Jerry and religion

When it doesn't fit anywhere else

Postby kindness » Tue Jun 05, 2007 5:28 pm

It's always fascinating to hear what other people, especially people we feel have 'spiritual insight', think of the origin of the universe, our place here, etc. I'm continually astonished by the wide variety of belief systems I encounter. Look at Jerry's one line, nonchalant response to being questioned about a western God. This was a contextual question, I don't think he revealed whether or not he believed in a deity with his answer. The words 'western god' next to each other show the interviewers thought process. Jerry wasn't into it. Maybe it was just the wrong question, maybe he knew that he was a leader to the people and he didn't want to create a brand new, Jerry style religion for people to automatically accept. I do think it's difficult to separate the Grateful Dead from the 60's psychedelic movement, which in my interpretation was a movement toward self discovery, no one can help you with that. By leaving 'God' out of it, it was kindof like saying that it's not really the point. Also, Biblical references in songs are hardly indicative of a Christian faith, I wouldn't consider the Dead's music to be deity worship at all. Unlike Bob Marley, who openly praised God in most of his music.
kindness
welcome
welcome
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 5:13 pm

Postby Erictw83 » Tue Jun 05, 2007 7:02 pm

I hear ya, my dreams of becoming a professional musician/athelete extrordinair(sp?) havent panned out. I just graduated majoring in astronomy. It, along with all physical sciences, are definately difficult but super interesting and totally worth it. It opens your eyes to grander schemes and alters your perspective for the better. It does, however, lead to the very humbling realization of how totally insignificant we are.

As an intersting aside, did anyone know that the chemist who recieved a Nobel Prize for discovering the double-helical structure of DNA claimed to be under the influence of LSD when he made his key conceptual break throughs. Check it out.

http://www.mayanmajix.com/art1699.html

If thats not a ringing endorsement for the potential of psychedelics I don't know what is.
Erictw83
Brent
Brent
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: Colorado

Postby d-v-s » Wed Jun 06, 2007 1:43 am

Erictw83 wrote:As an intersting aside, did anyone know that the chemist who recieved a Nobel Prize for discovering the double-helical structure of DNA claimed to be under the influence of LSD when he made his key conceptual break throughs. Check it out.

http://www.mayanmajix.com/art1699.html

If thats not a ringing endorsement for the potential of psychedelics I don't know what is.


Eric, nice find. Good link. I can attest to seeing (and sliding down) the double-helix during a trip, as well, but it never occurred to me that it was riding the building block of life. :shock:
d-v-s
710 ashbury
710 ashbury
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:30 am
Location: izmir, turkey

Postby confusions_prince » Wed Jun 06, 2007 6:25 am

I recalled reading that Watson had tried the stuff but never that he made the breakthrough on it. Hallo! :o

Something else in my recent reading tied acid and helixes together, at least in my mind... Nuts.
"More then ever, the world needs love and the Grateful Dead!" -Vince
confusions_prince
710 ashbury
710 ashbury
 
Posts: 263
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:30 pm
Location: Eugene, OR / Ft Lauderdale, FL

Postby BuddhaG » Wed Jun 06, 2007 9:14 am

interesting... i had a closed-eye visual of a strand of DNA unravelling as we were listening to DP 19 on acid with my roommate...

at some point during the second set i realized that comprehension of music as a cohesive whole and not just a random assemblage of sounds is something that is ingrained in us genetically... it's there as soon as you are born, though it takes time and/or effort to develop the senses necessary to really "get" music, any one of us is capable of enjoying it.

i felt that the mission of the Grateful Dead was to explore as many different musical connections as possible, to see how deep and how far the mind could go in making these connections.

of course this concept can be applied to society in general, where everything is ultimately interconnected, its just a matter of finding the processes that connect organisms/minerals/air/water, etc. and understanding their importance in the grand scheme of things, as in how this whole show keeps persisting through millenia.

if we don't appreciate the intricate system in which we live then we will ultimately destroy it. humankind must see itself as an innate part of the natural world, rather than an intruder who is entitled to taking whatever he/she pleases.
a whole new gameball
BuddhaG
Bear
Bear
 
Posts: 386
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 9:22 pm
Location: Montreal

