Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Sigourney Weaver Justin Long, Live Free or Die Hard, Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story
  3. Today
  4. Love, Actually Alan Rickman Galaxy Quest (Love, Actually's one of those Kevin Bacon type of movies. I can link through a few people without repeating actors...)
  5. Yesterday
  6. Andie McDowell Four Weddings and a Funeral Hugh Grant
  7. Your post reminded me of some stuff I read by the Italian theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli…I have his book “The Order of Time” (copyright 2017 Riverhead Books) on my Kindle…what follows are some thought provoking excerpts from that book, as you’ll see the author refers to previous chapters of the book…some of this touched upon what you were talking about – especially when you mentioned Bergson , the flow of time, eternity, existence, and consciousness - this book came to mind…anyway here’s some choice excerpts from pages 96 -204: "…Divested of the trappings with which Newtonian theory had draped it, and to which we had become so accustomed, it now shines out with greater clarity: the world is nothing but change. None of the pieces that time has lost (singularity, direction, independence, the present, continuity) puts into question the fact that the world is a network of events. On the one hand, there was time, with its many determinations; on the other, the simple fact that nothing is: things happen… …We started out with the image of time that is familiar to us: something that flows uniformly and equally throughout the universe, in the course of which all things happen. With the idea that there exists throughout the cosmos a present, a “now” that constitutes reality. The past for everyone is fixed, is gone, having already happened. The future is open, yet to be determined. Reality flows from the past, through the present, toward the future—and the evolution of things between past and future is intrinsically asymmetrical. This, we thought, is the basic structure of the world. This familiar picture has fallen apart, has shown itself to be only an approximation of a much more complex reality. A present that is common throughout the whole universe does not exist (chapter 3). Events are not ordered in pasts, presents, and futures; they are only “partially” ordered. There is a present that is near to us, but nothing that is “present” in a far-off galaxy. The present is a localized rather than a global phenomenon… Perhaps we belong to a particular subset of the world that interacts with the rest of it in such a way that this entropy is lower in one direction of our thermal time. The directionality of time is therefore real but perspectival (chapter 10): the entropy of the world in relation to us increases with our thermal time. We see the occurrence of things ordered in this variable, which we simply call “time,” and the growth of entropy distinguishes the past from the future for us and leads to the unfolding of the cosmos. It determines the existence of traces, residues, and memories of the past (chapter 11). We human beings are an effect of this great history of the increase of entropy, held together by the memory that is enabled by these traces. Each one of us is a unified being because we reflect the world, because we have formed an image of a unified entity by interacting with our kind, and because it is a perspective on the world unified by memory (chapter 12). From this comes what we call the “flowing” of time. This is what we are listening to when we listen to the passing of time. The variable “time” is one of many variables that describe the world. It is one of the variables of the gravitational field (chapter 4): at our scale, we do not register quantum fluctuations (chapter 5), hence it is possible to think of spacetime as determined, as Einstein’s great mollusk; at our scale, the movements of the mollusk are small and can be overlooked. Hence we can think of spacetime as being as rigid as a table. This table has dimensions: the one that we call space, and the one along which entropy grows, called time. In our everyday life we move at low speeds in relation to the speed of light and so we do not perceive the discrepancies between the different proper times of different clocks, and the differences in speed at which time passes at different distances from a mass are too small for us to distinguish. In the end, therefore, instead of many possible times, we can speak only of a single time: the time of our experience—uniform, universal, and ordered. This is the approximation of an approximation of an approximation of a description of the world made from our particular perspective as human beings who are dependent on the growth of entropy, anchored to the flowing of time. We for whom, as Ecclesiastes has it, there is a time to be born and a time to die. This is time for us: a multilayered, complex concept with multiple, distinct properties deriving from various different approximations. Many discussions of the concept of time are confused because they simply do not recognize its complex and multilayered aspect. They make the mistake of not seeing that the different layers are independent. This is the physical structure of time as I understand it, after a lifetime of revolving around it… …What is entirely credible, in any case, is the general fact that the temporal structure of the world is different from the naïve image that we have of it. This naïve image is suitable for our daily life, but it’s not suitable for understanding the world in its minute folds, or in its vastness. In all likelihood, it is not even sufficient for understanding our own nature, because the mystery of time intersects with the mystery of our personal identity, with the mystery of consciousness. The mystery of time has always troubled us, stirring deep emotions. So deep as to have nourished philosophies and religions. I believe, as Hans Reichenbach suggests in one of the most lucid books on the nature of time, The Direction of Time, that it was in order to escape from the anxiety time causes us that Parmenides wanted to deny its existence, that Plato imagined a world of ideas that exist outside of it, and that Hegel speaks of the moment in which the Spirit transcends temporality and knows itself in its plenitude. It is in order to escape this anxiety that we have imagined the existence of “eternity,” a strange world outside of time that we would like to be inhabited by gods, by a God, or by immortal souls.