The Nature of the Holy Spirit

[_JAK]

son stated Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:00 pm:
Have you ever been still? Asked God if He is? Thought beyond doubt?
True joy only comes from knowing truth, and living it. If you have a fulness of joy, then you have found your place.
If you have not, you may decide to keep searching. Here is a key, it is within you, and you are more loved than comprehensible at this time.


No rejoinder to my analysis or meaningful response.

You assume that which is not established. You assume God. Doubt is the father of discovery. It is why we advance in knowledge and information. That is, we (humans of intellect) doubt the mindless myths of earlier generations and ask why. We seek information and evidence about events.

Of course we want and welcome “thought.” And we test conclusions based on evidence for those conclusions. That’s how we have the computer on which you read these communications and why planes we fly. That’s how we achieve medical science which cures and/or treats disease. That’s how we employ our brain to think and to address with rational and transparent intellect all that we address with honesty.

“Joy” is an emotion. It can be based on honest knowledge of fact. It can also be based on superstition. However, superstition makes no advances in medical science or science of any sort. It is rooted in ignorance. So the joy that is produced by ignorance is phony and a fraud. People who find their “place” in ignorance not knowledge lack intellectual integrity. The “key” to genuine knowledge is forward-looking accumulation of information which benefits, enlightens, and advances the best of human intellect.

Superstition/religion fails in all of the above. It relies on dogma via doctrine and wallows in misinformation and ignorance.

We didn’t get the polio vaccine out of religious myth. We don’t advance the knowledge in the frontiers of any area by adherence to religious myth. And genuine joy comes from information not from ancient links to ancient superstition.

JAK

[_JAK]

Roger,

Let me address part of your comment.

Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:10 pm Roger stated:
Generally speaking a "Spiritual" person is concerned about the 'Spirit' of another person. That the other person (all others) be validated, unthreatened, encouraged and assisted when need be--without discrimination.

The statement is circular There is no evidence presented for any commodity “spiritual.” There is no evidence for the claim “spiritual” or “spirit of another person” as you claim.

We can observe and quantify emotions in humans. That appears to be the extent of “spiritual” in any discussion. We “assist” and “encourage” people as we observe their emotional or physical need for that. Absent further detailing, “spiritual” is meaningless. What is it beyond emotion? You have not established any notion as valid.

To be sure we feel anxiety, we feel threatened, we feel encouraged, we feel assisted when other act in particular ways. The response is an emotional response. “Spiritual” has not been distinguished. And, in your statement it’s a circular statement. Spirit of another person is not established. We can establish emotional state of another person. You present no distinction.

JAK

[_Roger Morrison]

Roger,

Let me address part of your comment.

Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:10 pm Roger stated:
Generally speaking a "Spiritual" person is concerned about the 'Spirit' of another person. That the other person (all others) be validated, unthreatened, encouraged and assisted when need be--without discrimination.

The statement is circular There is no evidence presented for any commodity “spiritual.” There is no evidence for the claim “spiritual” or “spirit of another person” as you claim.

We can observe and quantify emotions in humans. That appears to be the extent of “spiritual” in any discussion. We “assist” and “encourage” people as we observe
their emotional or physical need for that. Absent further detailing, “spiritual” is meaningless. What is it beyond emotion? You have not established any notion as valid.

Jak, thank you for your correction. I agree, "There is no evidence for the claim "spiritual" or "spirit of another person..." as referrenced. So being in error using that time-worn terminology, what terms would be more appropriate and accurate?

It is common to say when one dies their "spirit leaves their body." What would you say? Obviously there is evidence of some change. Is it simply a chemical (mechanical) breakdown? One moment alive, next moment dead. That is the reality. Maybe i've answered my own question??

When one could be described as "mean spirited" traditionally, would you understand what would be meant by that? Might it be more correct to say, "mean disposition" from your perspetive?

To be sure we feel anxiety, we feel threatened, we feel encouraged, we feel assisted when other act in particular ways. The response is an emotional response. “Spiritual” has not been distinguished. And, in your statement it’s a circular statement. Spirit of another person is not established. We can establish emotional state of another person. You present no distinction.

JAK

Could it be there is no "distinction" to establish? What is in question might only be linguistics peculiar to cultural conditioning... Street language vs formal terminology of academia??? It appears to me there might be upper-case & lower-case "Spirit" &/or "spirit" both rooted in antiquity and passed to us in the Bible. Granting validity, or not, depending on one's take on religion.

