club Cuttlefish (below, right) apparently hypnotizing its prey with a display of pulsating waves of light. Apart from their superficial similarity to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, my purpose in mentioning cuttlefish here is to point out that we already are sharing our planet with diverse intelligences. If aliens were to visit, I expect they would be even more ‘alien’ to us than are cuttlefish—Usual theories tend to propose aliens which are more or less human-like. The intelligence and communication of cuttlefish appears to be on a very different plane to ours; their lives span only a few months and they grow rapidly in both size and intelligence during that time. Even so, they are our relatively close kin (no pun intended), having evolved from the same genetic roots as we have. Aliens are likely to be very, very different from us. I suggest it is even less likely that we might appreciate aliens for what they are than we do with cuttlefish and much less like to be able to communicate with them. We are even likely to operate on different time spans: They may live for, to us, a brief moment or for an eon and a ‘word’ (or whatever) from one may take days to utter and a sentence may take more than a human lifespan (consider Tolkien's Ents). I could go on and on along this vein, but I think I have already made the point that, even if there were no physical limits to space travel, the idea of aliens being sufficiently anthropomorphic for us to form any meaningful relationship with them is wildly unlikely.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Apr 5, 2007 23:14:34 GMT
Having argued against the likelihood of an encounter with anthropomorphic aliens, perhaps my ideas on why people perceive them as they do may be of interest. My suggestion is that the common image of them is, in a sense, more human than we are, because we create them in our own subjective image. By way of analogy, I begin with the mapping of our physical world. In do so, we encounter the difficulty of projecting a spherical surface onto a flat surface. The various ways we do so all involve some distortion (the fairly recent Peters Projection presents accurate, relative surface areas but involves increasingly greater distortion closer to the Poles). One can also address common stereotypical perceptions, by showing other equally valid perspectives. Such projections are, of course, largely of topographical interest. One can also introduce other factors, such as relative happiness, according to a colour scale. Or, similarly subjectively, this impression of a US geopolitical perspective of the world, is achieved by changing the relative sizes of the landmasses (one might well present a similar image from an Australian perspective). More objective, are these similar projections of relative populations (top) and greenhouse gas emissions (bottom). Importantly, these projections involve a compromise between the topological reality and the concept one is intending to depict. (one needs to know the ‘real’ size of Africa to appreciate that it contributes a relatively small amount of greenhouse gas emissions). When imaging ourselves there can be similar 'distortions.' Psychologists refer to a Sensory Homunculus (below) which corresponds to the relative sizes of brain areas corresponding to areas of our bodies (they also refer to a similar Motor Homunculus). The depiction of this homunculus involves a compromise between two objective ‘realities’: One between our ‘real’ proportions and the corresponding areas of our brains. Already this homunculus is beginning to resemble somewhat a classic alien. However, I suggest there are subjective elements which would complete the picture, When all these elements are factored in and rounded off, we may well find our 'Subjective Homunculus,' would resemble our classic alien.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Apr 5, 2007 23:37:56 GMT
Many years ago I lived in a community and there was an older American woman who seemed quite attractive physically.
One day I saw her walking towards me in a large communal dining room. To my surprise she looked old and disintegrating and I could understand how young people could find their elders to be physically repulsive
And as I continued to look at her my vision returned to its usual structure and I saw her again as an attractive older woman.
From that I concluded that most of our imaging of people is a mixture of both physical and psychological perception
And I suppose that we have all noticed how the face of our life partner can be so different at times
Thus faced with an entity capable of adjusting its psychological structure, it might be quite hard to see an objective reality
It might be even harder if the entity knows how to project mental imagery into our minds
CHeers
Russell
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Apr 5, 2007 23:50:29 GMT
Exactly! and I suggest Occam's Razor cautions us against further pointless conjectures as to an entity capable of adjusting its psychological structure and capable of projecting mental imagery into our minds (if something is doing that effectively all reason goes out the window—and the very idea of aliens becomes part of the problem).
|
|