I suspect reality is as follows, and I want liberation from it

Originally posted by Xtraeme

I largely agree with this. However, unfortunately, the empirical evidence to back up such a claim is woefully lacking.

as is the empirical evidence of a 'big bang' to go along with the theory. However, in terms of a model, it's the best we've got so far. I'm wondering how the recent discovery that the universe is centerless will affect or cause the retirement of that model, though.

As I've argued before the universe appears to be a probability machine. Meaning the end goal is all possibilities, and all possibilities reflects a number of rather horrific outcomes. Given the option I'd prefer to see reality collapse as many of these permutations as possible in the positive direction.

To say that people who live out despondent, miserable lives are equivalent to empty cars on a roller coaster track is no different than saying reality is all sunshine and gumballs.

You simply misunderstand the specific intent of my statement. Experience is chosen. Since time does not exist, yet all experiences overlap in time, there must be an option for the lights to be on, but nobody home, in any particular intelligent incarnation at any "real time" (as I am left to call the progression of the eternal moment). Obama or Castro or George W. or Angelina Jolie may at any time be an empty shell. I may be at times (relative to your experience of "time"). Imagine, if you will, an amusement park with only two patrons. All the rides are running, yet only two passenger slots are inhabited at any time. I, for one, don't like the 'sudden drop' rides. That doesn't mean that nobody does, or that I won't eventually, out of sheer boredom, ride one. You need to stop seeing this through moral lenses. They are clouding your judgment, which is seen through your body-identified next statement.

Ignoring these people is dehumanizing, morally vacant, clinically delusional, and it even exposes a rather large hypocrisy of the "all are one'ers" because it denies someone else's existence.

I believe I addressed that concern. The hypocrisy is, ironically, yours. You think you are superior in some way to amoral beings. This ensures that you will never reach the highest levels of experience until that changes. The entry ticket to the higher realms is love. Love is synonymous with acceptance without judgment, and is thus free of moral constraints that you find so important. You are certainly free to live in an illusory multi-ego-hell if that's your wish. We're here to explore both the sublime and the horrific.

reply to post by Jezus


Jezuz, if someone removed your brain, would you still have the same sensory perception? Would you see? Could you think? Could you hear? Could you feel emotion?

I think you should try it and find out whether the brain is the construct that allows for sensory perception; i think you'll be disapointed to find it is.

Originally posted by seamus
You think you are superior in some way to amoral beings.

Making a point doesn't assume superiority. Though it would be nice to think that I'm superior to immoral actors. Amoral simply implies the person lacks distinction.

This ensures that you will never reach the highest levels of experience until that changes. The entry ticket to the higher realms is love. Love is synonymous with acceptance without judgment, and is thus free of moral constraints that you find so important.

This reminds me of the movie Gladiator, when Emperor Commodus is standing in front of the senate and they're discussing how to deal with sanitation in the Greek quarter. Commodus proclaims that their methods are in error. He suggests the solution is in simply loving his subjects, holding them close to his bossom. The others, trying to deal with this situation in a practical manner, become somewhat impatient and Gracchus interrupts, "Have you ever embraced someone dying of plague sire?"

The point is a good one. Love is something that's intended to be metered.

Since you seem to place great value on mysticism and the altered state of awareness it's provided you. I'd highly recommend reading the ideas on the "descension to the chariot" and the concept of "restriction." In the words of imminent scholar Gershom Scholem (emphasis mine),

This mystical ascent is always preceded by ascetic practices whose duration in some cases is twelve days, in others forty. An account of these practices was given about 1000 A.D. by Hai Ben Sherira, the head of a Babylonian academy. According to him, "many scholars were of the belief that one who is distinguished by many qualities described in the books and who is desirous of beholding the Merkabah and the palaces of the angels on high, must follow a certain procedure. He must fast a number of days and lay his head between his knees and whisper many hymns and songs whose texts are known from tradition. Then he perceives the interior and the chambers, as if he saw the seven palaces with his own eyes, and it is as though he entered one palaces after the other and saw what is there." The typical bodily posture of these ascetics is also that of Elijah in his prayer on Mount Carmel. It is an attitude of deep self oblivion which, to judge from certain ethnological parallels, is favorable to the induction of pre-hypnotic autosuggestion. (Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, p. 49)

The Abrahamic faiths, as well as many other belief systems, understood that loving kindness must be balanced with justice (i.e. Din or Gevurah). For a more modern day understanding of this I'd suggest reading up on Immanuel Kant's idea of a categorical imperative (i.e. "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.")

You are certainly free to live in an illusory multi-ego-hell if that's your wish. We're here to explore both the sublime and the horrific.

