A Philosophical Dialogue

Walter Foster87 says: Because man is never the center of the universe, nor can he base his power of action—his movement—on mere whim.

hollowpilot9: And there’s the massive divide right there! Look, I personally think—as irrational as it might sound to some—that man *is* the center of the universe. I mean, sure, I agree you can't base your capacity for action on total randomness; it has to be rooted in evolutionary necessity (LOGOS), if you will. My reasoning comes down to a simple fact: every single cell acts as the center of its own little universe—the entire cosmos that makes up the human organism. So, every cell is a center of the human universe, yet it’s also a center for all those billions of tiny universes swirling around... In an essay I put together—which basically synthesizes all my scattered thoughts from these posts—I argued quite clearly that human intellect and intelligence ultimately reduce the entire universe to pure INFORMATION. By doing that, we become the center of the universe, whether there's just one of them or a billion billion. I follow what you're getting at with the rest of your point (and I agree), but that’s just the kind of intelligence that tracks events and shifts over the short term of past and future. Like I’ve said before, I’m more interested in Phenomenology. I want to find the UNIVERSAL, if such a thing even exists—and I'm inclined to believe it does!

Just a quick follow-up to my previous post.
I stumbled upon some texts online regarding Plato: The Republic:
The Life and Philosophy of Pythagoras Pythagoras was Said to have been The First man to call himself a philosopher
Pythagoras was supposedly the first guy to actually call himself a philosopher—honestly, we probably owe him a debt for even having the word in our vocabulary.
He’s the one who coined "philosopher," defining it simply as someone who is actively trying to figure things out.
Based on this text, Pythagoras was the first to apply the term PHILOSOPHY. In his view—which aligns pretty closely with my own—a philosopher is an investigator seeking truths in relation to the WHOLE. Isn't that basically just the modern definition of a scientist?
Euclidean Geometry
The study of geometry, music, and astronomy was considered essential to a rational understanding of God, man, or Nature, and no one could accompany Pythagoras as a disciple who was not thoroughly familiar with these sciences.
This suggests he was striving for a rational grasp of God, man, and Nature—something that modern scientific frameworks apparently deem impossible today? I wonder why that is...

Theology. He described God as the Supreme Mind distributed throughout all parts of the universe—the Cause of all things, the Intelligence of all things, and the Power within all things. He further declared the motion of God to be circular, the body of God to be composed of the substance of light, and the nature of God to be composed of the substance of truth.

So, according to this, God moves in a circular motion, His body is woven from light, and His very nature is comprised of Truth. It’s interesting how much this mirrors various religious doctrines.

Philosophy. Pythagoras taught that both man and the universe were made in the image of God; that both being made in the same image, the understanding of one predicated the knowledge of the other. He further taught that there was a constant interplay between the Great Man (the universe) and man (the little universe).

From this, we see that Pythagoras believed man and the universe were created in the image of God. Since they share that same blueprint, the image of Homoteras is identical to the image of man and humanity. He believed there was a continuous interaction between the Great Man (Homoteras—corresponding to the single Being of the universe) and man (the micro-universe).
It seems Pythagoras and I are thinking along very similar lines. My own interpretation is built upon the findings of modern biology, physics, and chemistry, alongside new insights into the significance and scope of tetrahedral philosophy as understood through contemporary science—what was known in his era as the TETRAKIS.
I’ll say it again: if a cell is the center of the microcosmos, then man is the center of the macrocosmos! It simply couldn't be any other way.
Cosmology. A theological system in which God was considered as the Great Man and, conversely, man as the little god. Continuing this analogy, the universe was regarded as a man and, conversely, man as a miniature universe. The greater universe was termed the Macrocosm—the Great World or Body—and the Divine Life or spiritual entity controlling its functions was called the Macroprosophus. Man's body, or the individual human universe, was termed the Microcosm, and the Divine Life or spiritual entity controlling its functions was called the Microprosophus. The pagan Mysteries were primarily concerned with instructing neophytes in the true relationship existing between the Macrocosm and the Microcosm—in other words, between God and man.
This passage illustrates the idea of God as a Great Man, a macrocosmic being, while man serves as a small god. Following this logic, man is naturally equal to a miniature universe, just as the universe is a vast version structured identically to the small one. Pre-religious pagan beliefs held that a constant correlation exists between the macrocosm and the microcosm—that is, between God and man.

In Isis Unveiled, H. P. Blavatsky summarizes the pagan concept of man as follows: "Man is a little world—a microcosm inside the great universe. Like a fetus, he is suspended, by all his three spirits, in the matrix of the macrocosmos; and while his terrestrial body is in constant sympathy with its parent earth, his astral soul lives in unison with the sidereal anima mundi. He is in it, as it is in him, for the world-pervading element fills all space, and is space itself, only shoreless and infinite. As the material nature of man is therefore within the sum of spirit, so the Universal Nature, including the entire sidereal system, is within the all-pervading essence of God—the Universal Spirit."

