reply to post by Danbones
I want to give you a scenario, you're a species that has never seen a cup and has no knowledge of tea or its use, you come across a cup of tea, no
idea what it is but you do know what sugar is, you have a test for that, so you test the unknown liquid in the unknown object and it comes back
positive for sugar, lots of sugar, so you start to speculate from their, from the one thing... the sugar, but it's in liquid form so its no use as
sugar, hmmm... what else likes sugar? Fly's! and its a liquid, so from that you speculate that this was clearly a device based for luring pesky
fly's to a sweet watery death! ofcourse, it makes sense, it would work, the shoe fits and it all centres conveniently around the one piece that you
I think that's what you're doing here, you know some stuff, you clearly read a lot but I think you're missing the big picture (I know you're
missing the big picture)... if I had to guess I'd say you were a low or mid-ranking Freemason who's had access to works by Manly P. Hall etc and
probably describe or did describe yourself as an agnostic, although by the way you're talking I'd say you've reached that stage where you doubt
everything but the physical and now lean towards a kind of unproven atheism, a strange contradiction with your masonic oath..
Think more abstract... think what the cross represents, not its application.... not that it matters as much as you think it does, you say its
essentially the pinnacle invention now held by the Catholic church and that the mysteries can now be quantified by current science... how ignorant to
think that we today are the smartest people who have ever lived, based upon material achievements....
Maslow's hierarchy is fine for describing simpletons but to say that people didn't have time or ability to contemplate the round earth because they
hadn't satisfied the hierarchy of needs is ridiculous... some of the greatest thinkers have had their thoughts by starving themselves or removing
themselves from the shackles of material life, meaning they couldn't fit into Maslow's hierarchy of needs and shouldn't have been able to
contemplate anything ... Thank God psychology isn't your field... (I can say that, I'm studying for a bachelors in Psychology and a few folk in here
are using psychological terms or principles that they clearly don't understand...)
Maslow's hierarchy can only really be applied to westerners or countries where the notion of self or ego is much higher. further disprove that we
must satisfy these needs before contemplating anything else is Ramanajun, a peasant from India who was one of the greatest mathematicians the world
has ever seen... and he was pretty poor and hungry when he started coming out with his theories ...
read more, post less, always presume you know less than you think, and look at the bigger picture, not the individual brush strokes...