While I agree with you in the sense that morality is by and large subjective. I do believe there is one universal law and it's simply, "We should define what's too much by what's too little." So really the only thing I'd classify as outright immoral is when someone "takes more than is needed at cost to someone else."

Recognizing those who have suffered, reveals the importance of why such a moral dictum is necessary in a civilized intelligent society.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Jezus

 

Jezuz, if someone removed your brain, would you still have the same sensory perception? Would you see? Could you think? Could you hear? Could you feel emotion?

I think you should try it and find out whether the brain is the construct that allows for sensory perception; i think you'll be disapointed to find it is.

Of course the brain is what synthesizes the information from the rest of the body to create the experience.

However, it is difficult to distinguish from the qualities that are inherent within the observer from the qualities that are created by the message.

It is possible that the only non physical piece is a pure general consciousness that is more like an energy than a soul. However, evidence seems to suggest that the ego does linger after the brain is not longer capable of communicating with the observer.

It is interesting that you bring up emotion. The abstract nature of motion and thought is helpful in understanding the nonphysical quality of the soul/observer/consciousness.

Originally posted by Xtraeme

Originally posted by seamus
You think you are superior in some way to amoral beings.

Making a point doesn't assume superiority. Though it would be nice to think that I'm superior to immoral actors. Amoral simply implies the person lacks distinction.

To throw down a gauntlet as you did implies some sort of feelings of superiority. The mere wish to think oneself superior to the immoral, is enough to poison your tree of life.

This ensures that you will never reach the highest levels of experience until that changes. The entry ticket to the higher realms is love. Love is synonymous with acceptance without judgment, and is thus free of moral constraints that you find so important.

This reminds me of the movie Gladiator, when Emperor Commodus is standing in front of the senate and they're discussing how to deal with sanitation in the Greek quarter. Commodus proclaims that their methods are in error. He suggests the solution is in simply loving his subjects, holding them close to his bossom. The others, trying to deal with this situation in a practical manner, become somewhat impatient and Gracchus interrupts, "Have you ever embraced someone dying of plague sire?"

I'm sorry... were you saying something? I haven't and don't plan to watch that movie. Just not my thing.

The point is a good one. Love is something that's intended to be metered.

The point is one meant to manipulate egos into continuing in their delusion of personal power

Since you seem to place great value on mysticism and the altered state of awareness it's provided you. I'd highly recommend reading the ideas on the "descension to the chariot" and the concept of "restriction." In the words of imminent scholar Gershom Scholem (emphasis mine),

Sorry. I can't be arsed to read Kabbalah. It's vomitably verbose and obfuscatory. Besides, I'm a big Douglas Reed fan. Ever read The Controversy of Zion? It blows Kabbalah out of the water

This mystical ascent is always preceded by ascetic practices whose duration in some cases is twelve days, in others forty. An account of these practices was given about 1000 A.D. by Hai Ben Sherira, the head of a Babylonian academy. According to him, "many scholars were of the belief that one who is distinguished by many qualities described in the books and who is desirous of beholding the Merkabah and the palaces of the angels on high, must follow a certain procedure. Blahhh blahhhh blahhhhhh. (Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, p. 49)

The Abrahamic faiths, as well as many other belief systems, understood that loving kindness must be balanced with justice (i.e. Din or Gevurah). For a more modern day understanding of this I'd suggest reading up on Immanuel Kant's idea of a categorical imperative (i.e. "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.")

What are you on, mate? You're arguing with quotes! Do you have anything to say for yourself that does not depend on the opinions of men with fancy letters after their names?

You are certainly free to live in an illusory multi-ego-hell if that's your wish. We're here to explore both the sublime and the horrific.

While I agree with you in the sense that morality is by and large subjective. I do believe there is one universal law and it's simply, "We should define what's too much by what's too little."

Ever heard of Occam's Razor? Your "law" needs a shave! Try this on for size: What you put out comes back to you.

So really the only thing I'd classify as outright immoral is when someone "takes more than is needed at cost to someone else."

except, there IS no one else.

Recognizing those who have suffered, reveals the importance of why such a moral dictum is necessary in a civilized intelligent society.

Bollocks. Pure freeze-dried bollocks. The seeking-out of suffering in those who have suffered (as if they didn't want to move into another chapter in their lives) is one of the more subtle forms of superiority complex. I have suffered. My people have suffered. But all is exactly as it should be, for no man has it in his power to thwart the will of God for even a millisecond. When you look into the mechanics of victim creation, you will find that there is ONE who is responsible for all the suffering in your world. It is YOU.

Originally posted by Jezus

Of course the brain is what synthesizes the information from the rest of the body to create the experience.

