symbolic interpretation of history

a reply to: sacgamer25

I think the evolution I talked about is inevitable.

Noam Chomsky talks about it here:



I agree that it is an evolution away from God. The aborigines in Australia were surely closer to God than the average Westerner. But the West has a huge number of depressed. I think depression is a good thing. This is what I talked about above. And this is why it's said that Jews are "a light unto the nations". Yes, the whole process leads down a road to solitary confinement, or as George Orwell put it:

If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.

But, as I was trying to say above, I think this serves a purpose. It shines a light on the dark areas of your inner mind that need to be worked on, and that's why you're here. When you have worked on them, the stuff in the outer world that evoked it might have dissipated or morphed into something totally different.

a reply to: introspectionist

Without going in to great detail, cuz I'm feeling lazy, I'd just like to say that I like the way you think.

You hear a lot of people saying that Christianity, or Jesus' teachings, are separate from or unrelated to the Catholic Church, or the Roman Empire. But if it wasn't for the Roman Empire people would not have known about Jesus or his teachings. The exertion of power is synonymous with enlightenment. Imagine that you live on earth and there is no civilization at all, everybody lives like hunter gatherers, the only media is oral tradition etc. You get a revelation, and want to spread it to all of humanity, across the globe. How do you go about doing that? You can walk around the globe, learn all languages and teach every tribe's leader who then teaches the tribe... If it wasn't for colonialism I wouldn't be able to sit here in Sweden and talk to people all over the world in English, because I wouldn't ever have heard of English, nor would the Internet exist. It's funny how the Catholic Church supposedly was against the Enlightenment, yet I see how the Enlightenment is a progression of the Catholic Church, which was doomed from the get-go as a natural consequence of evolution, which the upper strata of it probably were aware of. One thing I find interesting in this debate is psychiatry and the term "useful idiot". I can see how psychiatry serves a similar purpose as the Catholic Church. But how many psychiatrists are aware? And how many priests are really interested in enlightening humanity and how many are driven by a lower desire? I don't think it really matters, the end result is the same in either case, but it's interesting to think about.

Another very interesting thing is the founding of America and the founding fathers. They were students of the enlightenment philosophy, which was a continuation of ancient Greek philosophy. This is Plato:

Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty.

While it is said that America was founded to be about liberty, economic, religious etc. I doubt the founding fathers did not comprehend that it would develop into our current situation. In other words, I don't think America was ever "hijacked" or "corrupted", but rather everything is going according to plan, and corruption is another word for evolution, as is crony capitalism, also called enlightenment.

The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it's everywhere. The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.

source: www.rollingstone.com...



I have been wondering if there are teachings of Jesus that are concealed to the masses that were only given to initiates, and that are still given today, and in which were instructions of how to govern society, like for example how to create the Roman empire, and why not Goldman Sachs. Or perhaps such things are between the lines for those who have eyes to see. Or maybe Jesus really was hijacked. Or maybe Christianity is but one of many surfacing emanations of a vast underlying network of teachings, all interconnected at the root.

If it wasn't for the cutting down of forests, there wouldn't have been any newspapers in which to read about the cutting down of forests. Ironic, isn't it?

a reply to: introspectionist

In other words, I don't think America was ever "hijacked" or "corrupted", but rather everything is going according to plan, and corruption is another word for evolution, as is crony capitalism, also called enlightenment.

Although it's been a while, I remember coming away from my experience with Buddhism with the idea that they believe that all things can attain a form of "enlightenment" that is appropriate to each thing; like, a hammer can attain a "hammer's enlightenment".

Seems to me that each thing must have some "trajectory of enlightenment" that can be traced, and that's why I am sympatico with your post above. Good job articulating a dificult topic.

I have been wondering if there are teachings of Jesus that are concealed to the masses that were only given to initiates, and that are still given today, and in which were instructions of how to govern society, like for example how to create the Roman empire, and why not Goldman Sachs.

What you are talking about there reminds me of the Sumerian Me (Kantzveldt?), which I have been thinking a lot about lately because I have lately been tremendously interested in the psycho-social-spiritual aspects of why we do what we do with cities.

It's becoming a bit of an obsession for me lately.

Acts 18 KJV

4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

5 And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit (ed. Had a temporal-lobe siezure), and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ.

6 And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean; from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.

7 And he departed thence, and entered into a certain man's house, named Justus, one that worshipped God, whose house joined hard to the synagogue.

8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.

9 Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision (those lobes again), Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace:

10 For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city.

I've been grinding over that bit from Acts for days and days now.

a reply to: sacgamer25

originally posted by: sacgamer25
a reply to: Words

Problems only arise in the mind of the spiritually week.

Ideas are formed both by the devine and the total of all experience in our life.

The only problem comes from Plato's students who refuse to believe in a devine origin of self. The perfect form of man is love and virtue according to Plato and all religious texts.

Aristotle and Nietzsche believed their is no devine law that suggests love and peace have any devine value. Love is subject to man's definition not some devine archetype.

Plato could accept that divine knowledge, supported our understanding of our experiences. Without accepting the devine truth one's own mind would stand against the Holy Spirit within.

I propose this is why Nietzsche went mad.

Attempting to justify things that stand against the Holy Spirt by refusing to believe in the Holy Spirit, is madness.

Plato believed in the Holy Spirit, The light, Devine inspiration. And believed their was a law at work within men that was devine and could not be altered by our perception of it.

To claim that Aristotle's works advanced the understanding of Plato is simply false. Aristotle is a roadblock to understanding Plato not a doorway.

Sorry I meant to say Aristotle's teachings were more grounded in reality than Plato. Both, however, represented periods of stagnation for philosophy, where nothing at all was advanced except dogma and superstition.

Nietzsche went mad likely due to brain tumour, not because he thought a certain way.

Plato did not believe in the Holy Spirit, “the light” or “devine” inspiration. He's from Ancient Greece. No such concepts are found in Plato. You are likely thinking of Plotinus.

If you're looking for the unseen then you have to look no further than yourself. What is it that you see? Your body and the material world around you, but what is it that sees what is seen? It is your awareness, the thing that cannot be seen, it can only be thought of and learned from.

The material world is only a shadow or image of the spiritual world that is within all of us. Thoughts, emotions, memories, etc. are branches of the spiritual world, they are not seen only "known". The perfection and complexity of the physical world around us is a mirror image of the perfection that lies within us.

We are the threshold of the spiritual and material, the image. We are what the bible calls the Son of God, the exact image and likeness of God. You are the image because everything you see is seen by the image of light your eyes create.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Nicely said. That is very interesting, and something I have been thinking about quite a lot. Not sure if the symbolic interpretation of history that they talked about is exactly this though, but there might be a relationship, which would be interesting to know about.

I thought about this once when I was sitting with a group of workmates talking. I was thinking about how that which I perceive isn't necessarily what the sender intended to send. Both words and other things like body language, tone etc. While a word might be a word, there's a ton of subtle interpretation that goes with it. I thought further about this and related it to what I've read about mindfulness meditation. There they talked about pure awareness with no "labels" whatsoever, no emotions, no judgements etc. All those things are what I'm talking about. This could branch off into a long discussion about language philosophy, which I think actually might be related to symbolic interpretation of history. I have no idea what they mean.

I thought about something right now. When we perceive something, I can see two different categories where the perception is unique to the person; 1) a sound as an example; only a certain spectrum of soundwaves might register with me 2) all that which is added on top of the pure awareness

When I've been reading about Kabbalah, Plato, Rumi etc. I have resonated with their view, such as this from The Sufi Path of Love : The Spiritual Teachings of Rumi by William C. Chittick:

Rumi has nothing but pity and disdain for those who look at the world around and within themselves and do not understand that what they are seeing is a veil over reality. The world is a dream, a prison, a trap, foam thrown up from the ocean, dust kicked up by a passing horse. But it is not what it appears to be. If everything that appears to us were just as it appears, the Prophet, who was endowed with such penetrating vision, both illuminated and illuminating, would never have cried out, "Oh Lord, show us things as they are!" Rumi draws a fundamental distinction between "form" (surat) and "meaning" (ma`na). Form is a thing's outward appearance, meaning its inward and unseen reality.

I was somewhat surprised to find the following quote in the book The Sane Society by Erich Fromm:

The insane person has lost contact with the world; he has withdrawn into himself; he cannot experience reality, either physical or human reality as it is, but only as formed and determined by his own inner processes.

I think autism and schizophrenia are very interesting in this context. I read somewhere something like "autism is detachment from people, schizophrenia is one step further, detachment from reality", can't find the quote right now. I probably have something like autism or schizotypal.

I found something very interesting in the book Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus by Ludwig Wittgenstein:

A gramophone record, the musical idea, the written notes, and the sound-waves, all stand to one another in the same internal relation of depicting that holds between language and the world.

I think that might actually be very relevant to this subject. I have been thinking about how for example the communication on a forum works. A thought in one person becomes handmovements, which become electric signals inside the computer, which then is sent through cables or air waves and reaches another computer, is turned into pixels on a screen, is sent as light through the air, enters the eyes of the other person... This makes me think of what Terence McKenna says here about telepathy:



One thing I find very interesting in that context is this process of how the world is moving towards increasing centralization of power, unity or sameness, such as fewer and fewer languages. Which I have thought about in a political context also, where I believe what is called crony capitalism is a natural consequence of evolution. And there we see fewer and fewer stores, fewer and fewer companies etc. I find this very interesting because the world appears to be shrinking. I think about this often when I watch videos with people on the other side of the globe in them. It's like they're right here beside me in a sense. This appears to be what is discussed in this video where he talks about Babylon and how we have "closed the circle":

I have been wondering if my outer world is a projection of my own mind.

I have been writing notes about politics and philosophy, might post some of it later. I have for example been wondering about how politics seems intimately connected with autism. Not sure if the politics results in a state of mind or if the state of mind projects outward. I'm especially interested in crony capitalism, the hegelian dialectic and how left and right in politics interact. I have descibed it as being similar to how the radar and the stealth airplane interact. Anyway, gonna sleep now.

Interesting subject this. Been thinking about the unseen world and symbolic interpretation of history and trying to make some sense of this.

One thing I have been thinking about, which I find paradoxical, is this:

When Rumi says that he has pity and disdain for those who think they perceive reality as it is, he is then making a judgement (pity and disdain) about something which he perceives (those people that he pities). In other words, he himself is assuming that he has perceived this thing as it is, for otherwise he would not have the authority to judge it. Thus he does that which he accuses others of doing. Is he not?

I think that symbolic interpretation of history might mean something which is related to the unseen world, or the occult. In other words that you have the idea that "things are not what they seem", you question commonly accepted definitions of things, you pursue that which is beyond face value, that which is unseen/occult. Symbolic means "serving as a symbol of something", and symbol means "something used for or regarded as representing something else". Something representing something else, in other words something is not what it appears to be.

The double rainbow guy comes to mind, who eloquently put it:

"What does this mean?"