GrimoireA3 wrote: Any philosophical ponderers out there? Or even Masonic perpenders? What's your take on Human Nature? Thanx!

Just look around you.

GrimoireA3 wrote: coach wrote:  Just look around you. *Ahem*  -  And?

and observe it all around you.

droche wrote: What is a perpender? I know I could look it up but may as well hear your definition so if I decide to discuss, we can both be on the same page.

Perpender -- one who is driven by his proclivity to perpend.

Perpend - 1. To reflect on or consider carefully; ponder. 2. To be attentive; reflect. 3. An archaic word for ponder. 4. A large stone that passes through a wall from one side to the other.

(source: Building Perpends, page v) http://www.coach.net/BuildingPerpends.htm

droche wrote: What is a perpender? I know I could look it up but may as well hear your definition so if I decide to discuss, we can both be on the same page.

Philosophers ponder and Masons perpend. So I just assumed if there are ponderers there must be perpenders?

coach wrote: To recognize beginnings. To recognize movement toward goals. To recognize lively movements. To recognize consumption prolongs life. To recognize natural movements and consequences that benefit. To recognize things beyond ones grasp and do so as patterns that allude to the eternal.

'Recognition' - excellent. That is a cognitive function.

So human nature rests on thinking. The mind is not just an abstraction as the Marxists would have us believe - that humans are mere automatons.

Thinking would imply Carl Jung's "Collective Unconscious", I think?

coach wrote:    He thinks therefore he is...

Yes, let's cogitate over this.

Does thought determine reality or does reality determine thought?

Adept? wrote: GrimoireA3 wrote:  Does thought determine reality or does reality determine thought? I think maybe it's a bit of both.  I believe our view of reality is not reality at all, but merely our perception of it.  Reality is subjective to the observer.  Inevitably however, what you see, hear, and feel taking place around you will effect your thoughts and in some way create your personal perspective of your/our world reality. <h1 ="yt="" watch-title-container"="" style="margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 13px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; display: table-cell; vertical-align: top; width: 824px; color: rgb34, 34, 34; line-height: normal; word-wrap: break-word; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; -: initial; -attachment: initial; -size: initial; -origin: initial; -clip: initial; -: initial; -repeat: initial;"><span id="eow-title" ="watch-title="" "="" dir="ltr" title="the Illusion of Reality ~ consciousness & quantum theory" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; border--source: initial; border--slice: initial; border--width: initial; border--outset: initial; border--repeat: initial; -: initial; -attachment: initial; : transparent; -size: initial; -origin: initial; -clip: initial; -: initial; -repeat: initial;"><span style="color: rgb0, 0, 0; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.4;">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRkDicwjRQs </span><div style="color: rgb0, 0, 0; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 16.8px;">I won't say I agree with everything in this short video, but it does pose some interesting theories.  If we as human beings did not exist in our conscious state as we do, would reality in the universe be as it is now, or does it only exist the way it does because we are able to consciously perceive it.  Is our conscious view of reality actually real, or merely an illusion created by our own minds?    <div style="color: rgb0, 0, 0; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 16.8px;"> <div style="color: rgb0, 0, 0; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 16.8px;"><span style="color: rgb51, 51, 51; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">"All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. We are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves."</span><br style="color: rgb51, 51, 51; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;"><span style="color: rgb51, 51, 51; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">~ Bill Hicks~</span></span></h1><h1 ="yt="" watch-title-container"="" style="font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; color: rgb34, 34, 34; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 13px; margin-left: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; display: table-cell; vertical-align: top; width: 824px; line-height: normal; word-wrap: break-word; -: initial; -attachment: initial; -size: initial; -origin: initial; -clip: initial; -: initial; -repeat: initial;"> </h1>

Hi Adept?,

Thanks. Your reply is food for thought.

Consider this verse from the Holy Book of Law - Romans 12:2

2"Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind."

