Summary by Cfish
Jan Cox Talk 2576 Sept 11, 2000
Copyright Jan Cox, Jan’s Legacy 2016
Notes by Cfish June 2016
Suggested Title: An Unnoticed Tolerance for Foolishness
[Reads] Actual News Story: “Scientists are being brought in to determine if the blood in the religious statue’s eyes is real or fraud.” Well educated, world renowned scientists, people expected to know better, will investigate it.
Within your own mental jim jam and the minds of the ordinary there is endless conflict between the logical part of the mind, and an irresistible attraction to indefensible foolishness and meaninglessness.
And although it is never noted, this ongoing activity, plays a great part in man’s intellectual history as it moves contemporaneously into the future. Look and see it in action within yourself and ponder its ramifications.
05:00 How do you justify scientists with active educations showing up to determine if the blood in the religious statue’s eyes is a fraud? It is easy to dismiss as unsophisticated foolishness but it has nothing to do with illiteracy.
10:00 As always there is another way to look at it. Within everybody there is a struggle going on (peasants to PHD’s) between logic and foolishness. Without logic’s picturing things physically there would be no physical progress. (technology)
15:00 Memory of what works physically saves effort. This same seat of logic is responsible for coherent speech. Rather than logic’s outright dismissal of the illogical there is internally a struggle between cold logic and abject foolishness.
20:00 Cold logic and abject foolishness happens every day. This is not a battle between science and religion. That is too easy. I am saying that cold logic has a tolerance for foolishness and no one has noticed.
25:00 Intellectuals and non physical enemies (ex. jack leg preachers, v. PHD scientists) are actually peers in a verbal pissing contest. It is at the core of being insultable. (see talk #2575 )
In a verbal pissing contest a PHD’s intellect is no better than the jack leg preacher’s intellect. Ordinary minds refute that. But in looking for a more expansive view, no matter how logical, the person still has a tolerance for foolishness.
30:00 What is the ultimate foolishness among six billion people? (You believe what your thoughts say you are.) The logical/knows better with experience, part of the mind, knows blood in a religious statue’s eyes is a fraud.
35:00 But also notice the wide tolerance for the belief that it may be true. It is an absolute, obvious, observable foolishness and the non religious are not exempt from it. The statue crying blood pales in comparison in believing what your thoughts say you are.
For example someone you have known forever tells a story of being visited by flying saucers and you are astounded that someone you know would believe that, but you are astounded at the wrong person. (look in the mirror)
Just saying, to some degree, believing in obvious foolishness (plaster statues crying blood) or in the minor foolishnesses (stuff you do for good luck) pale in comparison to believing what your thoughts say are “you.”
40:00 If you look in your own mind, you do not take the things you do for good luck as foolishness. (I’m thinking everyone has one or two foolish ideas.) It is just something you do not think about.
But a foolish idea is still there, it is still a view. And it could do me harm if I keep talking about it. So there you are being foolish and logical at the same time. This great idea “you believe” is superior - you don’t talk about.
Consider: Could/Does the mind ever try to root out the “beliefs” of your superior ideas?” At the ordinary level we are all bastions of logic/reason and simultaneously foolish/fruitcakes.
Even logical ideas are crackpots unless they have to do with life enhancement and survival. If the idea has nothing to do with life enhancement and survival it can peacefully coexist with the part of the mind that sees it as foolish.
Like lambs laying down with lions.