* Our deeply emotional attitude toward time has contributed more to the construction of cathedrals of philosophy than has logic or reason. The opposite emotional attitude, the veneration of time—Heraclitus or Bergson—has given rise to just as many philosophies, without getting us any nearer to understanding what time is. Physics helps us to penetrate layers of the mystery. It shows how the temporal structure of the world is different from our perception of it. It gives us the hope of being able to study the nature of time free from the fog caused by our emotions. But in our search for time, advancing increasingly away from ourselves, we have ended up by discovering something about ourselves, perhaps—just as Copernicus, by studying the movements of the heavens, ended up understanding how the Earth moved beneath his feet. Perhaps, ultimately, the emotional dimension of time is not the film of mist that prevents us from apprehending the nature of time objectively. Perhaps the emotion of time is precisely what time is for us. I don’t think there is much more than this to be understood. We may ask further questions, but we should be careful with questions that it is not possible to formulate properly. When we have found all the aspects of time that can be spoken of, then we have found time. We may gesture clumsily toward an immediate sense of time beyond what we can articulate (“Fine, but why does it ‘pass’?”), but I believe that at this point we are merely confusing matters, attempting illegitimately to transform approximate words into things. When we cannot formulate a problem with precision, it is often not because the problem is profound: it’s because the problem is false. Will we be able to understand things better in the future? I think so. Our understanding of nature has increased vertiginously over the course of centuries, and we are continuing to learn. We are glimpsing something about the mystery of time. We can see the world without time: we can perceive with the mind’s eye the profound structure of the world where time as we know it no longer exists—like the Fool on the Hill who sees the Earth turn when he sees the setting sun. And we begin to see that we are time. We are this space, this clearing opened by the traces of memory inside the connections between our neurons. We are memory. We are nostalgia. We are longing for a future that will not come. The clearing that is opened up in this way, by memory and by anticipation, anticipation, is time: a source of anguish sometimes, but in the end a tremendous gift. A precious miracle that the infinite play of combinations has unlocked for us, allowing us to exist. We may smile now. We can go back to serenely immersing ourselves in time—in our finite time—to savoring the clear intensity of every fleeting and cherished moment of the brief circle of our existence." ***End of excerpts*** from: "The Order of Time" at Amazon == == == == I know - - kind of a long post of just quoting from a book – but I thought some folks might enjoy sifting through the ideas – I know I do – sometimes authors express an idea I already am somewhat familiar with – but they say it with such fluency and coherency! And sometimes I just like hearing someone make a point that is coming from a totally different perspective from mine. The last few years I have gotten more into reading up on philosophy – to be honest, a lot of stuff goes way over my head…but who knows, maybe I’ll learn to swim at the deep end of the pool …but I guess we’re all philosophers to some degree – even if you don’t have a degree == == == Philosophy: "The original meaning of the word philosophy comes from the Greek roots philo- meaning "love" and -sophos, or "wisdom." When someone studies philosophy they want to understand how and why people do certain things and how to live a good life. In other words, they want to know the meaning of life. Add the suffix -er to philosophy, and you get a word for someone whose job it is to think these big thoughts… the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics… any personal belief about how to live or how to deal with a situation" philosophy definition from the internet
  8. Wayne's World Brian Doyle Murray Groundhog Day
  9. Do I hear sirens? A couple of them, perhaps? George
  10. There are movies whose actors I'll recognize. because I've seen the movie. Sometimes, I can answer because there was a lot of publicity. This was neither case. Sorry. And, no, you don't have to give only three actors at a time. You have to START with three actors (or movies); but if no one gets it, just add more names (or titles). George
  11. Thanks WW.........year after year, cult leaders constrict their messaging in attempts to target, and amass, zealous followers. Clearly, wierwille went thru a growing curve when he left his denominational church pastoring in December 1957. For 10 years, he traveled from city to city to teach "his" classes to church-goers..........struggling to gain momentum and/or notoriety. After filming the skinny-tie class (pfal) in 1967.......twi's summer camps helped harden the lines between "us" and "them." To add to your post......I would say that: A cult survives by.......... Hardening the line between "us" and "them" Hardening the line between "them" and "him" How did wierwille harden the line between "them" and "him?" Well, when he plagiarized from other men......he realized later on that he needed to ERASE THE EVIDENCE of this plagiarism and DISTANCE himself from them. In his folly, wierwille admitted another man had schooled him in all this information.... [noted in the 2nd Edition preface section of Receiving the holy spirit Today]. Who was this man? J.E. Stiles "The Word of God is truth. I prayed that I might put aside all I had been taught and start anew with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook. It took me seven years to find a man of God schooled in the Holy Spirit, a man who knew the Scripture on the Holy Spirit, and could fit it together so that I did not have to omit, deny or change any one passage. He made the Scripture fit like a hand fits into a glove, and when you can do that, you can be assured of having truth." ~~~~~~~ Years later......wierwille covered his tracks of plagiarism. Also, in order to herald "the man of God" title.......wierwille could NOT have equals, let alone superiors. J.E. Stiles, the man who schooled wierwille..........had to be erased from being recognized in the 7th Edition preface: "The Word of God is truth. I prayed that I might put aside all that I had heard and thought out myself, and I started anew with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook. I did not want to omit, deny, or change any passage for, the Word of God being the will of God, the Scripture must fit like a hand in a glove." .
  12. I suspect nobody here knows this one. I don't, and George seems equally stumped.
  13. I've seen her in something else, but I didn't recognize her. As soon as looking her up is allowed, I can go.
  14. No, yes all of them are in the movie. I guess that for some reason, I thought I had to play with three actors at a time. At this point. I think I will just leave the final clue. I was holding off playing it figuring that it would surely reveal the movie. But maybe not. As its going now it may be that no one knows this one. Dustin Hoffman Queen Latiifah Emma Thompson Will Ferrell
  15. I don't know. It's also possible that all the other actors you listed were in the movie, but I still don't know. Sorry. George
  16. Last week
  17. "<I mean that pretty much puts the kibosh on critical thinking. And in my opinion critical thinking is pretty much the cornerstone or foundation of how mankind still continues to fill the earth and subdue it. In my opinion asking questions...challenging ideas are all part of the critical thinking process for any discipline - theology, philosophy, the sciences. Even in matters of faith the intellect has its place.II Corinthians 5:7 says we walk by faith and not by sight. It does NOT say we walk by faith and not by reason...I go back and forth - sometimes it's faith in pursuit of reason and sometimes it's reason in the pursuit of faith. oy vey !>" That seems to be the most likely way to understand our current state and status - I was struck by the ideas of a relatively modern philosopher Henri Bergson who did a great deal of work presenting an understanding of time. He described it as duration...although human comprehension may tend to look at time as a way to measure our existence as we experience it and as a long connected stream of events, duration would be more like water. Water in a river running into another river and into an ocean that feeds the river, etc. forever, has been used as a metaphor for "time" and that's one way of understanding it - that we live and exist "in" a state of consciousness that has movement and change but primarily ENDURES and exists as it's most natural state. Things go on that can be measured but our primary means of understanding time as something that "passes" or moves in a direction is through our own physical experience....and without the faculties to remember and anticipate we would simply be in a "now" state - which by human standards wouldn't be a great existence....in fact it can then be postulated that to live in the "now" of a moment is to 1. increase our store of memories and 2. collectively build our understanding of the future. "Learning" by another word. So again, back to basics - Bergson disagreed with Einsteins definition of time as only a physical piece of existence and considered it more perceptual. Their positions most clearly clashed in the consideration of two things happening at the same time -"simultaneity".....and on a practical level I would back out of it all and just say that time is existence, measured by consciousness. If there were no self awareness there would be no concern for the idea anyway, of course. So to me, covenant and dispensational theories are somewhat similar in what they're trying to do - but without a self aware human being living and learning in it's own lifecycle they're meaningless. If I read the Bible the changes in time became self-revealing, it puts them forth in it's own story BECAUSE it's a story and not a set of measured, expected events. In "eternity" our timeline story is actually an impossibly small slice of everything that can't even be seen without getting closer to it....a year in eternity isn't even as big or as "long" as a drop of water in the ocean, .....again, back to basics - that gives a way to understand how God would view it all, much much much much much different than I would or can I have to assume because God is both eternal and now, as seen in God's interactions with humans in our history - assuming that God doesn't move in and out, further and nearer, earlier and later....then He is just "here", "now" and "forever"....and that's pretty much what the Bible tries to say about Him.