Also, your choice of videos is good. I have seen 'The Illusion of Reality' before. But it is a subject that has been bandied about by hard core physicists since the 1927 Copenhagen Conference on quantum mechanics with the Bohr/Einstein debates.

In 1927 Neils Bohr told Albert Einstein that 'atoms are not things' - they are wavelengths, i.e. frequencies. Now professional physicist use the term 'wavelength' instead of the high school level 'atom'.

That video was good, but a misunderstanding of the subatomic world with its relation to the atomic world is the substance of new age spirituality or cults.

Nanotechnology is based on the manipulation of molecules, i.e two or more atoms/wave lengths joined together (matter). Molecules are measured in nanometers.
The subatomic level is measured in Fermi's. This is the nether world of frequencies and vibration found in quantum mechanics and discussed in that video: The Illusion of Reality.

Anything on the Fermi level is ephemeral and cannot, as yet, be manipulated. That manipulation must be done on the Nano meter level.

Reality as an illusion is accepted in Philosophy. Not that reality is fake but 'temporary' relative to our life span/perception. Death may not be real, but Entropy - the Second Law of Thermodynamics - happens. You and all matter have finite life spans and will eventually wind down and stop: cease to exist. That is a change that might not be death, but you will cease to exist because of Entropy - which gives each body of matter a finite time to exist (and that is the illusion talked about by philosophers, physicists, theologians, and possibly Masons?).

Human nature: It is what it is and it will be what it will be.

Adept? wrote: All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration.

As stated in 1927 by Neils Bohr during his debate with Albert Einstein regarding quantum physics.

Adept? wrote: We are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively.

Sounds like the 'Collective Unconscious' of psychiatrist Dr. Carl Jung?

Adept? wrote: There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves.

Entropy, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, is in odds with this bit of metaphysical speculation?

P.S. I know these are not Adept? quotes, but from his excellent response.

SO? - what is Human Nature??

coach wrote: GrimoireA3 wrote: SO? - what is Human Nature?? To seek and ask questions to get responses from other to further one's perpendings.

Coach - that seems more like a purpose in life rather than human nature?

Though it is an excellent purpose in life. A 'Life of the Mind' is the scholar's purpose in life. But it seems to be a purpose without function (kind of like faith with out works?).

Also coach, thanks for your contributions - you seem to be the only one keeping this thread going.

Human nature refers to the distinguishing characteristics—including ways of thinking, feeling, and acting—which humans tend to have naturally, independently of the influence of culture. The questions of what these characteristics are, how fixed they are, and what causes them are amongst the oldest and most important questions in philosophy and science. These questions have particularly important implications in ethics,politics, and theology. This is partly because human nature can be regarded as both a source of norms of conduct or ways of life, as well as presenting obstacles or constraints on living a good life. The complex implications of such questions are also dealt with in art and literature, while the multiple branches of the humanities together form an important domain of inquiry into human nature and into the question of what it is to be human.

The branches of contemporary science associated with the study of human nature include anthropology, sociology, sociobiology, and psychology, particularly evolutionary psychology, which studies sexual selection in human evolution, as well as developmental psychology. The "nature versus nurture" debate is a broadly inclusive and well-known instance of a discussion about human nature in the natural sciences.

Bamo!  wikipedia!  LOL!  wish I'd thought of that earlier.  End of discussion.  

So, is human nature achievement oriented??

coach wrote: GrimoireA3 wrote: So, is human nature achievement oriented?? It is when that achievement will allow you to continue to swim in the gene pool, otherwise you will qualify for the Darwin Awards.

Hi coach,

Sorry for appearing dense but I do not grasp your meaning. I respectfully request clarification.


P.S. I am rereading The Craft Unmasked, and just sent away for Building Freemen #8.

coach wrote: You must breed and do so successfully enough for your offspring to do the same or you and your lineage go away. That's quite an achievement.

