"Ask My First Timbs" Q&A thread

Quote:

---

Black Wisdom Wrote: The topic of my question is Spirituality.

For me spirituality is our connection to our essence. I view spirituality the same as I view science. I see math and science as the languages of the Neters and the Creator. Everything was intertwined. One picture told the story of a million words. The mind body and spirit was intertwined but all had there own distinct order and composition. When you treated a dis-ease you treated the entire person. Everything possesses laws, cause without them there would be no order and no existance. I don't follow a European distorted doctrine but I am on a continued quest to further live out an African traditional belief system. The more I learn about our ways the more I associate them with scientific principles. The original concept of salvation from an African perspective birthed the vast majority of all of our technology and sciences, from astrology to melanin science (mummification was a result of the later science). Now to the question.

Do you view spirituality as a viable tool of continued understanding and growth of ourselves and the world that we live in? Note that I'm not referring to religious doctrine, but a connection to our essence and sustaining forces.

HOTEP

---

I agree 100% with the view that what u define as “spirituality” is a viable tool of continued understanding. I just don’t believe in the concept of a “spirit” as metaphysical entity separate from ourselves (but within ourself) that exists in objective reality. What you are explaining as the “spirit”, many others would define as “cultural understanding.. or cultural wealth”.. I would define it as the “ingrained culmination of human understanding”.

Thus “spirituality” (aka “the acknowledgement of the ingrained culmination of cultural understanding”) is indeed an invaluable tool in existence!

whats your problem with me now ?


and what do you feel about whats said in the Q&A thread ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prolifical ENG

I might be off to the club tonight (it just renovated and im like a regular there...know all the bouncers and bartenders and shit) Then I started reading this thread so I thought of a question....

Anyway, so I can dance better than the average person around that way. And of course when I close down the floor with my dance moves, the females get impressed and I end up leaving that place with a few numbers.

So my question is why they start losing their minds when I start boogieing? I just do it because I like it and to and have fun. Is there some kind of genetic code built into people that get fascinated with dancing and it being attractive? Also is it similar to the scent attraction and how humans are attracted to the scent of the fragrences that are marketed?

---

take pics

Quote:

---

Maestro Wooz Wrote: genetically and evolutionally, how do you explain whites and asians having smaller asses then blacks. That is, what were the differentiating factors in their enviroments that caused this disparity in ass size to occur?

---

Great question. There has been indeed been research on the issue of race and race morphology as a whole between races and cultures of various regions. Although from a purely empirical standpoint the issue of race is indeed under scrutiny, for all intents and purposes (and according to all recognized classification existing in all scientific lexicons), lets continue under the understanding that race:

1) details a subdivision within a species (characterized by morphology and genetic and physiological traits that can be inherited via mendelian mechanisms)
2) is not subjective, meaning it is not defined socially, but rather biologically.

Okay with that out the way, now we can continue.

The question of why blacks have bigger “bottoms” than whites and Asians has all to do with evolutionary concepts involving geographic adaptation, natural selection and sexual selection.

The Negro is defined in evolutionary biology as the “parent” variety of homo sapien (or sapien sapien) originating from sub Saharan Africa (below the belt of the sahara desert) some 200 thousand years ago. Natural selection has molded the morphology of all humans to best suit their environment. The Sub Saharan environment (a hot mixture of savanna and grassland) dictates that a darker skin tone is advantageous to help block harmful UV rays (preventing cancer) and also and more importantly preventing over production of vitamin D. Another adaptation to this environment was large tooth size to help cope with bits of sand and rock that will inevitably find their way into food eaten below the sahara!

Body size and type as u stated is indeed all dictated by environment (but also via cultural ideals ie “sexual selection”)

Generally, Humans in hotter climates follow what is known in the evolutionary field as “Allen’s rule”. That rule being that the hotter the climate, the more increased the size and definition of body parts.. So purely from a biological standpoint, the first negroids were supremely adapted to their environment with darker skin, wider noses flatter noses (that aid in cooling air before it reaches lungs (and consequently oxygen molecules before they are carried away by blood), in addition (and what ur question was all about) the larger rump is an adaptation to peoples who primarily live in savannas, grasslands, tropics or areas where there are little or no mountains, jagged hills or off center terrain. It is a evolutionary adaptation to peoples who will have to do a lot of walking (coupled with an adaptation of increased quadricep proficiency) and sitting on flat surfaces.

In contrast, a smaller narrower bottom is an adaptation of peoples who will primarily not do a lot of walking (coupled with a smaller quadricep mucscle) and primarily live in harsher, rougher more jagged hilly terrain. The more narrow the bottom, the easier it is to find a small comfortable nook to rest oneself on a jagged terrain.

..now i mentioned sexual selection. sexual selection is evolutionary selection carried out involuntarily by the species in question based on mating patterns!

it just so happened that based on biological norm and thus cultural ideals, that the larger bottoms of the tropical peoples is deemed "attractive" in the eyes of the majority of the race to which they belong. Thus over time (and on average..meaning greater than 50% of the time) "ass shape" and size has been a determining factor in mating choice! Meaning that the phenotype of ass shape has not been lost even to this day because the cultural ideal of ass shape being a determining factor in mating choice continues to this day even tho we no longer live in savannas and grasslands that require this trait!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Legato

is alchemy a legitimate science?

---

Peace Legato

Alchemy in its most purest sense is not a science. First i must explain that there is no such thing as a "legitimate science" versus " an illegitimate science".

Science doesnt work that way. Something either is, or is not a "science", if its "illegitimate" .. it obviously isnt "science".

Throghout history there have been different takes on alchemy.

Alchemy at one time, in its purest form was the alleged "art" (not science, and notice it was "alleged") of turning any metal into a precious metal.

as time went on, alchemy was then belief that one could create an elixir or vitality potion to cure all ailments

lastly, alchemy took the form of the art of creating potions to gain immortality.

all 3 of these arts were not scientific.. in the most simple sense, alchemy isnt scientific because its philosophy relies on the realm of the supernatural, magic and superstition. And thus possesses the trait known to science as "unfalsifiability", meaning the alleged results could never be truly verifies because at the end of te day the accuracy of the alleged data and results is at the whim of a supernatural force.

yet for some reason, alchemy and the idea of it, has not died.. it has captured the minds and attention of people to this day.. even tho it has never really accomplished anything of merit.

now thats alchemy in the strict sense.. its not a science.

The act or belief that chemicals can be created that will cure ills and ailments of humanity is the philosophy of alchemy and would be a science if it did not involve unfalsifiable means..... but then it wouldnt be alchemy. it would purely be a regulated science such as chemical synthetics

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dif de la rev

1) what in the event of evolution is more suspect and why? the leaps in physical or the ones that are mental?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dif de la rev

2) being that evolution is partial to anthrpology is there any correlation as to cultures and their systems of belief? different cultures different living conditions etc.?

is there a final culmination of evolution? or has man with his intervention derailed the procees from occurring natural?

---

im not really sure what u are asking with the first part (regarding leaps in the physical vs mental) im sorry, but please clarify

2) evolution is indeed intrinsically tied to the hip of anthroplogy. Human evolution that is… ( the knowledge of the evolution of flightless birds has nothing to do with anthropology in contrast)….

I once taught a collge level evolution course and I demanded that all students either take anthropology concurrently with the course or had to have atlkeast taken anthropology in the past.

Quote:

---

is there any correlation as to cultures and their systems of belief? different cultures different living conditions etc

---

indeed there is a direct correlation. It must first be known and understood that all religions and religious concepts stem from early hominids living in hunter gatherer societies at the whim of nature. Populations who rely more on nature and the whim of the natural world for daily survival are more prone to have developed gods and religious ideals focused on their current day to day survival. These types of gods are called “focal gods”. Focal gods are gods that preside over some aspect of reality that directly impact the daily lifestyle of the believer.

For example, a god of fire, a god of rain, a god of fertiity etc etc. Focal god communities were also prone to polytheism (just based on the nature of the belief, its only natural to have more than one god.. what good is praying to the god of fire when the soil isn’t fertile?) It must also be known that the focal god was not thought to control the whole earth. The concept of “the entire earth” was not even born yet.

as time went on and humanity life style changed , our gods and ideas of religion and god changed as well . (notice I didn’t say that humanity “progressed”.. progress is a subjective assertion!). As populations started harnessing certain aspects of the natural world, a reliance on the focal god concept decreased. In addition, now gods were less focal and started becoming anthropomorphisized (made more human like) and were now able to be sad, happy, angry etc. This death of of the focal god lead to the death of polytheism. With the ushering in of monotheism also now came the birth of rage, persecution and fear of others who don’t hold the same god concept as u!

This is why thru wars and bloodshed, the losers “god” and religion was either destroyed or somehow made more similar to the now new ruling class.

This trend continues to this very day.

Culture and anthropology and human evolution and religion type are all tied together. Cultures who have been thru many wars and oppression on average have gods who were originally less charming than populations who experienced no war or oppression (such as the case with the native American and aboriginal peoples)

Quote:

---

3) is there a final culmination of evolution? or has man with his intervention derailed the procees from occurring natural?

---

no. But first i must say that ur question stems from a misunderstanding of evolution. Evolutionisnt goal oriented or purpose oriented. Evolution is merely nothing but a change in the genes over time. G/T

Humans, although not living at the whim of nature and feeling the effects of geographic environmental stress on the same level we did 15000 years ago, does not mean that evolution has slowed or stopped. Its still going on. we are part of nature and will never be able to escape evolution.

recent studies have shows tha the human thumb is migrating closer to the index finger at a rate of 0.02 millimeters per generation. This is evolution ! the reason for this has to do with sexual selection and natural selection. this is just one small example among a myriad. evolution will be in existence as long as there are creatures on the planet with genomes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Unseen

where in the human body would we find our consciousness ability to control our thoughts?

---

the part of the body is easy.. its the brain.

we control our thoughts with a combination of the cerebrum and cerebellum.

consciousness however does not occur or is not located in one exact part of the brain.. rather it exists everwhere in part of a neural network that gradually becomes more advanced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 36chambers

Your ill Timbs...

All I wanna know is, how did you book do man? Sales wise.

I hope it done well, and all the best for the future! One of the coolest people on this site!

---

thanx 36. i really appreciate it.

well, a call to sanity is doing quite well. once it got picked up by amazon and barnes and borders, the sales took off.
i stay promoting it hardcore.. doing lectures and stuff at colleges.. honestly i approach it just like the so called "rap game"

u do better by "touring" then by sales alone..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by My First Timbs

indeed there is a direct correlation. It must first be known and understood that all religions and religious concepts stem from early hominids living in hunter gatherer societies at the whim of nature. Populations who rely more on nature and the whim of the natural world for daily survival are more prone to have developed gods and religious ideals focused on their current day to day survival. These types of gods are called “focal gods”. Focal gods are gods that preside over some aspect of reality that directly impact the daily lifestyle of the believer.

For example, a god of fire, a god of rain, a god of fertiity etc etc. Focal god communities were also prone to polytheism (just based on the nature of the belief, its only natural to have more than one god.. what good is praying to the god of fire when the soil isn’t fertile?) It must also be known that the focal god was not thought to control the whole earth. The concept of “the entire earth” was not even born yet.

as time went on and humanity life style changed , our gods and ideas of religion and god changed as well . (notice I didn’t say that humanity “progressed”.. progress is a subjective assertion!). As populations started harnessing certain aspects of the natural world, a reliance on the focal god concept decreased. In addition, now gods were less focal and started becoming anthropomorphisized (made more human like) and were now able to be sad, happy, angry etc. This death of of the focal god lead to the death of polytheism. With the ushering in of monotheism also now came the birth of rage, persecution and fear of others who don’t hold the same god concept as u!

This is why thru wars and bloodshed, the losers “god” and religion was either destroyed or somehow made more similar to the now new ruling class.

This trend continues to this very day.

Culture and anthropology and human evolution and religion type are all tied together. Cultures who have been thru many wars and oppression on average have gods who were originally less charming than populations who experienced no war or oppression (such as the case with the native American and aboriginal peoples)




no. But first i must say that ur question stems from a misunderstanding of evolution. Evolutionisnt goal oriented or purpose oriented. Evolution is merely nothing but a change in the genes over time. G/T

Humans, although not living at the whim of nature and feeling the effects of geographic environmental stress on the same level we did 15000 years ago, does not mean that evolution has slowed or stopped. Its still going on. we are part of nature and will never be able to escape evolution.

recent studies have shows tha the human thumb is migrating closer to the index finger at a rate of 0.02 millimeters per generation. This is evolution ! the reason for this has to do with sexual selection and natural selection. this is just one small example among a myriad. evolution will be in existence as long as there are creatures on the planet with genomes.

---

a lot of people on this board really need to read this.

Yeah...you need to read it.

nuh uhhh you need to read it :)

Why?...why, whiteboi? why?...lol - Sleepers

What school did you earn your Phd from?

Would you be considered a Paelentologist?

When did the wooly mammoth become extinct? What caused it's extinction?

Do you know if there is any truth behind bigfoot or abomnible snowman stories- or stories of sea serpents like the lochness monster?

Quote:

---

ill let you know when i turn alchemy into a science

---

shit, homie, if you figure that one out let me know. I got some aluminum cans you can borrow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigben

Question. Have you read the 9/11 Commision Report: Omissions and Distortions by Dr. David Ray Griffin. Do you beleive our government did this?

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g1...ayParty088.jpg

I just seen him 4-3-06 at the Commonwealth club in SF he was talking about 9/11 and why the evidence suggests our Government was involved.

---

HERES AN ARTICLE ON HIM
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/200...oud30_ph_t.gif

When David Ray Griffin, noted theologian and professor emeritus at the Claremont School of Theology, first heard someone say that Sept. 11 was an inside job, he scoffed.

"I can remember my exact words. ... I said, 'I don't think that even the Bush administration could perpetrate such a thing,' " said Griffin, who has since written two books, "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11" and "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions,'' which dispute the official version of events. Specifically, Griffin believes that the U.S. government orchestrated the attacks.

Griffin began to delve into 9/11 conspiracy theories after looking at a time line of the events of Sept. 11, 2001 (by Paul Thompson, who later turned it into a book) on the Internet. He found himself swayed by the catalog of inconsistencies and strange coincidences.

When asked what the most compelling facts are to make the case that the U.S. government was complicit in the attacks, Griffin names three things. The behavior of Bush at the schoolhouse in Florida ("Secret Service should have whisked him out immediately if we're under attack but he stayed over 30 minutes. ... It's pretty clear evidence that they knew they wouldn't be attacked"), the strange pyrotechnics that brought down the World Trade Center ("fire has never brought down a steel high-rise building") and the poorly planned targeting of the West Wing of the Pentagon ("all the important people are in the East Wing -- it doesn't make any sense").

Not only that, Griffin points to historical evidence that the U.S. government would be capable of such a thing. Operation Northwoods, a plan concocted by the Pentagon in the '60s as a way of taking Castro from power, included ideas about how a terrorist attack on U.S. soil could provide a pretext for military action.

But why now? Griffin names the neoconservative think tank the Project for the New American Century as a motivating force. "Once you look at it, they have lots of motivation," he says. "It's what the neocons have been salivating about."

"The goals would be to get control of the world's oil and establish a new doctrine of pre-emptive warfare. That was a difficult sell before 9/11."

While many conspiracy theories have been passed around, it's been very easy to dismiss many of the theorists as, well, crazy. But Griffin comes to his controversial conclusions with lucidity and calm. He even sees a connection between his long-standing work as a theologian and his new position as a political writer.

"In both cases, the concern is for the good of the world as a whole. Those of us who believe in God believe that trashing the world is not what God wants."

David Ray Griffin speaks on "9/11: The Myth & the Reality." 7 p.m. today, Grand Lake Theater, 3200 Grand Ave., Oakland. (510) 452-3556. He also appears at 11:30 a.m. Mon.,Commonwealth Club, 595 Market St., S.F. (415) 597-6700. www.commonwealthclub.org. $15.