Postby BigJilm » Wed Jun 06, 2007 4:16 pm

Have ne of u evr tried salvia? I'm not a huge fan of it as it can frequently be too intense for my liking.However, that psychedelic has the most interesting effect on music ive evr experienced. One of the last times i did it. I was listening to dozin' at the knick I believe (Disc 2), and as soon as I breathed out, I felt as if i wwere sitting on top of some spherical object and i began to hear a strange almost robotic voice guiding me, narrating my life as i tried to pull myself together. Initially, I was too fucked up to even realize that this was unusual, but after i gained the slightest bit of composure, I realized that that voice was actually Garcia's guitar. After that, I began to notice profound connections between the notes that I had never noticed before, but were completely obvious to me now. The sounds of the instruments began to take on physical form in my mind, and these vast realizations about the music came and went at a million miles a minute as I traveled through an ancient Aztec stone temple and was nearly swallowed by a giant gray reptile. I had never been able to perceive the music in that manner before then, and even now, whatever realizations I had at the time have long since left me, if they were ever there at all, but at the time it was a whole new way of experiencing the effects of music.
BigJilm
Pigpen
Pigpen
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:48 pm
Location: Reynoldsburg

Postby BuddhaG » Wed Jun 06, 2007 11:01 pm

hrmm, i definitley saw all kinds of mayan themed masks with feathers, pyramids, sculptures of gods and stuff like that while listening to terrapin off the album. the music seemed to come from a very ancient place while being modern yet timeless.

salvia seems to do wierd things to me, i dont think i have done in it the right set/setting... i would like to go in the woods alone and try, but your experience with garcia seems pretty cool :smile:

theres definitley something special about his style, so eclectic and impassioned, melodic yet dissonant at the same time. man that guy could really weave the thread during a solo, or singing.
a whole new gameball
BuddhaG
Bear
Bear
 
Posts: 386
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 9:22 pm
Location: Montreal

Postby mttourpro » Thu Jun 07, 2007 10:51 am

if we don't appreciate the intricate system in which we live then we will ultimately destroy it. humankind must see itself as an innate part of the natural world, rather than an intruder who is entitled to taking whatever he/she pleases.[/quote]

You sir, are absolutely correct. This notion is my biggest fear. I think the reality is that people are so greedy that they find ways to deny this simple truth. I think this is something most ancient civilizations knew better than us. I think this is really what almost all major religions simply language in different ways. And, I think we' are going to see the negative results of ignoring this basic truth in the form of big problems driven by global warming. Some people see us as a cancer on the world. I hate to say, but I think they're right.

As for Salvia----not for the faint of heart. Respect the power of Salvia. Not a recreational substance. Very spiritual.
http://www.thecausejams.com

let your life proceed by its own design....
User avatar
mttourpro
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1260
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 1:45 pm
Location: pittsburgh, pa

Postby d-v-s » Fri Jun 08, 2007 12:06 am

BuddhaG wrote:if we don't appreciate the intricate system in which we live then we will ultimately destroy it. humankind must see itself as an innate part of the natural world, rather than an intruder who is entitled to taking whatever he/she pleases.


Easy to say, but is it practical? I think most people appreciate that it's an intricate system, but there's more to think about than ideals here. Ideally, the world could probably only handle a global population of about 1-2 billion people with it's resources. Right now the population is around 6-7 billion. What's the plan here? kill off 5 billion? create new resources ? I'd be interested to hear thoughts and opinions on this one.
d-v-s
710 ashbury
710 ashbury
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:30 am
Location: izmir, turkey

Postby Erictw83 » Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:03 am

True, the Earth's resources are finite and at the rate humans consume engery, which is ever increasing exponentially, the Earth cannot sustain our technology driven habitation indefinitely into the future.

True, if we lived a symbiotic existence with the natural world we would not have to deal with the problem of resource limitations, destruction of the natural world etc. I also feel that individuals are happier in general living more natural existences. (Although to play devil's advocate, one could argue that the grand man-made edifices of man are in fact natural since humans rose out of the natural world and all of our doings and creations thus follow from the natural order of things.) Sadly for those of us in technologically advanced nations there is really no turning back. For all our ideals, how many of us will give up our hugely engery and resource expensive creature comforts? Sure we may recycle, conserve etc, and consider ourselves to be living somewhat "green," but we still use a trenemdous amount more energy and resources then we will ever give back to the planet (unless of course one of us invents a new energy source in our basement laboratory/smoke room/jam space).