It looks like Blavatsky also sees a direct link between man and the universe here—so, it’s perfectly logical to argue that man is actually the center of everything. Think about it: we are essentially a condensed point of the macrocosm where everything folds in on itself, creating this inversion of existence and being. This is, of course, the "point" of Origin—the very vantage point from which I'm speaking and writing.

This attachment makes it clear that my perspectives possess an ancient continuity, one that modern science is actually starting to support and validate today. Because of that, we're looking at an absolutely NEW PHILOSOPHY—one that finds its roots in ANCIENT PHILOSOPHIES, much like the ideas found in Plato: The Republic and the work of other researchers from his era.

hollowpilot9 said:You know, I honestly feel like—no matter how "irrational" it might seem to some people—that man really is the center of the universe! I guess it just feels right, you know? Maybe it sounds a bit much, but there's just something about it!

Is the center really this Pythagorean "little God"? I mean—it could have definitely gone a different way! Human consciousness tends to be pretty egocentric, doesn't it? It’s almost like that old saying—"When I die, the whole world dies with me!"—which I guess is just how we're wired.

hollowpilot9 said:I don't know—maybe I’m overthinking it—but I really can't get behind the idea that one's ability to act (or move, I guess?) is based on mere whim. To me, it feels like it has to be rooted in evolutionary necessity—you know, that sense of LOGOS...

Look, there’s a difference between external circumstances—you know, those little constraints that make a person feel "unfree"—and the actual essence of freedom. To me, the real deal is equality in action! Think about it this way: if some wild animal blocks my path, I’m not going to blame that on tyranny or claim someone is usurping my liberty—I mean, I wouldn't get mad at a mountain just because it's standing in my way, right? But—and this is the big part—all those people who are allowed to do things that I am strictly forbidden from doing? Well, I *will* view them as tyrants, usurpers, or even "demigods." If we're talking about that interpersonal freedom—that raw power to act that no other human can restrict—then unless that power is balanced by everyone else being equally restricted, it isn't really freedom. In my opinion, that balance is the only kind of freedom that has actually mattered since the beginning of time!

hollowpilot9 said:Honestly, I’m way more interested in Phenomenology! I’m talking about that truly UNIVERSAL stuff—if such a thing even exists, though I really, really think it does!

Phenomenology—if you want to get technical about it—is really just a tapestry woven from mediation, those weird little unexpected turns, and all those "dark and honorable corners of ignorance" that act like protective filters for the light of Truth.

hollowpilot9 said:Back in the day, folks believed that mastering Euclidean Geometry, music, and astronomy was basically a prerequisite if you wanted a real, rational grasp of God, man, or Nature—it was just that essential! I guess you couldn't exactly follow Pythagoras around as a disciple unless you already had a pretty solid handle on those sciences. It was kind of a "know your stuff first" kind of situation!
It looks like he was really striving to find a rational way to understand God, man, and Nature—even though modern scientific tools seem to claim that’s impossible nowadays?! I don't know why that is... maybe we've just lost our way?

Maybe—and I mean this is just a thought—they've lost their way and are looking in all the wrong places. What if they’re actually just chasing a "shadow"? It feels like they might be searching for some kind of external reflection of themselves instead!

hollowpilot9 said:It’s pretty wild when you think about it—it really shows how God moves in circles, right? Like, His very essence is woven from light, and His nature is built entirely out of Truth. I guess we see similar ideas popping up in various religious traditions too!

Circular motion always seemed like such a fitting concept—mostly because it feels totally infinite, right? But then you get to the part where anything that actually moves is technically changing, which kind of creates this weird contradiction. I guess that leads to the question: wouldn't it make more sense for God to just be in a state of total stillness instead? Then there’s the whole idea of light—it could represent the gap between mere knowledge (which is like the darkness) and true understanding (the light), or maybe it just symbolizes pure, absolute Truth. And since Truth is basically the prerequisite for acting rationally and making free choices... well, I suppose we're really talking about assumed attributes here. In my view, quality is simply how much these attributes resemble Him—without any need to worry about cultural differences or how isolated different groups might feel!

hollowpilot9 said:… From this text, you can see that God is imagined as a Great Man—as a macrocosmic being—while man is a little God. Following this analogy, man is logically equal to a small universe, while the universe is equal to a large universe that is structured just like that small one. Pre-religious pagan views held that there is a constant correlation between the macrocosm and the microcosm—that is, between God and man.…

Then there’s Hobbes's "Leviathan"—so, I guess the universe isn't the only Great Man out there! However, it seems to have become common practice to view the Totality (where God is this entire world—which means I'm actually missing from His fullness of existence!) as the foundation of pantheism.
Personally, though, that doesn't really feel like the heart of the matter to me. I'm not disputing the intelligence found in nature, but—what really worries me, and what I tend to focus on—is man and human society. And I don't mean that for the sake of Truth or some lofty ideals or higher interests—no, it's exclusively for the sake of man. Because, I mean, even Truth doesn't exist for its own sake, right? It exists for the sake of the "perfected" (the whole, complete...) man.

