Liminal Worlds
Latest Videos on 'metaphysics'Get Organized and Streamline Your Life with Dr. JeanineCoach for Women Worldwide I coach women to their most joyful and authentic life. http://www.simplydivinesolu... http://www.myspace.com/simp... solutions.com Relationships A Course in Miracles Boundaries Communication Skills Life Coaching Spirituality Transpersonal Psychology Meditation Prayer Enneagram Enneagram 4 Myers-Briggs Personality Spiral Dynamics Clutter Coaching Organizing Consciousness Twin Flame Soul Mate "Love vs. Fear" Flow Authenticity Transpersonal Coaching I AM A Course in Miracles Coaching Marianne Williamson Our Lady of Guadalupe Lao-tzu Goddess Feminine Frida Kahlo Wayne Dyer "The Secret" Jung Jungian Christ Tao te Ching Metaphysics Self Improvement Self Actualization Buddhism Miracles Psychology Women Mid-Life Cougar Women's Issues Women's Empowerment Positive Psychology Coaching Women Metaphysical Christianity Universal Laws Law of Attraction Spiritual Coaching "best" "top" "TOP 10" "LIFE coaches" "Top GURU" "solutions"
Author: DrJeanine The Secret of The Secret by Anthony Browder Anthony Browder, author of "Nile Valley Contributions to Civilization" has done the fantastic, thought provoking lecture on the ancient history of the Law of Attraction which was turned into the Secret. The Law of Attraction is discussed in Rhonda Byrne's best selling book, "The Secret". He traces its roots back to ancient Kemet and talks about what our ancestors use to know and how Europeans in power suppressed this information for control over the masses. I have watched this lecture 10 times and I'm still learning from it. You can order books and videos by Anthony Browder at http://www.ikg-info.com/ikg/ .
Author: mjrob1914 The Secret of The Secret by Anthony Browder Anthony Browder, author of "Nile Valley Contributions to Civilization" has done the fantastic, thought provoking lecture on the ancient history of the Law of Attraction which was turned into the Secret. The Law of Attraction is discussed in Rhonda Byrne's best selling book, "The Secret". He traces it's roots back to ancient Kemet and talks about what our ancestors use to know and how Europeans in power suppressed this information for control over the masses. I have watched this lecture 10 times and I'm still learning from it. You can order books and videos by Anthony Browder at http://www.ikg-info.com/ikg/ .
Author: mjrob1914 The Big Bang Theorists engage in some naive experiments in pan dimensional metaphysics
Author: bigbangtheorists Jean-Paul Sartre on Bad Faith 2/3 Sartre on Bad Faith. Excerpts of excellent Robert Solomon lecture.
Author: deepsofnight Word Of Faith = New Age Metaphysic Syncretism Jesse Duplantis on CBN gives what he claims to be Biblical Christian doctrine, but it is actually new age metaphysics. Also, his prosperity doctrine claims that God serves man, not the other way around. There is also a political angle here. CBN first gave a report on the poor economy, and then DuPlantis came on to tell the viewers why they should ignore the bad economic news and remain positive! Keep in mind: Pat Robertson is a billionaire, and his many business interests benefit when Republicans are in office. See DuPlantis pervert and reject the message Jesus Christ gave in the sermon on the mount, which was to obey and trust in God no matter what.
Author: healtheland www.selfology.org
Author: selfologyindia www.selfology.org
Author: selfologyindia www.selfology.org
Author: selfologyindia www.selfology.org
Author: selfologyindia www.selfology.org
Author: selfologyindia www.selfology.org
Author: selfologyindia www.selfology.org
Author: selfologyindia A meditation with Dr. Lyle Middleton. August 24, 2008.
Author: Chirothesia Ontology Pt. 2 (Rejecting a Reductionist Metaphysic) Why should we not be reductionists in our method of metaphysics? Here's one way to think about it: This is what the reductionist says: If first philosophy is false, then conceptualist (i.e. reductionist) models of metaphysics are the way to go. First philosophy is false. Therefore, conceptualist/reductionist methods of metaphysics are right. -First Philosophy df= the belief that there is a realm of philosophical inquiry separate from and prior to scientific investigation/knowledge. Reductionist methods (RM) reject first philosophy and accepting some form of scientism ("only science provides knowledge"; "science provides the best, most reliable knowledge"); *Some* RMs say this is right because they think first philosophy rests on the following fallacious line of reasoning: 1. empirical knowledge is necessary for science to occur. 2. But skepticism has successfully made tentative our empirical knowledge -- do we really know X-empirical-datum? 3. So we need to refute the skeptic! 4. To refute the skeptic we need a Cartesian Foundationalism (CF)! http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-foundational/ 5. CF depends on a 100% certain (w/o possibility of error!) foundation -- a foundation that is independent of science...so we can have an errorless, independent foundation for scientific knowledge. But RM rejects this in the following way: 6. Foundationalism is obsolete! Coherentism rules! http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-coherence/ 7. So the ground is cut from underneath the first philosopher when CF is gone and science rules because it coheres well and is therefore justified. 8. Philosophy is therefore left the job of clarifying concepts or analyzing language. But why do we need to be 100% certain to be foundationalists? And why think coherentism is true? Ever heard of Laurence BonJour? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_BonJour Please READ: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/content/BPL_Images/Content_store/Sample_chapter/9780631182849/001.pdf And notice how, assuming coherentism is true, the discovery of coherentism would be in the order of first philosophy!
Author: drsuessre14 Ontology Pt. 1 (Definition(s); Non-reductionistic; Priority) All these thoughts are a definite "work in progress"!! (This video was rough! Jeez!) http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/ My first approximation at a "definition" for metaphysics: For any state of affairs, ontology is the study state of affairs actual or states of affairs non-actual. Not the study of ideas, concepts, or language only or primarily! What I do in this series will not be reductionist in nature. States of affairs can be anything at all (e.g. God, existence, nothing, unicorns, tables, persons, freewill, concepts, space-time, space and time, art, language, bats, literature, color) But philosophers/metaphysicians study the basic parts of all these things. Everyone does metaphysics...but the question is, how good are you going to do metaphysics -- does your metaphysic have more true propositions about them? Every other study rests upon and assumes certain metaphysical (and epistemological!) truth-claims.
Author: drsuessre14 My reasons for libertarianism: 1) I have a very strong sense of moral responsibility: I have acted wrongly and rightly and both cases I could have acted differently. I was responsible and therefore blameworthy/praiseworthy for the wrongdoing/"rightdoing". This isn't compatible with an event-event causation view of belief/desire sets being the only thing affecting actions...which in turn affect my beliefs/desires. On this view, how is there such a thing as responsibility attributed to persons? 2) I have a strong intuition that I am the one who acts upon my desires. I DON'T have a strong sense that I am a conscious being with desires running through me, so to speak, that I can only be "witness to". I have a sense that *I act*. I am the originator or power-source for my own actions. http://books.google.com/books?id=9Mc_TgFGGLwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=body+and+soul+moreland&lr=&sig=ACfU3U2-U_-iiYiVO48grQg0o42Xn6CVCw#PPA121,M1 **But... (3) I also have a strong sense that a desire coupled with a belief that X would satisfy that desire coupled with the ability and capacity to do X is sufficient for that action to obtain. **And this is in contradiction with (1) and (2) above. So how do I solve this? Each of my intuitions in (1) and (2) are much strong than my other intuitions in (3). On Bitbutter's video: 1st -- It's not a "head" inside of a "head". On libertarian views on things it's the "I" who acts on the desires and that's it. There's no "inner judge" inside of *me*; rather, *I* am the only judge present. Also, free will doesn't act! I'm sure this is understood, but, just to clarify and reiterate -- on the libertarian view "I act" and on the soft-determinist view "desires+beliefs+abilities+capacities happen". What about Peter van Inwagen ("An Essay on Free Will") http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=of1sJaUSdcYC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=an+essay+on+free+will&ots=z7YIUXvQmW&sig=CrAsPgp1KOHP5bVygFUMA6vbMOo ? Or Robert Kane (edited Blackwell's "Free Will") http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/incompatibilism-theories/#2.2 ? Or Timothy O'Connor (The Metaphysics of Free Will) http://philo.ruc.edu.cn/pol04/mirror/php.indiana.edu/~toconnor/Causality_MFW.pdf ? Also see http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/stewart_goetz/against-physicalism.html for some other interesting critiques of soft-determinism that I forgot about when making the video!! (:
Author: drsuessre14 Name that accent!!!!! rsrsrs Estou falando nisto!!!!
Author: ALeoaVigilante Brian Wilson Till i Die (Original Mix) A spine-chilling masterpiece!
Author: ilsy74 Tschetan & Sebastian in San Diego 1 Two young artists (writer/poet/musician, actress/model/muse) report on the metaphysics of success and the progress of their journey to recognition, connections, opportunities, and luxury.
Author: TillyAndDB
|
Liminal Worlds
www.liminalworlds.com