O.K. gotcha. In Genetics, Biology, & Physical Anthropology we call that being 'successful'.

coach wrote: Awesome! Another head spinner!

I do plan on purchasing your entire set of building better men series. I found THE CRAFT UNMASKED is in the Library of Congress. Good for You!

coach wrote: GrimoireA3 wrote: coach wrote: You must breed and do so successfully enough for your offspring to do the same or you and your lineage go away. That's quite an achievement. O.K. gotcha. In Genetics, Biology, & Physical Anthropology we call that being 'successful'. coach wrote: Awesome! Another head spinner! I do plan on purchasing your entire set of building better men series. I found THE CRAFT UNMASKED is in the Library of Congress. Good for You! Interesting... Thanks!

CORRECTION! Building Boaz is in the Library of Congress. Sorry for that glaring error.

Go to Google Books, John S. Nagy, click on Building Boaz, click on Libraries.

Human nature?  I heard once that every person, deep down inside, is waiting for the end of the world.

GrimoireA3 wrote:   Hi TyleBrutus,  I am unfamiliar with any psychologist or Cultural Anthropologist espousing an 'apocalyptic' view of human nature, and you might have come across something unique. "Waiting for the end of the world" psyche, if it exists, might explain the rise of religion or of certain religions. Nice answer.

Edited by Adept? - May/12/2016 at 8:01am

GrimoireA3 wrote:  People can still be decent, moral, law abiding, and follow the Golden Rule without religion, and that is the basis of Secular Humanism. It is not atheism, because God is still believed in. BUT religion still serves a purpose for some people, and you can't take that away from them.

Deism: "The belief that God has created the universe but remains apart from it and permits his creation to administer itself through natural laws. Deism thus rejects the supernatural aspects of religion, such as belief in revelation in the Bible, and stresses the importance of ethical conduct."

Secular humanism: "The philosophy or life stance of secular humanism (alternatively known by some adherents as Humanism, specifically with a capital H to distinguish it from other forms of humanism) embraces human reason, ethics, and philosophical naturalism while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience, and superstition as the bases of morality and decision making.[1][2][3][4]

Secular humanism posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god. It does not, however, assume that humans are either inherently evil or innately good, nor does it present humans as being superior to nature. Rather, the humanist life stance emphasizes the unique responsibility facing humanity and the ethical consequences of human decisions. Fundamental to the concept of secular humanism is the strongly held viewpoint that ideology—be it religious or political—must be thoroughly examined by each individual and not simply accepted or rejected on faith. Along with this, an essential part of secular humanism is a continually adapting search for truth, primarily through science and philosophy."

Secular humanists therefore do not necessarily believe in God at all. In fact I think you will find that most are anti-theist, or at the very least agnostic.

I said that I would go no further than the beliefs of cold deism. I did not say that I am one. I do however disagree with your assertion that it is a religion. A belief, and ideology for sure, but a religion...? Certainly not. I've seen Christian churches, Jewish synagogues, Muslim mosques, Jehovah's witness halls, Mormon temples, Hindu temples, Buddhist temples...but never in my 32 years have I ever seen a Deist church or holy house. To label deism a religion is to do it a great disservice. It is by definition above...expressly NOT a religion. "Deism thus rejects the supernatural aspects of religion, such as belief in revelation in the Bible, and stresses the importance of ethical conduct."

We've strayed off topic once again, so in the interest of the topic, I'll say this. Human nature is to question. To question our very existence, and the possible, and more importantly provable origin of it.

O.K., how about this 13th century view of human nature:

"Man, says St. Thomas Aquinas [1225 - 1274], is naturally a social and political animal. By giving to human beings a nature which requires the co-operation of other human beings for its welfare, God ordained man for society, and thus it is His will that princes should govern with a view to the public welfare."

So is it human nature to be gregarious?


P.S. It was said that St. Thomas Aquinas was very influenced by Moses Maimonides(aka RamBam).