Walter Foster87 : The center as that (Pythagorean) "little God"!? Well, there were other ways to look at it. Human consciousness is inherently self-centered—it’s basically the embodiment of the old cliché: "When I die, the whole world dies with me."

hollowpilot9: That ego-driven consciousness is so nauseatingly predictable that I honestly "spat it out" a long time ago. Yeah, I'm thinking of Pythagoras, sure, but also all those belief systems and frameworks that came before him. In that spirit, I’ve been sitting on a new topic that’s pretty much ready to go. If you think this would interest the non-egocentrics out there, let me know, and I’ll pull the trigger on it. Here’s how the intro looks:
WHERE ARE SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY, AND RELIGION LEADING US?
( Evolutionism vs. Creationism, Theism vs. Atheism, Materialism vs. Idealism )
Since the beginning of time, man has been asking questions about the Creator of the macrocosm and macro-life. The pre-scientific Jewish, Christian, and Islamic religious traditions are creationist. On the other hand, the scientific tradition is evolutionist. This is essentially a materialistic theory suggesting that existence is merely the result of physical and chemical interactions. This creates a timeline of events from the Big Bang to the present day. Along this stretch of maybe 15 to 20 billion years, science doesn't find God. That’s the stronghold of scientific materialism for the argument that God doesn't exist. If He does exist, as theology claims, then God must reside somewhere behind the Big Bang. It’s a realm that remains unreachable for both theology and science alike. Consequently, people have split into those who believe in God—theists—and those who see no sign of Him in this universe—atheists. Divided this way, they clash over origins: is it a natural, materialistic evolutionary process, or is it a creative act mediated by the supernatural intelligence of the Creator—God? The Greek philosophers believed matter was eternal and didn't need a Creator. They thought some kind of force existed within matter that could make it come alive. This interpretation was explained through a philosophical system known as MATERIALISM.
The great naturalist Aristotle argued that some kind of special force stands behind every living phenomenon, calling it *anima*—the soul. This animistic projection of life force into inanimate matter served as his substitute for the Creator. Materialists, however, maintain that only physical forces—like gravity, electromagnetism, and nuclear forces—are real. Anything that can't be measured or tested is dismissed by materialists as nothing more than a product of human imagination. According to the laws of physics and chemistry, matter simply changes shape, eventually transforming into the form of life. Much of these materialistic theories have fallen silent today, eclipsed by the emergence of a NEW SOCIAL—GLOBAL FORM OF "MATTER IN MOTION."
Matter no longer moves solely through natural physical and chemical laws; it now moves through the WILL OF MAN. No chunk of Earth's matter can launch itself toward Mars or Mercury without human will and intelligence. No astrophysical law governing the creation of atoms in stars can manifest on a "tiny speck" like Earth without the will and intelligence of man. Traditional theories are stumbling over this fact because it introduces a mind and a capability that tradition once reserved exclusively for the Creator.
Man knows he possesses cognitive traits and a massive capacity for abstractly visualizing what he sees with his eyes. These qualities have manifested especially strongly since the middle of the last century through the creation of artifacts that even the wildest imagination couldn't conceive. Traces of this immense human creativity can be found in early Egyptian religious reality. Because it's impossible to see the Creator with the naked eye, many "see" a sort of lost force or a lost spirit. This kind of "seeing" is called ANIMISM. Microbiologist J. Mond defines animism as the projection of human consciousness into inanimate nature, functioning like a central nervous system. From this comes the hypothesis that natural phenomena can be explained in the same way as subjective human activity. Thus, Plato believed that the force shaping all things from chaotic matter was a kind of abstract personalization of his own thinking power. Unlike Aristotle, Plato finds that within the human mentality lies a driving and creative force that religion attributes to God. The Great Spirit of God is, in a reduced sense, the spirit of man. This leads directly to the philosophical system of IDEALISM.
In all those early civilizations—think ancient India, Persia, Egypt, or Greece—there was this pervasive belief that man and the cosmos were crafted from the same blueprint. Essentially, the existence of the universe and the presence of God are just two sides of the same coin, a mirror image of a single reality. Under this view, God isn't some distant, detached Being hovering far above our world; rather, God is embedded *within* this world, manifesting itself through man. These cultures operated on the idea of a constant, flowing interaction between the MACROCOSM (the vast Universe) and the MICROCOSM (the biological man). It’s almost like the Jewish concept of the Golem—something once as massive as the heavens that was eventually scaled down to an earthly, then purely biological, human measure.

