It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by curiousbeliever
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
Wow... anonymous user, how have you seen true reality? is there anything we can comprehend that you could explain to us even though you say it is indescribable? Maybe through an analogy or something?
Originally posted by Ian McLean
reply to post by HarmonicSynchronicity
Welcome, HarmonicSynchronicity.
That post is, quite simply, one of the finest descriptions of 'red pill philosophy' I have ever read.
Excellent first post. Thank you for your clarity!
Originally posted by euclid
An amazingly puerile response to a dross interpretation of temporal reality.... I'm flabbergasted.
-Euclid
I tend to discount as incredible any "new age" idiomatic references; yet I am fully aware that spiritual epiphanies do occur (I have had some) ...
I have had what you call a clarity of understanding concerning the "entangled" nature of reality from spiritual, philosphical and scientific perspectives. I prefer science and "pure" philosophy without the hinderances and ideologies of religions, self-proclaimed guru's, mystics, psychics and the like; ...
Originally posted by euclid
reply to post by HarmonicSynchronicity
Hello,
At least you are intelligent. The points I take contention against are:
1. Subejctivity & obejctivity within our shared temporal reality.
2. The concept of claiming to have been "given" an indescribable ability by an outside agency that allows only you to "see" what reality is.
3. The concept that people are non-player-characters.
4. The concept that "entities" actively manage "us" all.
5. The concept of "awakening".
There are some points of your ideation that are metaphoraically, allegorically, and/or analogously correct:
1. The world being "cinematic".
2. Reality being like a "game".
3. Synchronicities that defy coincidence.
But those are all illusions. Subjectivity and objectivity are functions of the human psyche and do not exist outside of temporal reality.
The claim of being given gifts from"gods" infers psychosis at worst and misinterpreted self-enlightenment at best....
yet more honestly it sounds like the common 1980's new age drivel I've read in the past..... hollow metaphors only that sound cool but offer no utilitarian purpose.
NPC's ..... some people may seem like that but I assure you they are not.... though they may not be exactly human.
The management of an entire species...... if we are so managed then they are not good administrators.
The awakenings.... yes the new age concept of communications via the higher self with entities of light and knowledge.... These entities exist.... but they are not exactly what they claim to be in most cases.
They can provide insight and knowledge. I'll tell you though... I do not trust them.
Just as I would not trust an alien from another planet.
Any entitiy that must keep it self hidden and lurk in shadows and darkness so that it can bring forth a (false) light to impress simple minds is not an entity of Truth, Knowledge, or Benevolence.
Nor would they provide insights that are incommunicable to others; if they were indeed benevolent beings.
If they were they would make sure that their messenger was able to communicate their message of enlightenment and salvation in "describable" terms.
As I said in an earlier post in this thread:
I tend to discount as incredible any "new age" idiomatic references; yet I am fully aware that spiritual epiphanies do occur (I have had some) ...
I have had what you call a clarity of understanding concerning the "entangled" nature of reality from spiritual, philosphical and scientific perspectives. I prefer science and "pure" philosophy without the hinderances and ideologies of religions, self-proclaimed guru's, mystics, psychics and the like; ...
On the other hand my humble, quaint analysis of empirical, historical, scientific, and religious data does offer some mulit-lateral utilitarian purposes that "could" make a difference; rather than just sounding "cool" and spacey.
I don't discount your epiphany but I do question your interpretation of it and its source.
Originally posted by HarmonicSynchronicity
3. The concept that people are non-player-characters.
Yes, many are. Most of the suffering that you see is for dramatic effect. Some real consciousnesses may choose to experience severe suffering for their own reasons, but the vast majority of that sort of thing is not being inflicted on conscious entities. It is cinematography. This is but one example.
Originally posted by Ian McLean
Originally posted by HarmonicSynchronicity
3. The concept that people are non-player-characters.
Yes, many are. Most of the suffering that you see is for dramatic effect. Some real consciousnesses may choose to experience severe suffering for their own reasons, but the vast majority of that sort of thing is not being inflicted on conscious entities. It is cinematography. This is but one example.
And, let me guess here, should you decide to actually try and 'prove' that any of these NPC-seeming entities aren't actually 'complete', perhaps by trying to approach them and search in them for greater emotional or intellectual depth, well, then, that action is part of the 'script', too, accounted for, and that entity isn't a bit-player NPC at all, but rather can express such depth as the 'role' requires -- even to the extent of appearing, or actually 'being' another fully-conscious entity.
Just guessing here, but I've seen that one before. I've talked with people whom, I am convinced, were not listening to me talk, but rather were finding some interpretation, perhaps of their own devising, behind my words. Occasionally, rather innocuous things said have shocked beyond what an expected objective reaction would be -- I seem to have pushed 'hidden buttons'. Am I an NPC? Perhaps, for them, I was.
So, I see an assumptive dichotomy in your argument, which from the unknown causal complexity postulated by your other views, does not seem necessary. It is: 1) Many people's actions seem to fulfill the roles of 'movie actors', in a play which, objectively, they could not possibly be consciously participating, -or- 2) All people in the world are completely or equivalently conscious, within normally-assumed variety. You seem to have taken 1 as evidence disproving 2, but is that necessarily true? Could not the same mechanisms you postulate to explain synchronistic and coincidental events (mediated by an external 'director' force), also underpin the channels of evident expression (speech, action) of consciousness in individuals?
As I believe you said in a previous post, nothing has a single purpose. Perhaps the expression of free-will, as much as our egos might want to object, also fits within this category.
Originally posted by HarmonicSynchronicity
I once carried on a conversation with about 10 people while walking down the street. The thread of conversation for the counter-party in the conversation kept shifting from one random person to the next as I walked.