Might the biggest concern be more with "Spirit" as a member of the Trinity than with "spirit" as one's disposition? Presuming that distinction, and disbelieving in the "Trinity" and 'Holy Spirit', i'm with you...(in good spirit ;-)... Warm regards, Roger

[_JAK]

Roger Sat Aug 18, 2007 2:20 am

Roger stated:
Could it be there is no "distinction" to establish? What is in question might only be linguistics peculiar to cultural conditioning... Street language vs formal terminology of academia??? It appears to me there might be upper-case & lower-case "Spirit" &/or "spirit" both rooted in antiquity and passed to us in the Bible. Granting validity, or not, depending on one's take on religion.

There is a distinction. Here’s why. Religious people use the term “spirit” or the term “spiritual” to refer to some entity which is (in their view) supernatural. They don’t use it to mean an emotional response such as surprise or anger or fear. However, I have challenged such individuals themselves to distinguish between emotion and spirit or spiritual. None has been responsive to that challenge. While it might be a “linguistic” question, the people who are religious rarely if ever recognize that “spiritual” is no different than “emotion.”

Virtually no one religions equates the two. A “religious experience” is not the same as an emotion or an emotional response. My challenge to them has been to make a genuine and transparent distinction.

“Spiritual” is not only passed on by various Christian groups. Islam also characterizes experiences as “spiritual” as do some other world religions. You’re correct that the term comes from “antiquity.” But it persists today as people declare that they have had a spiritual experience.. It can be reduced to an emotional experience. They are unable to make a clear distinction. They also frequently become agitated when it’s suggested to them that there is a different word absent any real distinction.

God did it is always with emotional impetus along with other religious references in which they employ a word like “spiritual.”

Roger stated:
Might the biggest concern be more with "Spirit" as a member of the Trinity than with "spirit" as one's disposition? Presuming that distinction, and disbelieving in the "Trinity" and 'Holy Spirit', I'm with you...(in good spirit ;-)...

It’s an additional reference as capitalized (in your example). The doctrine of the Trinity is generally vague with language open to interpretation. “Holy Spirit” in conjunction with Father, Son is different than a statement: We had a spiritual experience. Yet, there is a clear intent to connect in the latter with “Holy Spirit” as characterized by Christian doctrine/dogma.

People tend to characterize unusual, positive events as products of “the spirit.” It’s always vague and based on some personal, narrow escape or positive experience. Since they don’t really attempt to understand the intellectual analysis of why, they call something “a miracle.” But it must be good in their view. That is, a terrible event (in their view) is generally not perceived as “a miracle.”

A bad event is prayerfully contemplated. Or, We don’t always understand God’s ways. All that is invented fiction to fit within their God myth or spiritual myth.

Not a shred of evidence actually supports such vague and emotionally charged references by those who have been indoctrinated religiously.

JAK

[_son]

son stated Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:00 pm:
Have you ever been still? Asked God if He is? Thought beyond doubt?
True joy only comes from knowing truth, and living it. If you have a fulness of joy, then you have found your place.
If you have not, you may decide to keep searching. Here is a key, it is within you, and you are more loved than comprehensible at this time.


No rejoinder to my analysis or meaningful response.

You assume that which is not established. You assume God. Doubt is the father of discovery. It is why we advance in knowledge and information. That is, we (humans of intellect) doubt the mindless myths of earlier generations and ask why. We seek information and evidence about events.

Of course we want and welcome “thought.” And we test conclusions based on evidence for those conclusions. That’s how we have the computer on which you read these communications and why planes we fly. That’s how we achieve medical science which cures and/or treats disease. That’s how we employ our brain to think and to address with rational and transparent intellect all that we address with honesty.

“Joy” is an emotion. It can be based on honest knowledge of fact. It can also be based on superstition. However, superstition makes no advances in medical science or science of any sort. It is rooted in ignorance. So the joy that is produced by ignorance is phony and a fraud. People who find their “place” in ignorance not knowledge lack intellectual integrity. The “key” to genuine knowledge is forward-looking accumulation of information which benefits, enlightens, and advances the best of human intellect.

Superstition/religion fails in all of the above. It relies on dogma via doctrine and wallows in misinformation and ignorance.

We didn’t get the polio vaccine out of religious myth. We don’t advance the knowledge in the frontiers of any area by adherence to religious myth. And genuine joy comes from information not from ancient links to ancient superstition.

JAK

You assume that I assume.
Knowledge without wisdom is futile.
Science without passion or purpose is empty and vain.
Joy is why we are, it exists regardless of scientific evidence or pursuit.
It exists regardless of scientific proof or analysis.
Science is bound by physical constraints
Belief has no limits

[Guest]

son stated Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:00 pm:

Have you ever been still? Asked God if He is? Thought beyond doubt?
True joy only comes from knowing truth, and living it. If you have a fulness of joy, then you have found your place.
If you have not, you may decide to keep searching. Here is a key, it is within you, and you are more loved than comprehensible at this time.


No rejoinder to my analysis or meaningful response.

You assume that which is not established. You assume God. Doubt is the father of discovery. It is why we advance in knowledge and information. That is, we (humans of intellect) doubt the mindless myths of earlier generations and ask why. We seek information and evidence about events.

Of course we want and welcome “thought.” And we test conclusions based on evidence for those conclusions. That’s how we have the computer on which you read these communications and why planes we fly. That’s how we achieve medical science which cures and/or treats disease. That’s how we employ our brain to think and to address with rational and transparent intellect all that we address with honesty.

“Joy” is an emotion. It can be based on honest knowledge of fact. It can also be based on superstition. However, superstition makes no advances in medical science or science of any sort. It is rooted in ignorance. So the joy that is produced by ignorance is phony and a fraud. People who find their “place” in ignorance not knowledge lack intellectual integrity. The “key” to genuine knowledge is forward-looking accumulation of information which benefits, enlightens, and advances the best of human intellect.

Superstition/religion fails in all of the above. It relies on dogma via doctrine and wallows in misinformation and ignorance.

We didn’t get the polio vaccine out of religious myth. We don’t advance the knowledge in the frontiers of any area by adherence to religious myth. And genuine joy comes from information not from ancient links to ancient superstition.

JAK

You assume that I assume.
Knowledge without wisdom is futile.
Science without passion or purpose is empty and vain.
Joy is why we are, it exists regardless of scientific evidence or pursuit.
It exists regardless of scientific proof or analysis.
Science is bound by physical constraints
Belief has no limits

------------------------------

Greetings son,

First, thank you for your response. I’ll address it.

son stated:
You assume that I assume.

I quoted you thus:

son previously:
Have you ever been still? Asked God if He is?


Do you see your assumption? You assume God in your question. You stated your assumption in the question.

No evidence has been established for the claim. Beyond that, virtually everyone who assumes God, goes on to make multiple assumptions regarding their God invention. They do not agree. They argue over the nature of their assumed entity. They argue over the power or lack of power over their assumed entity.

While I don’t know your views on those issues, your questions clearly assumed God.

Hence, I did not do as you state when you say: “You assume that I assume.” Can you see that?

Since God is not established, why would I ask God?

What I have asked God pundits is for their evidence. Rather than offer evidence, they generally just make more claims on top of previous claims which assume God.

Hence, the burden of proof lies with those who make the claim God.

Now in your question, is it as appropriate for me to investigate the God claims of Islam as it is to investigate the God claims of one or all of the more than 1,000 groups calling themselves Christian? It would seem so. Any group or individual which claims God is a group or individual to which questions might be addressed.

Does not that seem reasonable to you? What is their position? What are their claims? What evidence do they present which is clear, transparent, and open to investigation? Does that seem reasonable to you? If you think it not reasonable, can you clarify your thinking?

son stated:
Knowledge without wisdom is futile.

The statement is an additional assertion. Moreover, it begs the question for evidence for any God claim.

Definitions are required here for your new assertion.

son stated:
Science without passion or purpose is empty and vain.

son, this is yet another assertion. It’s evasion of the first issue: evidence for God.

While it would take significant space to write, we have much evidence for “purpose” in honest intellectual inquiry which science makes. Think of the medical advances made as a result of medical science. I surely need not enumerate them. Consider all the amenities which applied science has given us that we use daily. Those have been pursued with both “passion” and “purpose.” They are neither “empty” nor “vain.”

If you regard the applied sciences of medicine, construction, or invention as “empty and vain,” I should like your discussion on that claim. You were non-specific. I have no intention of putting words in your expression. I address the words you wrote and address them.

I would argue that “science” has been pursued with great “passion” and “purpose” particularly in past 200 years. Do you think otherwise? If so, would you address that?

son stated:
Joy is why we are, it exists regardless of scientific evidence or pursuit.


Really? That’s another assertion in the first five words. One could make a case that humans experienced the emotion “joy” of a sort prior to what we enjoy today as a result of modern science.

However, I would suggest that if those who suffered or died from polio (just to mention one disease) had lived after the vaccine which prevented that disease, they would have had far greater “joy” in their life as well as a longer life. Would you not agree?

Of course, “joy” is relative. For the vast populations of this earth which have no medical care, disease, malnutrition, and starvation, “joy” is virtually non-existent. Would you agree?

If you were forced to be transported at this moment to a Third World country lacking in electricity, medical care, and all that modern science affords you, would you see that as a “joy”? I would be most skeptical if you answer “yes” to that question.

I disagree with your assumption. “Joy” by virtually any measure is not directly linked to comfort, health, and longevity of life. While some may have “joy” in wishful thinking, they would be unlikely to trade with people in Third World countries.

son stated:
It (joy) exists regardless of scientific proof or analysis.

As my previous response has implied, I would be most skeptical of that conclusion. “Joy” absent good health, medical health care, and modern conveniences would not exist as we, who have all the comforts which applied science provides, enjoy.

Again, I ask if you had a magical choice, would you choose to have lived in the Dark Ages? Would you choose to divest yourself of all you access to live in a Third World country with no safe water, no electricity, no medical care?

So, “joy” is inherently linked to applied science as evidence clearly can demonstrate. (Again, I address your words quoting you exactly.

son stated:
Science is bound by physical constraints
Belief has no limits

Brain functions are physical and clearly have “physical constraints.” Your term “belief” is ambiguous. Of course one can believe anything one wishes. Absent evidence, a belief is irrelevant. One can believe that he can fly (no airplane or rocket) and jump from the Sears Tower in Chicago. So while you may argue that “belief has no limits,” such belief absent clear, transparent confirmation is both irrelevant and unreliable. Santa Claus visits every child on Christmas Eve with toys. A child may be misled to believe that. But it’s false. Beliefs absent evidence or contrary to know fact are both irrelevant and dangerous.

Again, son, I thank you for your reflections. I would be pleased for you to quote me directly as I have quoted you and ask questions or offer analysis.

JAK

[_The Nehor]

Of course, “joy” is relative. For the vast populations of this earth which have no medical care, disease, malnutrition, and starvation, “joy” is virtually non-existent. Would you agree?

If you were forced to be transported at this moment to a Third World country lacking in electricity, medical care, and all that modern science affords you, would you see that as a “joy”? I would be most skeptical if you answer “yes” to that question.

I disagree with your assumption. “Joy” by virtually any measure is directly linked to comfort, health, and longevity of life. While some may have “joy” in wishful thinking, they would be unlikely to trade with people in Third World countries.

What the hell? JAK, have you ever been to a nation that has less health care, less food, and more disease? Many of them are quite happy. "Virtually non-existent"? That screams of someone who has never left their web connection and gone out and lived. People don't need knickknacks to survive, they've been doing it for millenial. Happiness is not a new state western civilization invented.

Joy is not linked to comfort, health, and longevity. History is not one long story of endless suffering until someone invented the lightbulb.

[_JAK]

Of course, “joy” is relative. For the vast populations of this earth which have no medical care, disease, malnutrition, and starvation, “joy” is virtually non-existent. Would you agree?

If you were forced to be transported at this moment to a Third World country lacking in electricity, medical care, and all that modern science affords you, would you see that as a “joy”? I would be most skeptical if you answer “yes” to that question.

I disagree with your assumption. “Joy” by virtually any measure is directly linked to comfort, health, and longevity of life. While some may have “joy” in wishful thinking, they would be unlikely to trade with people in Third World countries.

What the hell? JAK, have you ever been to a nation that has less health care, less food, and more disease? Many of them are quite happy. "Virtually non-existent"? That screams of someone who has never left their web connection and gone out and lived. People don't need knickknacks to survive, they've been doing it for millenial. Happiness is not a new state western civilization invented.

Joy is not linked to comfort, health, and longevity. History is not one long story of endless suffering until someone invented the lightbulb.

It appears as if you read only three paragraphs from my more lengthy response to son.

Second, your comments fail to address what in fact I stated to son. You misrepresent by paraphrasing that which I didn’t state.

Third, you belabor the irrelevant. Since you have previously admitted that you don’t read posts well, perhaps a more careful reading of my
complete post to son Sun. Aug. 26, 2007 1:50 PM would be helpful to understand my comments to him.

In the three paragraphs which you quoted from the 26 which were a response to son, you do not address my study and thinking.

Nehor stated:
What the hell? JAK, have you ever been to a nation that has less health care, less food, and more disease? Many of them are quite happy.

The questions are irrelevant to the issue, and the statement is contrary to investigative research.

People who suffer from disease, lack sanitation to provide good health, and lack sufficient quantity and quality of food languish, deteriorate, and die prematurely. You surely don’t need evidence to recognize that. Such people are not “quite happy” as you appear to claim.

Half of the world’s population (nearly 3 billion people) live on less than $2 a day. The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the poorest 48 nations (i.e. a quarter of the world’s countries) is less than the wealth of the world’s three richest people combined.

Nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names. Less than one per cent of what the world spent every year on weapons was needed to put every child into school by the year 2000 and yet it didn't happen.

The wealthiest nation on Earth has the widest gap between rich and poor of any industrialized nation. The poorer the country, the more likely it is that debt repayments are being extracted directly from people who neither contracted the loans nor received any of the money.

20% of the population in the developed nations, consume 86% of the world’s goods. The top fifth of the world’s people in the richest countries enjoy 82% of the expanding export trade and 68% of foreign direct investment — the bottom fifth, barely more than 1%.

In 1960, the 20% of the world’s people in the richest countries had 30 times the income of the poorest 20% — in 1997, 74 times as much.

An analysis of long-term trends shows the distance between the richest and poorest countries was about:
· 3 to 1 in 1820
· 11 to 1 in 1913
· 35 to 1 in 1950
· 44 to 1 in 1973
· 72 to 1 in 1992

Please review the following websites for a greater appreciation of global poverty.

Poverty Around the World

Number of People Living in Poverty

Understanding Poverty

Measuring Global Poverty

Poverty Threshold

Hunger and World Poverty

Nehor stated:
What the hell? JAK, have you ever been to a nation that has less health care, less food, and more disease? Many of them are quite happy. "Virtually non-existent"? That screams of someone who has never left their web connection and gone out and lived. People don't need knickknacks to survive, they've been doing it for millenial (millennia). Happiness is not a new state western civilization invented.

The ad hominem (personal attack) is irrelevant to the issue of World Poverty. The above web links and the information preceding it can hardly be interpreted to result in “quite happy”.

Here is the straw man attack in your statement:

Nehor stated:
People don't need knickknacks to survive, they've been doing it for millenial (millennia). Happiness is not a new state western civilization invented.

A straw man attack is to imply or state something attributing it to one who never stated it and then attack it as if it had been stated.

No one ever argued that people “need knickknacks to survive.” So, you make an attack on a position which was not taken by anyone.

It’s dishonest, Nehor. It fails to address in any way what I stated in my comments to son.

Let’s see again what I actually stated:

Of course, “joy” is relative. For the vast populations of this earth which have no medical care, disease, malnutrition, and starvation, “joy” is virtually non-existent. Would you agree?

If you were forced to be transported at this moment to a Third World country lacking in electricity, medical care, and all that modern science affords you, would you see that as a “joy”? I would be most skeptical if you answer “yes” to that question.

I disagree with your assumption. “Joy” by virtually any measure is not directly linked to comfort, health, and longevity of life. While some may have “joy” in wishful thinking, they would be unlikely to trade with people in Third World countries.

In the first paragraph which you quoted, I ended with a question for son. My position is that those suffering from lack of food, lack of quality medical care, and disease experience little or no “joy” as we understand the word.

“Joy” is greatly diminished by lack of essentials for physical well-being.

Those of us who enjoy both good health and the means to maintain that good health are freed to enjoy those things in which we have interest and things for which we have talent.

In the second paragraph, I asked son to imagine himself transported to a country which is as those in my many weblinks above -- Third World countries which have no electricity, no medical care, and no modern applied science.

I did not wish that on him, but rather asked him to contemplate what it would be like. I further speculated that he would not enjoy the prospect if it were a real probability.

In the third paragraph, I set forward the position that “joy” and I shall add for you, Nehor, that enjoyment of anything in life is linked to those things which I mentioned.

People dying of starvation cannot be accurately characterized as “happy.”

People suffering from any disease cannot accurately be characterized as “happy.”

Perhaps your error was in misreading my comments to son.

Or perhaps some other factor was the case.

Nehor stated:
Joy is not linked to comfort, health, and longevity. History is not one long story of endless suffering until someone invented the lightbulb.

Again, you engage in the straw man attack.

Previously, I stated that “joy” is relative (to son). You have not refuted that. Actually, “history” for much of the world’s population is intimately connected with “suffering.” However, your characterization of my position is inaccurate. I did not state your inaccurate paraphrase here.

JAK

[_Roger Morrison]

JAK, thanks for the stats & sites.

As i read, it was said by the poor, in another part of the world, 'to know your children were safe... was a most important issue'. I cannot help but wonder how in the USA, and increasingly in Canada, that "knowing your child is safe" is not a given, where we do have the prerequisites--education, health care, etc--the poor of other countries lack...

Will you address what you think the causes, and remedies, of these social inconsistencies might be? Having "it all" and still living in fear and "want"... Actually living in "need" of life-essentials--that some might describe as "spiritiual"--while surounded in goods-&-services, that for whatever reasons, do not satisfy???

Might be a bit garbled, but i'm confident in your ability to understand what i'm 'trying' to get at ;-) Warm regards, Roger

[_JAK]

JAK, thanks for the stats & sites.

As I read, it was said by the poor, in another part of the world, 'to know your children were safe... was a most important issue'. I cannot help but wonder how in the USA, and increasingly in Canada, that "knowing your child is safe" is not a given, where we do have the prerequisites--education, health care, etc--the poor of other countries lack...

Will you address what you think the causes, and remedies, of these social inconsistencies might be? Having "it all" and still living in fear and "want"... Actually living in "need" of life-essentials--that some might describe as "spiritiual"--while surounded in goods-&-services, that for whatever reasons, do not satisfy???

Might be a bit garbled, but I'm confident in your ability to understand what I'm 'trying' to get at ;-) Warm regards, Roger

Roger,

If I misunderstand in a response, ask further. You pose tough questions -- typical of one who thinks -- (that’s a compliment).

Roger stated Wed Aug 29, 2007 1:08 am:
As I read, it was said by the poor, in another part of the world, 'to know your children were safe... was a most important issue'. I cannot help but wonder how in the USA, and increasingly in Canada, that "knowing your child is safe" is not a given, where we do have the prerequisites--education, health care, etc.--the poor of other countries lack...

I think you’re correct. Of course “safe” is relative. With instant news, we hear about an unsafe situation or tragedy almost immediately. Decades ago, information of a tragedy, an accident, even a murder did not get instant transmission. So while information did get around, it did so with much less speed. And safety (even relative safety) is not a given -- as you correctly observe.

Yesterday, CBS Radio News told a story of two girls just standing outside in a Chicago suburb visiting when they were shot -- not because they were being shot at but because gang members were after each other (not the girls). One died instantly, the other was pronounced brain-dead at a Chicago hospital.

The point I make is that the NEWS was instant in this country wherever CBS network radio is heard. I suspect that other radio networks also reported the story, but I heard it on CBS.

Had this been a few decades ago, the story would likely not have been circulated -- certainly not as quickly as it was today.

Another aspect of this is that people tend to feel less safe as a result of learning about tragedy quickly. Injuries and deaths occurred in farm accidents before tractors. The farm was (still is) a dangerous place for children (and adults). BUT, the story of a tragedy there was mostly local -- a range of a relatively few miles.

The “prerequisites--education, health care, etc.” likely make us safer, yet we recognize that “safe” is not an absolute. Instant access to information that previously would have been unknown, gives us a different perspective than was the case in 1907 and up to the time of expansion of mass media.

Roger stated Wed Aug 29, 2007 1:08 am:
Will you address what you think the causes, and remedies, of these social inconsistencies might be? Having "it all" and still living in fear and "want"... Actually living in "need" of life-essentials--that some might describe as "spiritiual" (spiritual)--while surounded (surrounded) in goods-&-services, that for whatever reasons, do not satisfy???

More complete information and that instant access alters our understanding.

Causes:
We have more people today globally. That instant communication tends to make for great dissatisfaction among the have nots who gain some knowledge about higher quality of life in places with health care and education. Knowledge of “social inconsistencies” exacerbates dissatisfaction in more impoverished countries. Not only do they lack access, gaining it is a frustrating challenge.

The gap between rich and poor even in the USA is significant.

The transfer of wealth tends to be up. (I realize that requires documentation if you are skeptical.) That is, those with the greater wealth use a variety of devices and mechanisms which transfer wealth (and all the benefits which that entails). I don’t know if I need to support this principle for you, Roger. It would take space. But, I’ll be happy to do that should you ask or be skeptical of that.

We have in the USA to a worrisome degree a shrinking middle-class. Democracy (as a governing force) is threatened by that shrinking middle class. Why? Laws tend to be made by the wealthy for the wealthy. As a result, wealth is transferred up.

Again, I’m open for interrogation.

Remedies of these social inconsistencies:

Social inconsistencies are inherent in any social situation. That is, any civilization along with its culture(s) has “levels” if you will, or classes within a civilization and its culture(s). Power and wealth are not divided without “inconsistencies.”

While some people may think that’s bad, I can think of no civilization/culture in which that was not or did not become the case. Just the division of labor makes for “inconsistencies.” Not all tasks are equal. They’re not equal in intellectual level. They’re not equal in physical exertion. They’re not equal in risk.

As we have more people within a civilization/culture, we inherently have more “social inconsistencies.” Someone plants the seed. Someone else may harvest the seed. Still someone else may process the seed. And yet someone else may market the seed now transformed into food product. ...and so forth (today) to the top of companies with presidents, vice presidents, CEOs, etc.

As a result of many tasks and as a result of generated levels of expertise (or lack of expertise), social inconsistencies are inherent.

Your statement implies “remedies” should be for social inconsistencies. I’m skeptical of that conclusion or that it could be placed into effect.

I’m also skeptical that people would want it. That bears much more discussion, I know. You may interrogate if you like.

Roger stated Wed Aug 29, 2007 1:08 am:
Having "it all" and still living in fear and "want"... Actually living in "need" of life-essentials--that some might describe as "spiritiual"--while surounded in goods-&-services, that for whatever reasons, do not satisfy???

Well, I wouldn’t agree with your conclusion. We don’t have it all. To be sure some have more than others. No one escapes threats to health and to life. Both tend to produce some/much fear. Fear of death produces a variety of phantom ways out. There is little doubt that some are “surrounded in goods-&-services...” As they are human, emotions tend to make people want emotional comfort level. They devise various ways to achieve that.

For children, it’s often the parent(s) who provide emotional comfort level. Certainly, we can observe that an infant demonstrates both emotional and physical desire for a comfort level. An infant is satisfied but only for a short time. Then that infant needs another fix of something to be satisfied.

But adults too are consistently looking for a better mouse trap (as the cliché describes).

I think there is an error to conclude that no one is satisfied. (You didn’t say that directly.) Perhaps many are not. The human impulse to achieve more or to acquire more is stronger in some individuals than in others. The successful business man who works many hours to be come even more successful might be illustrative of one for whom satisfaction is always ahead of where he is.

Perhaps the many achievements and advances the most privileged of us enjoy are a result of not satisfied. For the most privileged, the first water well satisfied only shortly. Then they/we had to have the water in house -- one spicket. Then we had to have running water in the house. Then we had to have running water and toilets -- then baths -- then a bath for every bedroom -- then a guest bath/toilet, etc. ...not satisfied On to a swimming pool, etc. ...not satisfied On to multiple homes with all water amenities.

(restating)
Roger stated Wed Aug 29, 2007 1:08 am:
Having "it all" and still living in fear and "want"... Actually living in "need" of life-essentials--that some might describe as "spiritiual"--while surounded in goods-&-services, that for whatever reasons, do not satisfy???

“Spiritual” phantoms don’t satisfy either. People who pursue such have to keep pursuing. They also keep changing their perceptions of “spirit” inventions. They argue about and challenge one another as to whose phantom is correct. Some people attend religious services multiple times a week. Some people feel compelled to thank God every time they eat. The compulsion appears not to satisfy. (Of course, I recognize these people don’t consider that they pursue an illusion. But whatever they consider, it does not satisfy.)

Yet we (in the privileged classes), do not feel compelled to drop a crystal glass on a ceramic floor daily to be satisfied that the result will be a broken crystal glass. People who pray every day (or multiple times a day) don’t demonstrate satisfaction which is generally emotional rather than with achievement.

And I tried to be brief :-)

JAK