Now, if we look at Pythagoras—who spent time in Egypt and the Near East soaking up local wisdom—he stumbled upon the idea that everything in the cosmos, from elemental matter to physical laws and energy, is mirrored at a micro-level within the human body. He and his contemporaries basically argued that whatever exists outside of man also exists within him. From this perspective, the theology of the time dealt with two concepts: first, the MACRO MAN, who is the GREAT GOD CREATOR, and second, the MICRO BIOLOGICAL MAN, who is the SMALL GOD CREATOR. The distinction between the large and small God is really just an evolutionary one—not unlike the difference between a child and an adult. The small God creator evolves toward the great God creator. Or, to put it more simply, man evolves toward God. Even traditional theology dances around this duality, pointing to the tension between the grand, sweeping God of Moses and the small, vulnerable God-child in the manger—Jesus. But long before that specific imagery took hold, Pythagoras and his peers viewed the vast universe as a massive biological organism—a Man—while the biological individual was seen as a tiny universe. They called them the MACROCOSM and the MICROCOSM. Again, the gap is purely evolutionary. The microcosm develops and expands until it reaches the macrocosm, where a new microcosm is born, which then grows into yet another macrocosm. One fades as the other emerges, much like the cycle of a human life. It’s interesting how pre-Christian pagan societies saw this interactive, inverse correlation between the two; even Blavatsky puts a modern spin on it, suggesting that "man is a little world—a microcosm nested within the vast macrocosm, much like a human fetus is a microcosm of cells held within the macrocosm of a woman's body."
These perspectives suggest that the debate between theism and atheism—or idealism versus materialism—doesn't have to be a polarized, "either-or" fight. There’s a way to see them as mutually constructive. That second path involves recognizing the fundamental identity between man and God, which is essentially the core message of the Bible delivered through the God-man, Jesus. It seems to me that this message has roots stretching back to the dawn of time, and what we see today is perhaps a scientific anticipation of that ancient religious truth.

So, there's my opening pitch for a new topic. What do you guys think?

Walter Foster87 says: The phenomenology of the universal fabric is made up of mediation, unexpected twists, "dark and honorable corners of ignorance," and various other filters that shade the light of Truth.
hollowpilot9: It all depends on your vantage point, doesn't it? Are you looking from the beginning toward the end, or from the end back to the start? Are you moving from the center to the periphery, or from the edge inward? Are you following the "light" that once shone in ancient Egypt, or the light shining on Victory Avenue after defeating an enemy? If you understand the underlying logic of events, there are no "unexpected" twists. We can be certain that the baby snake on the perimeter will strike the moment its speed crosses the runner's threshold...

Walter Foster87: Perhaps they're just lost, searching in all the wrong places. What if they're actually chasing a "shadow"—just hunting for some external reflection of themselves?
hollowpilot9: You can always doubt things, I suppose. People tend to get worked up, acting all cynical about things they haven't even touched, seeing nothing but catastrophe everywhere. The other day, I "sold" my neighbor a recipe for staining wooden railings—something I'd perfected over four years of trial and error. He looks at me and asks, "But what if the glaze and the varnish don't mix?" I gave him a very "cultured" response: "Why don't you go to hell before they even have a chance to mix?"

From what I can gather, THEY (the Pythagoreans) actually went out and FOUND God in the right damn place. Even the intro to this new thread hints at that...

Walter Foster87: Circular motion was considered appropriate because it feels infinite. But then again, anything that moves is also changing, which creates a bit of a paradox, doesn't it? So, would it not make more sense for God to be in a state of absolute stillness? Light could represent the distinction between mere knowledge (darkness) and the actual understanding of what is known (light)—much like how it might signify pure, ultimate Truth. And since Truth is the prerequisite for rational action, free will, and making choices... we’re really just talking about assumed attributes here. Quality is merely their way of describing how much they resemble those divine attributes—without getting bogged down in cultural differences or isolation.

Continuation:
hollowpilot9: There’s a gentleman here in the States who wrote a book for his Master’s thesis titled "THE REVEALED FACE OF THE CIRCLE." Honestly, the content is extraordinary—it’s at such a high intellectual level! Out of pure goodwill, I once wrote about thirty pages on the "Phenomenology of the Circle," solely to demonstrate what the circle actually signifies in our practical, everyday lives—specifically within engineering PRACTICE. A little later, in a letter or perhaps just speaking casually, I mentioned that one should pair the Phenomenology of the Circle with a Phenomenology of the Anti-circle. Without that, you can't even see the revealed face of the circle! So, does the circle have its own anti-circle? And if it does, what exactly is an anti-circle??
Besides, any thought regarding the circle ought to be accompanied by thoughts of the sine wave—motion isn't just circular, it's oscillatory. In my opinion, we still haven't quite settled the business regarding the circle. It’s a rather complex "philosophical toy." Personally, I’m more drawn to two inverse tetrahedrons, where one is a tetrahedron and the other is an anti-tetrahedron. Could the answers to all the world's questions—including the mystery of the circle—be found there?

Walter Foster87: Well, there's also Hobbes's "Leviathan"—so the universe isn't the only Great Man out there. However, it seems to have become common practice to assume that Totality (God is this entire world—and for the fullness of existence, I am missing from Him) serves as the foundation for pantheism.
To me, though, that doesn't quite strike as the center of everything. I don't dispute the intelligence inherent in nature, but—what concerns me, and what I focus on, is man and human society. Not because of Truth or some lofty ideals or higher interests, but exclusively for the sake of Man. After all, even Truth doesn't exist for its own sake, but for the sake of a "perfected" (complete, ...) man.

hollowpilot9: There is also the "great Gulliver," and I completely agree with your interest in "man and human society." I don't deal with it specifically, but as an aside, I MUST, and I find myself increasingly inclined toward the realization that HUMAN SOCIETY is breaking down, atomizing, becoming centralized, heating up, turning more chaotic—more plasma-like—vanishing... Instead of the "old society" that is fading away, I see the emergence of some NEW INTEGRATED HUMAN SOCIETY where Man can be either a PARTNER or a SERVANT. Who becomes which is irrelevant. In this new society, the SERVANT LIVES AS GOD OR ALL GODS LIVE AS SERVANTS! If you think that’s a utopia, you’re mistaken!
Here is an excerpt of how I contemplate man and human society TODAY:
Such a VITAL, rather than MORTAL, epilogue is particularly important now, as death is moving into our habitats from all sides, especially from the direction of JIHAD. We just saw on the news in Baghdad a heavily wounded man saying: "No great or heavy wound hurts me, for I am a warrior of Allah." To some, this religious warrior might seem like an anachronism, a fanatic, or someone religiously narrow-minded, but above all, one must see that this is a mass phenomenon shaking the world, nations, cities, our homes, and ourselves, spreading the fear of terror and death. If this modern phenomenon is understood as a sign of "GLOBAL DEATH"—what is already called "GLOBAL TERRORISM"—and placed within the context of the macrocosmic being—Homoteras or God—then it becomes easy to see that people have always died in the name and for the account of this great cosmic master, first as a sacrifice to God, and then as a struggle—WAR in the name of God and for God, which today is simply labeled as a struggle—War in the name of Allah.
If all the religious warriors in the world, including these Islamic ones, knew that the master they fight for—whom they call God or Allah—truly exists as HUMANITY at its evolutionary peak, they would never carry out death in His name or for His account. Because HE, as has been shown, truly exists in a unified state of IMMORTALITY, and therefore all His components are immortal—and those components are cells and people. Killing an immortal man is the absolute nonsense of a foolish man doing it!

Walter Foster87 said:So, with that in mind, I decided to go ahead and kick off this whole new thread—it’s been sitting in my head for a bit! —and I wanted to dive straight into the deep end... WHERE ARE WE ACTUALLY HEADED WITH SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY, AND RELIGION?

I’ve had a chance to look over the rest of the text, and honestly—this is what I’m thinking. It’s pretty clear that just having basic, everyday knowledge isn't really enough for us humans. Since the dawn of time, people have been haunted by these massive, fundamental questions—you know, the ones where you either can't find a straight answer, or if you do, they feel totally "elusive"—or maybe all the arguments out there are just pure speculation. I guess it's just part of being human!
That would definitely make for an interesting post—but honestly, it feels a bit too broad, doesn't it? I guess there's also a real risk that people might just skim right over it without really believing what they're reading. It seems like most folks wouldn't even bother to read the whole thing, let alone actually jump in and join the conversation!
I feel like before anyone dives into a big discussion like this, we should probably establish some sort of baseline—you know, maybe touch on some fundamental ideas from religion, philosophy, or even science first? It might help set the stage!
If we look at how faith splits—kind of like that synthetic division where you get two non-polarities—you see how both religions and atheism start to diversify. It’s all happening! Even within what seems like one monolithic religious group—take Catholics, for example—there's this constant, simmering tension going on. You have one group that still sees God as this figure riding over armies, another group searching for God within the human experience itself, and then there are those who place Him entirely outside the Big Bang—or maybe just tucked away within His own dimensions. It's pretty wild when you think about it!
Man, once you actually go out there and try to define faith—or even just a specific slice of it like organized religion—you’re basically signing up for a lifetime of arguments! You'll have your hands full dealing with all the skeptics and critics, I guess. It's definitely going to be a lot of work!
That’s exactly what’s going to happen to you when you dive into philosophy—it's inevitable! I mean, people can never quite agree on why we even bother with it. Some say it's all about chasing wisdom, others argue it's strictly about uncovering the truth, and then there's the group that thinks it's really about the human element—you know, because without some level of certainty regarding reality, or even just a bit of practical wisdom, it’s basically impossible to act rationally in the real world. It's a bit of a toss-up, I guess!
I mean, before we dive headfirst into that, maybe we should probably try to pin down exactly what we mean by faith, religion, atheism, or pantheism—and honestly, the same goes for philosophy, metaphysics, ideology, and theology... I guess? Once we have those definitions sorted out, then we can look at whether we see similar kinds of branching paths within science itself. Only after all that, then maybe we could move on to the specific post you're suggesting!

Walter Foster87 said:So, I was reading up on Pythagoras—who spent some time traveling through Egypt and the Middle East—and he actually came up with these fascinating ideas! He basically suggested that everything out there in the universe, you know, like all those elements of matter, the laws of physics, and various forms of energy, is somehow perfectly optimized at a micro-level within the human body itself. It’s wild to think about, but Pythagoras and his contemporaries really believed that everything existing in the vast cosmos also exists right here within us... what a cool way to look at things!

It’s a great starting point, really—but maybe a little narrow when you look at the whole scope of the natural world? It’s actually pretty interesting how that same parallel pops up when you try to bridge the physical world with abstract concepts. I mean, think about it—we only really grasp what's around us through our own senses and mental faculties. Because of that, I guess we're kind of stuck; we can't really find anything "beyond" what our senses and abilities allow us to perceive. Sure, we can definitely boost our sensory reach with cool tech and gadgets—kind of like how a telescope changes things—but when it comes to our actual cognitive abilities (especially our reason and intellect), there isn't really an external fix for those inherent limits. So, no matter where we wander or how far we go—I'd say a person won't find anything in the entire universe that they couldn't eventually discover within themselves!

Walter Foster87 said:I honestly think that perspectives like this—and plenty of others just like it—really show that we don't have to view the debate between theism and atheism, or idealism versus materialism, as this big, polarized, "us vs. them" battle. There’s actually a much more constructive way to look at it! To me, that second path is really about recognizing the fundamental connection between humanity and God—which, if you think about it, is basically the core message of the Bible through Jesus. It’s almost like that message has been there since the very beginning, and maybe—if I'm being honest—what we're seeing today is just science finally catching up to those ancient religious ideas.

So, that would be the intro for a new thread. What do you guys think?....

Maybe an alternative approach would be to just ask it straight out: DO YOU KNOW WHAT NON-POLAR FAITH IS? (Or maybe: ARE THERE ONE OR MORE NON-POLAR FAITHS!?)
Then, as people start joining the conversation, I could gradually introduce the core idea—you know, the connection between Humanity and God, or how theism and atheism overlap... essentially "pushing" this concept while defending it—to help develop a sense of tolerance and peace. To me, those values aren't destroying polarity, they’re actually making it harmless by embracing it.

Walter Foster87 said:… ………….Instead of seeing the "old society" fading away, I see the rise of a NEW INTEGRATED HUMAN SOCIETY where a person can be either a PARTNER or a SERVANT. It doesn't really matter which one someone chooses. In this new society, the SERVANT LIVES AS GOD, or perhaps ALL GODS LIVE AS SERVANTS! If you think that's just some utopia, you're mistaken! ….

If you're thinking along the lines of "Let neither the first be too certain, nor the last be discouraged!"—well, that still feels like just a society of equal opportunity (for everyone), which is a goal people have been chasing since the beginning of time.

Walter Foster87 said:… ………….Here, look at… human society TODAY:
… in news reports from Baghdad, they showed a man who was severely wounded, saying, "No great wound can hurt me, because I am a warrior for Allah." … First off, we have to recognize that this is a massive phenomenon shaking the world—nations, cities, our own homes—spreading fear through terror and death. If we view this modern phenomenon as a sign of "GLOBAL DEATH"—which is what we now call "GLOBAL TERRORISM"—and look at it through the lens of a macrocosmic Being—the Homoterus, or God—then it becomes easy to see that people have always died in the name of this great cosmic master. It used to be offered as a sacrifice to God, and later as war fought for God, which today is simply labeled as fighting in the name of Allah.
If all the religious warriors in the world, including these Islamic ones, truly understood that the master they fight for—whether called God or Allah—actually exists as HUMANITY at its evolutionary peak, they would never kill in His name. Why? Because HE is, as it turns out, truly IMMORTAL in a unified state, which means all His components—people and cells alike—are immortal too. Trying to kill an immortal human is just total nonsense by a foolish person! ….