We can't turn back the clock. World population continues to rise, industrialization and urbanization continue to spread, the human appetite for resources is unquenchable. So we either wait for Malthussean prophecies of war, plague, and famine to enter us into a new dark age where we live in mud huts subsistence farming again, or we try to solve IMHO the paramount problem of finding cheap, efficient, energy sources to help fuel our insatiably appetite.

No joke, NASA, China, and Russia want to mine helium-3 from the surface of the moon to use in pollution-free fusion reactors which now are only in there experimental phase. This is the reason for the renewed interested in the moon.

http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2006/12/72276

Good topic, alot that can be said.

Somehow i think all this bullshit we deal with in the world has to do with basic drive for survival run amuck.
Erictw83
Brent
Brent
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: Colorado

Postby strumminsix » Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:28 am

d-v-s wrote:
BuddhaG wrote:if we don't appreciate the intricate system in which we live then we will ultimately destroy it. humankind must see itself as an innate part of the natural world, rather than an intruder who is entitled to taking whatever he/she pleases.


Easy to say, but is it practical? I think most people appreciate that it's an intricate system, but there's more to think about than ideals here. Ideally, the world could probably only handle a global population of about 1-2 billion people with it's resources. Right now the population is around 6-7 billion. What's the plan here? kill off 5 billion? create new resources ? I'd be interested to hear thoughts and opinions on this one.


One can appreciate the intricacies but still destroy it. I believe you are probably looking for a different word or phrasing like maybe abide or live within its natural confines.

Either way I still hold to the fact the Earth is much more resilient than we give credit. It has survived the most significant global expansion from pangea to the continents we have today. It has survived massive meteor attacks. It has survived blistering heat and desolate cold. It has survived the most significant climate change by going from a planet without an atmosphere to a planet with an atmosphere which sustains life.

I see nothing that mankind is doing as anywhere near as significant in our day to day lives as what it has already encountered.

Now if you wanna talk about nukes and other massive weapons, that is I think we all can agree on as a strong threat to the survival of the planet.

It's curious as to why you think 1-2 billion is ideal. Where is this number coming from? I don't see the earth struggling with our current population nor do I see how the Earth would struggle with an increase of 50%. However I do see that society would struggle and need to adapt. But that is another topic.

Erictw83 wrote:Somehow i think all this bullshit we deal with in the world has to do with basic drive for survival run amuck.


Very intelligent statement! I completely agree you see it the animal kingdom and see how we have progressed. I see it that we've first come to protect ourselves from current threats then to protect against short-term threats then to protect from long-term threats. But we took a more proactive approach and started to mitigate the risks and do things to minimize the potential of immediate, short and long-term threats occurring.

Now, if anyone here has ever taken any project management course or risk management courses you know there is another way to handle risk... Avoidance. With that we alter our course and proceed in such a way to ensure the risk cannot happen.
User avatar
strumminsix
Senior Member
 
Posts: 6670
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Chicago

Postby sayitaintpete » Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:58 am

this is such a fascinating thread--here, i was just looking for the lyrics to dire wolf and now i've gone and signed up for the forum. here are my thoughts...

Now, if anyone here has ever taken any project management course or risk management courses you know there is another way to handle risk... Avoidance. With that we alter our course and proceed in such a way to ensure the risk cannot happen.



unfortunately, we cannot continue to sustain our current rate of consumption and expect to avoid the risks that result. we all know that the united states is the number-one carbon emitting nation in the world, and although i cannot recall the statistics offhand, it is also true we consume far more than the rest of the planet in terms of oil and other resources. the sad part is, the rest of world looks to the united states and wants to emulate our lifestyle. china, for example, is rapidly moving up the charts when it comes to carbon emissions.