  18. OK a big Boo Boo, I've seemed to have gotten off track here. This was not the thread that I thought this was. So I will go with the same movie and some of the Three actors I've already played. Just a minute. Let me read how this game is played............OK, so name the movie these actors were in. Dustin Hoffman Queen Latifah Emma Thompson
  19. Kevin Bacon Animal House Donald Sutherland George
  20. Tony Hale Maggie Gyllenhaal Queen Latifah Linda Hunt Kristin Chenoweth Emma Thompson Tom Hulce Peter Grosz Dustin Hoffman
  21. And I was hoping for anything but TM&AB but;;;;;;;;;;;; Brian Dennehy First Blood Sylvester Stallone
  22. I agree - saying we are not a mix of all that stuff from before but we now have something special worked out with what Jesus Christ accomplished is a big spiritually defining deal! Besides all that he achieved for us spiritually, I think there might be a practical interpretive tool that the Gospels/his earthly life provided. I’ll get to that further down – but first I want to mention something that got me thinking along that line. I just finished reading an interesting book “Making Sense of the Bible” by Adam Hamilton and will probably reread it a few more times down the road since I found a few of the author’s ideas very intriguing. One of the ideas is about how God inspires people today may not be all that different than it was in biblical times… That alone is a lot to think about... And spoiler alert - in case you haven't noticed - a while back I started leaning to a more liberal theology ( which I shared on another thread concerning the Bible ). Our current knowledge of the world often presents challenges when studying the Bible because of the much larger frame of reference that we have. I feel - to be honest - within that larger frame of reference - I must differentiate between the human and divine elements of scripture. Viewing the Bible through an historical lens might recognize certain changes as religious developments. But that’s not to say God is developing…evolving… or has been brainstorming all along the way as if flying by the seat of his long flowing robes, making sure “the changes to policy and procedure” memos get out on time, informing folks of the current way God behaves or superintends his creation…I’m thinking more along the lines of how people mature in their understanding of God. What if the “fabric” of the God-inspired scriptures isn’t so seamless? One of the things that Hamilton’s book got me to think more deeply about is the idea of a dual authorship of scripture. I believe scripture is inspired of God - but there’s the human element of each author. What exactly does that mean to us when trying to understand it? How much of a nuance do we allow for when taking into account the author’s humanness, individual style, historical outlook and cultural context? One of the problems I have with the fundamentalist’s viewpoint of scripture as being inerrant even when speaking of the things of science, history, geography, etc. - is that this viewpoint ignores the human component of authorship and might give the impression that the God who created the cosmos is an ignorant old coot who forgets details and glosses over errors. What does all this have to do with an “administrations” viewpoint? maybe a lot...I dunno – maybe it's important when it comes to practical application. Some scholars suggest one of the things we should do in trying to understand the scriptures is try to understand what a passage meant to the original recipients. But if we look back at when a certain passage occurred and just say that’s how God ran things at that time – we might miss its relevancy for today. For instance, in “The NIV Cultural Background Study Bible” (editors John Walton & Craig Keener) when handling the fall of Adam and Eve in Genesis 3 say that one can imagine a variety of ways that people might strive to “be like God”; some commendable, others inappropriately ambitious or subversive… and that in the ancient near east the aspirations of wisdom and godlikeness were defensibly laudable pursuits… and that back then it was common for folks to meditate on ways in which people succeeded or failed in achieving wisdom and godlike noble qualities. TWI / Fundamentalists take a lot of stuff as very literal – so they focus on the forbidden fruit. What was it exactly? And if not speculating at what the fruit was they usually have a very rigid interpretation of the fall of mankind saying in an act of disobedience they questioned God’s word. While I do agree it was insubordination, I don’t think it was a specific fruit or item in the Garden of Eden – even though it