And you can see a similar pattern elsewhere. Terrorism is often just used to justify oligarchic rule and the tyranny of the majority. Nothing keeps them in power quite like creating a challenge that makes the public tremble at the thought of instability or change, forcing everyone to pour all their energy into "dealing" with terrorism. Meanwhile, global terrorism just paves the way for a global oligarchy and tyranny. Honestly, it’s pretty pathetic when you consider that the "warrior for Allah" is actually fighting for the glory, greatness, and longevity of the America and the G7 as they exist today. Both sides are basically working toward the same goal—there's no doubt about that. But the real issue isn't just whether America might encourage or orchestrate global terrorism—though, if you think about it, they probably would if it didn't already exist (just look at all those movies and sci-fi novels where this kind of terrorism is always looming). The real question is: would the world move faster toward its ultimate goal without these conflicts, or would it get stuck in some long, drawn-out "peaceful stalemate"?

Before we dive headfirst into that proposal of yours, shouldn't we probably try defining our terms first? I mean—faith, religion, atheism, pantheism... then you've got philosophy, metaphysics, ideology, theology... the whole list. We should probably map all that out and see if similar distinctions exist within science before we get too carried away. Once we actually know what we're talking about, then maybe we can move on to the specific post you're suggesting.
Alright, let's get this show on the road—time to tackle the "blind spots." Let’s start by mapping out what we actually know—nothing too broad, just the essentials—and then we can move on to laying down our own definitions. Our own rules, if you will. One step at a time:

So, let’s start with how we actually define faith—because apparently, we need to get our definitions straight before we go any further. According to Antic, there are basically three ways to look at it: first, you’ve got religion itself, which is just that whole organized system of religious life; then, there’s the idea of placing massive trust in someone or something—you know, total reliance; and finally, it's that "final word" kind of thing. Or is it? Just food for thought, I guess.
So, regarding religion—here’s how it breaks down: first, you've got a set of beliefs or a collection of dogmas... and second, it's that belief in one or more supernatural beings or forces. Simple enough, right?
Not a single word of philosophical jargon to be found... seriously?
So, what do we actually know about faith these days? According to Antic—who clearly has some strong opinions on the matter—it’s nothing more than a nightmare. Meanwhile, if you ask any philosopher, they’ll probably just tell you we haven't the slightest clue. It's all a bit much, isn't it?

So, here’s how I’d define it—if anyone actually cares for my take on this: Faith is just that intuitive gut feeling—that quiet, unshakable conviction—that what I already know to be true and possible will actually happen and exist. It’s less about proving things and more about just... knowing. Does that make sense? Or am I just overthinking the whole thing again?

Here are a few examples that actually back up this definition—if you want to see how it holds water:
So, Watson and Circle of Faith are out here claiming they’re going to crack the code and uncover the actual structure and logo of the DNA molecule—but honestly, do they have any clue how they plan to actually pull that off? It feels like they’re talking big without having the slightest idea what the first step even looks like.
The laser beam enthusiasts over at Circle of Faith actually believe they can multiply photon energy—and honestly? They claim they’re pulling it off, too.
There are hundreds of cases just like this—where having FAITH actually comes before anything else ever becomes a reality.
Look, I’m telling you—I truly believe there’s this universal model, a sort of underlying Logos, that governs every single phenomenon in existence. And honestly? I think the reason I was able to uncover it is simply because I believed it was there in the first place. It’s almost circular, isn't it? You find what you're looking for because you already expect to find it.
People who believe in God—I mean, because they cling to that belief so fiercely and for so long—well, does that somehow prove God exists? Is that how the logic works? Or is it just one of those things where we mistake the intensity of our own conviction for actual evidence?
Lay out what you know and give me your own take—we can either find some common ground or just agree to disagree—and then we’ll move right along to defining religion itself.

It’s an excellent starting point, really—though maybe a bit narrow if we’re looking at the broader scope of the natural world. It’s funny how that same parallel keeps popping up when you try to bridge the gap between physical reality and the world as an abstract concept. Think about it: humans rely entirely on their senses and innate capabilities to make sense of everything around them. We’re essentially trapped within those parameters. In that process, we aren't even capable of perceiving anything "greater" or "further" than the actual objects our senses can touch or see. Sure, we can technically extend our sensory reach with gadgets and high-tech tools—I mean, why wouldn't we?—but when it comes to our internal faculties, specifically the mind and reason, there isn't exactly a technological workaround for those limitations. So, no matter where we go or how deep we dig, we won't find anything in the entire universe that we couldn't eventually find within ourselves.

hollowpilot9: To make things sound "even better and more natural," I’d add:

It’s basically the same thing the Pythagoreans used to argue—back when they were obsessed with it—about how that specific number, four, was essentially nature's eternal product. You can see it in those old verses they used to recite like some kind of solemn oath:
I swear on my life—and I mean that with everything I am—to the sacred Four.
To the ultimate source of eternal Nature—the one who crafted the soul.
Even when I’m diving into this topic, my take remains the same: the Pythagoreans didn't exactly view duality as just some simple number—it was more about how unity fuses together. Because of that, they actually argued that its square serves as the very first even number—and honestly, there’s a pretty solid reason behind that logic.
(Written by Paula)

That’s exactly how Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans approached it—and honestly, they were spot on. They weren't just guessing; they were thinking in total harmony with nature and that underlying natural—well, let's call it Divine—phenomenon they swore by every single day. If you actually take the time to dig into what the Pythagoreans considered "Divine," and then compare it to what Ezekiel viewed as the Divine—or God—it becomes blindingly obvious. You start to see that Pythagorean philosophy, their religion, and our modern "high-level" four-dimensional science aren't different things at all. They're all just one and the same.

Maybe there’s a better way to frame this—just throw it out there directly: Do you actually know what non-polar faith is? Or better yet... is there even such a thing as one, or maybe several, different non-polar faiths out there?
So, as more people start jumping into the conversation, you really have to point them back to the core idea—that whole concept of interconnectedness between Man and God, where theism and atheism aren't actually warring factions... You know? The goal should be to basically weave this perspective in—defending it, sure—but using it as a way to foster actual tolerance and peace. It’s about building a consciousness that recognizes this non-polar faith. It doesn't try to erase the polarities themselves—it just makes them harmless by integrating them. Does that make sense? It's about making the friction obsolete.
Sure, we can take that route if you want—but let’s try to get our definitions straight first, just like we planned at the start. If we’re going to tackle the whole concept of Religion, we’ll eventually have to dive into different "types" of faith, which means dealing with polarized versus non-polarized belief systems. Here’s my thesis—and yes, I’m prepared to defend it: Western religions are inherently polarized, whereas pre-Western and Eastern traditions tend to be non-polarized. Just a thought.

Democracy: If you’re referring to that whole “let no one be too certain, nor anyone discouraged” vibe—well, that’s really just describing a society built on equal opportunity for everyone, an ideal we've been chasing since the beginning of time.

hollowpilot9: Obviously, it's always just SOCIETY—it’s just a matter of how it’s structured or shaped. You know better than most that we had the societies of Athens and Sparta, whose legacies still ripple through us today. One historian I spoke with once argued that Athenian society basically jumpstarted Western civilization, whereas the Spartan model ended up lost in some backwater nowhere under the command of some idiot general.

Democracy: You can see a similar pattern elsewhere. Terrorism is often used as a convenient excuse to justify oligarchic rule or the tyranny of the majority. And honestly, nothing keeps them in power quite like a manufactured threat—something that makes the public tremble at the thought of instability on one hand, while forcing them to pour every resource into "fighting" terrorism on the other. As for global terrorism, it essentially serves to manufacture a global oligarchy and tyranny. It’s pretty pathetic when you think about it—how those "warriors" are actually fighting to secure the glory, scale, and longevity of the current American and G7 status quo. In this tug-of-war, both sides are effectively working toward the same goal—there’s no doubt about it. But the real issue isn't just whether America would incite or orchestrate global terrorism—not that it wouldn't happen if they could (just look at their movies or sci-fi novels, where this kind of terror is always looming). The real question is: would the world actually progress faster toward its ultimate goal without these conflicts, or would we all just get stuck in some long, global "peaceful swamp"?

hollowpilot9: Look, I can’t—and frankly, don't know how to—dispute what you’re saying. But to me, it feels like any phenomenon with the character of this specific type of terrorism—especially when it scales from individual acts to mass movements—carries some hidden, deeper implication. There’s no room here to bring in the Butterfly Effect, or my usual point that intelligent people bear the heaviest responsibility for tragic events that occur simply because they used their wisdom to conclude that something was "insignificant."
The crux of it all is definitely this idea of the "peaceful swamp," right?? Is peace actually a swamp, or is it something else entirely? Is a void without any dynamic movement truly peace? Those are questions for "real" philosophy, I suppose. I’ve spent plenty of time listening to lectures and reading up on this, and after some thinking, I've landed on the idea that we have at least two—actually, let's say four—fundamental "peaceful swamps": one internal and one external. This external one usually crops up after exhaustion, after the struggle, after the war... The first one is permanent, while the second is fleeting. Personally, I’m rooting for the first kind of "swamp"—the one that acts as a catalyst for functional, constructive, and enduring life dynamics, much like the force of creative love.