Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Everything posted here is OPINION. Clearly, like the many concepts of God, the concept of Christianity is too firmly entrenched in the popular psyche. I probably should have avoided the label and simply acknowledged that the descriptions of Jesus as HE presents Himself in the biblical narrative is the ONLY reason I equate Him with God's Holy Spirit (the "mind of God"). The bulk of the Christian dogma is misguided and wrong because it was formed by primitive carnal minds (which is true for most extant religions, IMO). Whatever you wish to believe about Abraham, Moses, Mohammed, Sankara (or whoever), they lacked significant knowledge about the Reality they sought to explain and its source, God.
The very disturbing Reality I faced during my encounter is that Reality itself is consciousness. Whatever you wish to call that it is drastically different from what science PRESUMES or religions ASSERT about it. I have no pride, per se, but I also have no false humility. I am a true polymath and my understanding of what I experienced and how it could be true is unshakeable. My efforts to integrate it into the extant religions and science are what seem to provoke true believers in BOTH arenas. I present my views without rancor or any attempt to impose them. The history of such behavior in religions is indefensible, IMO.
So you're a "true polymath". Well, aren't you "special". Nevertheless, your encounter and your unshakeable belief in its doesn't negate anyone else's beliefs nor the truth of their own encounters. You seem to feel that your experience is the sole defining one. It may be or it may not be, but without proof, it's just your personal experience and your own OPINION, the same as everyone else's.
the question that comes to mind when someone self-proclaims to be a "true polymath"
is to wonder "Other than yourself, who is labeling you as that?"
my observation based on the evidence of posts expressing views held here on CD, is that they are not those of a polymath. The august company you place yourself in is that of: Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, Leonardo DaVinci, Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, Michelangelo, Pythagoras, Omar Khayam, Moses Maimonedes, Rumi.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 04-28-2024 at 02:41 PM..
"True polymaths aren’t focused on achieving the status of one."
"Polymaths balance creativity with respect for the worldview and experiences of people who came before them. Because of how much they know, they know how little they actually know. This lets them approach the world with an abundance of knowledge and humility.
"To be clear, becoming a polymath isn’t about being smarter. It’s about being less of a fool. Richard Feynman reminds us that, 'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.' "
the question that comes to mind when someone self-proclaims to be a "true polymath"
is to wonder "Other than yourself, who is labeling you as that?"
because the views expressed in CD, are not those of a polymath.
The multiple disciplines and diligence of intellectual achievement define a polymath, Tzaph. It is not an honorific and there are a lot of us in society at all levels and disciplines. I know of none in today's day and age who have attempted to pursue the God issue seriously from a scientific point of view and try to reconcile the spiritual fossil record.
and regarding the flawed premise that old books are wrong because they lack modern science (i can't even type that without laughing, here i am chuckling at my keyboard)
"Reading long, old, and obscure books filter out the best ideas from history that have stood the test of time and are thus, exponentially worth your limited time.
"Of course, just because a book is long and old doesn’t mean it’s worth slogging through. Length and age does not equal substance. But there’s a chance that it is. The future life expectancy of non-perishable things like books is proportional to their current age — that’s the Lindy Effect."
and regarding the flawed premise that old books are wrong because they lack modern science (i can't even type that without laughing, here i am chuckling at my keyboard)
"Reading long, old, and obscure books filter out the best ideas from history that have stood the test of time and are thus, exponentially worth your limited time.
"Of course, just because a book is long and old doesn’t mean it’s worth slogging through. Length and age does not equal substance. But there’s a chance that it is. The future life expectancy of non-perishable things like books is proportional to their current age — that’s the Lindy Effect."
also from Roxine Kee
What are her qualifications that should attract us to her beliefs?
In a sense that is what motivated my multi-discipline efforts in science. I had no particular motivation to become a polymath. It was unavoidable given my goal to explain my encounter.
views expressed in your posts may show proficiency in understanding some areas of science.
views expressed in your posts show a lack of proficiency in understanding most paths of religion and spirituality.
that is my observation, as demonstrated by views expressed in your posts. certainly a reader can hold whatever views beliefs and opinions they like as strikes a person's fancy.
but to claim mastery of understanding what is presented in different paths of religion and spirituality, that is consistently absent in views expressed in your posts
views expressed in your posts may show proficiency in understanding some areas of science.
views expressed in your posts show a lack of proficiency in understanding most paths of religion and spirituality.
that is my observation, as demonstrated by views expressed in your posts. certainly a reader can hold whatever views beliefs and opinions they like as strikes a person's fancy.
but to claim mastery of understanding what is presented in different paths of religion and spirituality, that is consistently absent in views expressed in your posts
Unclear who you are referring to.
But similarly...
views expressed in your posts may show proficiency in understanding some exotic area of spiritual beliefs, almost all of which have no basis in demonstrable fact.
views expressed in your posts show a lack of proficiency in understanding the difference between belief and proof.
that is my observation, as demonstrated by views expressed in your posts. certainly a reader can hold whatever views beliefs and opinions they like as strikes a person's fancy.
too much woo, not enough science
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nevertheless, your encounter and your unshakeable belief in its doesn't negate anyone else's beliefs nor the truth of their own encounters. You seem to feel that your experience is the sole defining one. It may be or it may not be, but without proof, it's just your personal experience and your own OPINION, the same as everyone else's. 