I see it that we've first come to protect ourselves from current threats then to protect against short-term threats then to protect from long-term threats. But we took a more proactive approach and started to mitigate the risks and do things to minimize the potential of immediate, short and long-term threats occurring.


i completely agree. i suppose nuclear war would be a current/short-term threat, and global warming would be a long-term threat. unfortunately, the so-called leader of the free world is doing very little to stop either--in fact, the u.s. is quite hypocritical when it comes to nuclear weapons proliferation, and i would argue that the u.s. has done more to promote a second arms race than to disarm. the bush admin has pretty much decided that the u.s. doesn't have to adhere to international law, and in the case of the non-proliferation treaty, this is quite a dangerous policy.
the same holds true for kyoto--never ratified by the u.s.

i guess the bottom line is that the u.s. government is owned by corporate america--who profit from a) selling weapons and b) continue to pollute the planet. at my expense, and yours.

i haven't done all my homework on 2012, but from what i can recall, it's not going to literally be the end of the world. it is my opinion that we will undergo a fundamental change in the way we think--why this change happens will remain a mystery, but it could be the result of a cataclysmic war or something of that nature.

my hope is that we will all realize that living within the boundaries of what our planet can sustainably tolerate is possible, and easier than we think. once this realization comes about, it will follow that we no longer need to fight over resources like oil--an unprecedented era of peace and prosperity will follow.

the earth may be resilient, you are right about that. i have no doubt that life on this bright blue ball will continue, but it remains to be seen whether the human race will see it through.
sayitaintpete
welcome
welcome
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 6:59 am

...and...

Postby sayitaintpete » Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:11 am

order of things.) Sadly for those of us in technologically advanced nations there is really no turning back.


i disagree entirely. it isn't technology that keeps us from turning back--quite the opposite! we have the technology now to build cars, for example, that run on electricity or even better, air!

MDI technologies air-compressed engine:
http://www.theaircar.com/engine.html

stan ovshinsky wiki entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_Ovshinsky

green builders website:
http://www.greenbuilder.com/

i would argue that it is quite possible and within our grasp to live a comfortable, modern lifestyle while drastically reducing our contributions to global warming.

again i will point to the desire for profit as the major roadblock to a green economy. it is sad that our leaders in business and government don't realize that 'being green' can be profitable as well. are we really going to rape every last drop of oil from the ground before we realize that we need to find a different path?
sayitaintpete
welcome
welcome
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 6:59 am

Postby BigJilm » Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:06 pm

I do not believe it is possible for us to destroy the earth, but it is posssible to alter its atmosphere and climate in such a way that it is uninhabitable by humans. Humans can adapt to some changes to a certain degree, but we do have limits. If we are to go extinct, we wont be the first. Nothing lasts forever, not even mankind. If we are not destroyed by the current global climate threat, we will only be destroyed by something else at a later time. Personally, I think this is a very interesting time to be alive. Mankind is faced with severe climate change, extreme technological advances are constantly being made, and not to mention the fast-approaching mayan-predicted doomsday. I also believe that many of us will live to see the end of the American empire.
BigJilm
Pigpen
Pigpen
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:48 pm
Location: Reynoldsburg

Postby Erictw83 » Sat Jun 09, 2007 7:53 am

Quote:
order of things.) Sadly for those of us in technologically advanced nations there is really no turning back.


i disagree entirely. it isn't technology that keeps us from turning back--quite the opposite! we have the technology now to build cars, for example, that run on electricity or even better, air!


Your definately right, advancing technology will hopefully lead us to constructing societies that have less impact of the planet and atmosphere, and will help us lead better greener lives. I am definately an advocate of increased funding research and development of such advanced technologies because it is our best course of action to solve the complex problems of today and the future.

I guess should have ammended my statement above that there is 'no turning back for technologically advanced nations' to mean that there is no reverting back to a simple natural existence. Yes as you pointed out we can and will adapt with green technologies as we move forward, but we can never go back to a simple natural existence, say living off of the land, or living as they do in Bhutan.

Aside: I saw a really interesting special about Bhutan, a buddhist nation in the eastern himalayas where they have very little 'advanced' technology, are rather isolated, and live a happy peaceful exitence tucked away in the mountains. Beautiful scenary, looked like a really chill place and exemplifies what I mean by simple natural existence.
Erictw83
Brent
Brent
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: Colorado

PreviousNext

Return to Everything Else

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest