Recognition
Short study41 total reviews
Comment from Sandra Stoner-Mitchell
I am so glad I found this piece of writing, it was such a fascinating read, AND I could see where you were coming from. It made a great deal of sense. I will read it again, and probable again, to fully appreciate what you are saying. I hope to read a lot more of your writing. xsx Sandra
reply by the author on 16-Apr-2014
  |
I am so glad I found this piece of writing, it was such a fascinating read, AND I could see where you were coming from. It made a great deal of sense. I will read it again, and probable again, to fully appreciate what you are saying. I hope to read a lot more of your writing. xsx Sandra
Comment Written 16-Apr-2014
reply by the author on 16-Apr-2014
-
Thank you much...John
Comment from DonandVicki
A very thought provoking and well composed philosophical essay. It gives the reader a lot of amazing things to think about. Don
reply by the author on 16-Apr-2014
|
A very thought provoking and well composed philosophical essay. It gives the reader a lot of amazing things to think about. Don
Comment Written 16-Apr-2014
reply by the author on 16-Apr-2014
-
Thank you much...John
Comment from elchupakabra
This is by far my favorite piece of writing that I have read on FS. This literally needs to be shouted from the rooftops. I write similarly themed works, like an essay I wrote called The Gods of the Gaps, explaining religion's allegorical representation of the procession of the equinoxes. What you've written here is ultimately the conclusions I came upon during my research, but I loved your GOD analogy with the computer, I thought that was brilliant. Truly fantastic work here, thanks for sharing.
reply by the author on 15-Apr-2014
 |
This is by far my favorite piece of writing that I have read on FS. This literally needs to be shouted from the rooftops. I write similarly themed works, like an essay I wrote called The Gods of the Gaps, explaining religion's allegorical representation of the procession of the equinoxes. What you've written here is ultimately the conclusions I came upon during my research, but I loved your GOD analogy with the computer, I thought that was brilliant. Truly fantastic work here, thanks for sharing.
Comment Written 15-Apr-2014
reply by the author on 15-Apr-2014
-
Thanks for the kind words and stellar review. I hope to post this as the introduction to all my essays very soon...John
Comment from Leonardo Wild
Hi Cogitator,
Read your post and found it without fault ... except, perhaps, for one, that is in any case subjective and entirely based on my Cognition (to use your term), and not on the writing itself. The fault or slip-up or issue appeared here:
--To me, this metaphysical universe is the software I call the Grand Operating Design. The physical world (hardware) and the spiritual world (software) must coexist for us to recognize our universe.
You mention metaphysical, and you mention physical, and then you make the leap from metaphysical and make it directly exchangeable with spiritual. In my Cognition and research and effort to understand the world around me, I've come up with the idea that you have:
a) Physical,
b) Metaphysical,
c) Spiritual.
The three are like a braid, you can't have one without the other (even if, in our limited way of looking, our Truth tells us that only one or the other exist). In other words, all three are part of the greater whole, or your Grand Operating Design. But metaphysical and spiritual are two different threads in the Eternal Braid (to give it a name).
In general terms, such a distinction does not in any way add or subtract from your short study, it is only something I wanted to share with you as a common fallacy when talking about the non-material.
But of course, this can be seen as just semantics ... however, it is in semantics where the great divides happen when two or more parties wave their Ultimate Truth.
reply by the author on 15-Apr-2014
|
Hi Cogitator,
Read your post and found it without fault ... except, perhaps, for one, that is in any case subjective and entirely based on my Cognition (to use your term), and not on the writing itself. The fault or slip-up or issue appeared here:
--To me, this metaphysical universe is the software I call the Grand Operating Design. The physical world (hardware) and the spiritual world (software) must coexist for us to recognize our universe.
You mention metaphysical, and you mention physical, and then you make the leap from metaphysical and make it directly exchangeable with spiritual. In my Cognition and research and effort to understand the world around me, I've come up with the idea that you have:
a) Physical,
b) Metaphysical,
c) Spiritual.
The three are like a braid, you can't have one without the other (even if, in our limited way of looking, our Truth tells us that only one or the other exist). In other words, all three are part of the greater whole, or your Grand Operating Design. But metaphysical and spiritual are two different threads in the Eternal Braid (to give it a name).
In general terms, such a distinction does not in any way add or subtract from your short study, it is only something I wanted to share with you as a common fallacy when talking about the non-material.
But of course, this can be seen as just semantics ... however, it is in semantics where the great divides happen when two or more parties wave their Ultimate Truth.
Comment Written 15-Apr-2014
reply by the author on 15-Apr-2014
-
Great review! You are correct when I lump spiritual and metaphysical together. Metaphysical means "beyond the physical" as I use it and "spirit" falls in that same category in my thoughts. Truly appreciate the kind words and stellar rating. I hope to post this as the introduction to all my essays very soon...John
Comment from Riss Ryker518
This was an awesome piece of literature. I guess it really is true about the truth setting you free. Truth, by definition, is consistent, but each man's version of the truth is different. Loved this!
reply by the author on 15-Apr-2014
|
This was an awesome piece of literature. I guess it really is true about the truth setting you free. Truth, by definition, is consistent, but each man's version of the truth is different. Loved this!
Comment Written 15-Apr-2014
reply by the author on 15-Apr-2014
-
Thank you so much...John
Comment from bluedragon776
Dude, this is HEAVY stuff. Unfortunately, humans are WAY too flawed to EVER do this exercise in mass. Too bad, no wonder life is so sh_ity. I found something you may want to look at: I think "Theory of Relitivity" should be italized.
reply by the author on 15-Apr-2014
|
Dude, this is HEAVY stuff. Unfortunately, humans are WAY too flawed to EVER do this exercise in mass. Too bad, no wonder life is so sh_ity. I found something you may want to look at: I think "Theory of Relitivity" should be italized.
Comment Written 15-Apr-2014
reply by the author on 15-Apr-2014
-
Thank you so much...John
Comment from Jackarrie
Hi, a very enjoyable essay to read, very informative and it is written very clearly for all to understand your point of view. Of course attitudes are very important. An openness to new discoveries, and to seek the truth as much as possible.
Truth has no need for belief or faith. We either know it or don't know it. We certainly were born with it, but it has been buried under Society's compost pile. We have to dis-cover it to recover it. We have to use reflection to find our cognition.
Well done, Mary
reply by the author on 15-Apr-2014
|
Hi, a very enjoyable essay to read, very informative and it is written very clearly for all to understand your point of view. Of course attitudes are very important. An openness to new discoveries, and to seek the truth as much as possible.
Truth has no need for belief or faith. We either know it or don't know it. We certainly were born with it, but it has been buried under Society's compost pile. We have to dis-cover it to recover it. We have to use reflection to find our cognition.
Well done, Mary
Comment Written 15-Apr-2014
reply by the author on 15-Apr-2014
-
Thank you very much...John
Comment from Michaelk
A well written, and thought provoking piece. You built your point like you were building a house. You laid the foundation, and worked your way up. Very well done.
reply by the author on 15-Apr-2014
|
A well written, and thought provoking piece. You built your point like you were building a house. You laid the foundation, and worked your way up. Very well done.
Comment Written 15-Apr-2014
reply by the author on 15-Apr-2014
-
Thank you...John
Comment from sweetwoodjax
this is very well written, cogitator, you did an excellent job writing this essay about the way we have recognition built into us. i enjoyed reading this one....
reply by the author on 15-Apr-2014
|
this is very well written, cogitator, you did an excellent job writing this essay about the way we have recognition built into us. i enjoyed reading this one....
Comment Written 15-Apr-2014
reply by the author on 15-Apr-2014
-
Thank you...John
Comment from JavaJunkie
These are big thoughts that are well articulated and even though I disagree with your end conclusion I think your argument is well formed, and challenging.
I would challenge this sentence...
If a hundred readers were to read this post, there would be a hundred different takes on it. I do get what you are trying to say, but to me this doesn't logically fit with your description of group dynamics and the singularity of the collective thoughts. I really liked what you said about groups rarely letting in 'new truth'. I believe in absolute truth, however I have experienced this pressure to conform to the commonly or long held belief's even though they may not be true, or at the very least may be incomplete truth's or truth taken out of context.
In conclusion I think your writing is clear and concise, which is impressive considering the big message here.
I don't have to totally agree with you to give you five stars:)
reply by the author on 14-Apr-2014
|
These are big thoughts that are well articulated and even though I disagree with your end conclusion I think your argument is well formed, and challenging.
I would challenge this sentence...
If a hundred readers were to read this post, there would be a hundred different takes on it. I do get what you are trying to say, but to me this doesn't logically fit with your description of group dynamics and the singularity of the collective thoughts. I really liked what you said about groups rarely letting in 'new truth'. I believe in absolute truth, however I have experienced this pressure to conform to the commonly or long held belief's even though they may not be true, or at the very least may be incomplete truth's or truth taken out of context.
In conclusion I think your writing is clear and concise, which is impressive considering the big message here.
I don't have to totally agree with you to give you five stars:)
Comment Written 14-Apr-2014
reply by the author on 14-Apr-2014
-
Thank you. A group dynamic is more based on agreement than thinking. Each member of a group will still have their own individual value for the group agreement. Thank you...John