says “you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” since Genesis 1 Informs us that mankind was made in God’s image and was given a very comprehensive mandate to “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” – and besides the fact that we are given very little details of the drama unfolding in Genesis 3 – leads me to believe there’s more here than just someone refusing to simply follow God’s Word without question. I mean that pretty much puts the kibosh on critical thinking. And in my opinion critical thinking is pretty much the cornerstone or foundation of how mankind still continues to fill the earth and subdue it. In my opinion asking questions...challenging ideas are all part of the critical thinking process for any discipline - theology, philosophy, the sciences. Even in matters of faith the intellect has its place.II Corinthians 5:7 says we walk by faith and not by sight. It does NOT say we walk by faith and not by reason...I go back and forth - sometimes it's faith in pursuit of reason and sometimes it's reason in the pursuit of faith. oy vey ! …For me among other things what the story of Adam and Eve shows is the danger of pursuing a shortcut to success. They were already godlike – made in the image of God….this is overly simplistic speculation here – but what if they were freaking out over God’s comprehensive mandate – wondering how they were going to accomplish all that and perhaps the tree of the knowledge of good & evil represented a way to circumvent a lot of long hard work. I dunno…just thinking out loud. ..anyway it seems to have a lot more relevancy for me today if I see the fall of mankind as a life lesson – there’s no such thing as a free lunch. Well, I know there’s a lot more to it than that – just gotta lighten up sometimes. When I get into my critical thinking mode and look at the grand scheme of things in the Bible - why is it I sometimes get bugged by the inconsistencies between one book and another and sometimes find it very difficult to nail down “ the biblical view” on certain topics? Also the character of God seems to change within dispensational or covenant theology...but maybe that's just the way I see things...this point is not a deal breaker. If Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh then why does it seem the loving and forgiving God he reveals is quite different from the law giving , sometimes violence advocating , sometimes outright vengeful God of the Old Testament? It’s also interesting to note that Jesus Christ himself never wrote a book of the Bible... I don’t mean to trash these theologies – but maybe I’m looking for a viewpoint that looks for common ground. Again this is not a deal breaker for me. At the end of this post I will offer some redeeming qualities of these theologies. So anyway, with Jesus Christ being the Word made flesh I find myself trying to work out a Christ-centric theology as an “interpretive filter” when I study the Bible – maybe that’s the common ground...maybe similar to that what-would-Jesus-do thing. May not be the most scholarly way of practical application but it might help me see what’s relevant to living the Christian lifestyle today. In other words, how would Jesus address a certain issue? Take for example how Jesus reinterpreted some Old Testament stuff in Matthew 5: 38 to 48 - what the law said about an eye for an eye. == == == Going over the draft of my post several times – and not wanting to give anyone the idea that I am totally opposed to dispensational or covenant theology - I kept thinking about Galatians 4 Where it says “But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.” I have sometimes wondered why Jesus Christ was born in the first century. Recalling all the prophecies in the Old Testament, all the laws that were laid down, all the accounts that exposed the human condition – I see all that as God’s way of preparing people…helping to guide them in their spiritual growth...in that regard dispensational or covenant theology goes a long way in showing how people grow practically, intellectually, emotionally, socially, spiritually as well as gaining a deeper understanding of God. that's all I have for now...I've tried to edit out the duplicate paragraphs the best I can...sorry for the mess of copying and pasting from my laptop to Grease Spot - - I think next time I will copy the entire draft to Grease Spot, minus the links to outside references - then I will go back and edit in the links...anyway thanks all for listening to my ramblings...time to go to bed...sweet dreams everyone
  23. Three Men and a Baby Steve Gutenberg Cocoon
  1. Load more activity


  • Create New...