However, it is difficult to distinguish from the qualities that are inherent within the observer from the qualities that are created by the message.

hence half the challenge to this game. you been reading my books, Jezuz?

It is possible that the only non physical piece is a pure general consciousness that is more like an energy than a soul. However, evidence seems to suggest that the ego does linger after the brain is not longer capable of communicating with the observer.

sure it does, since there is no "after". remember?

It is interesting that you bring up emotion. The abstract nature of motion and thought is helpful in understanding the nonphysical quality of the soul/observer/consciousness.

We've been breathing the same air.

I'm no Jesus but I'm close to him,
we talk all the while.
I'm no Jesus but he comforts me,
we walk side by side.

On the water we walk religiously.
On the water we talk seriously.

I can't be arsed to read Kabbalah. It's vomitably verbose and obfuscatory.

I wasn't advocating Kabbalah I was simply trying to speak in a language you might understand. Apparently that's not possible.

Besides, I'm a big Douglas Reed fan.

Just so people are aware,

Richard Thurlow noted that Reed was one of the first antisemitic writers to deny Hitler's extermination of the Jews. In a review of Reed's Lest We Regret written in 1943, George Orwell compared Reed's outlook to that of the anti-Hitlerian Nazi dissident Otto Strasser and the British fascist leader Oswald Mosley, stressing Reed's continuing denial of Nazi extermination (as opposed to mere persecution) of the Jews.

In the 1960's Reed was outspoken in his opposition to the decolonization of Africa, considering the Black Africans to be unable to govern themselves and needing prolonged colonial tutelage. ...
en.wikipedia.org...

You paint a pretty picture of yourself.

The seeking-out of suffering in those who have suffered (as if they didn't want to move into another chapter in their lives) is one of the more subtle forms of superiority complex.

The goal isn't to seek out those who suffer, but to give them an ear and listen to the traumas they've endured to prevent such a thing from ever happening again. Governments are incremental systems that require some sort of event to spur us to internalize how to better deal with those issues. By paying attention to history and understanding the brutality of the past we have a better chance of improving our present and future. The Constitutional documents of the United States didn't spring up out of thin air. They were the hard fought results of having faced adversity, reflecting on the root causes of those issues, and designing a system that accounted for those injustices.

Originally posted by seamus
Ever heard of Occam's Razor?

I think you forgot the part about "all other things being equal."

Recognizing those who have suffered, reveals the importance of why such a moral dictum is necessary in a civilized intelligent society.

Bollocks. ... I have suffered. My people have suffered. But all is exactly as it should be ...

I'm sure if someone were to break in to your flat and slowly torture you to death you'd still be singing the same tune. Oh that's right, that would just mean you were an empty cart on a roller-coaster running its deterministic course. So no harm no foul.

Appeal to fantasy isn't exactly a strong logical argument.

It is my duty to inform you at this juncture that I am a sovereign and any action taken against me by anyone acting as a proxy for or in the interest of any fictional entity will have swift and painful repercussions upon same.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Uh oh did saying that "poison your tree of life?" Also since this would seem to suggest "[y]ou think you are superior in some way... [does this] ensure that you will never reach the highest levels of experience"?

This is just sad.

Originally posted by Xtraeme
I wasn't advocating Kabbalah I was simply trying to speak in a language you might understand.

You were presuming that mystical babble is a language I might understand, simply because you can't comprehend where I'm coming from? Lazybones.

Apparently that's not possible.

Sure it's possible. To quote my friend Jules Winnfield: "English, --------------, Do You Speak It?!?" (I can see the mods kicking down my door for that one)

Just so people are aware, [slander redacted]

Oh thank G-d, the protector of the downtrodden is here to save us.
Will you take a request?
How about Spare Us!

You paint a pretty picture of yourself.

You're the one with the brush in your hand, genius. Douglas Reed blamed the declining state of Africa (as he stated in "Insanity Fair") on Zionist Communist agents provocateurs. But there was such a complete lack of hatred expressed toward them. Reed was above the emotional entanglements of the players in politics, and stated things quite matter-of-factly. He was a true journalist, recording his impressions for all to read. His opinions were his opinions. His manner of expression was genuine. I see your flailing display of smoke (complete with mirrors) is a result of your not having anything to say to me about my ideas, yet having the desire to have some sort of victory over me. If you want to be better than me, fine. Just realize that that's your reality, and yours alone. You are not allowed to force your view upon me.

The goal isn't to seek out those who suffer, but to give them an ear and listen to the traumas they've endured to prevent such a thing from ever happening again. Governments are incremental systems that require some sort of event to spur us to internalize how to better deal with those issues.

Better by whose definition? The victor always writes history, and this is God's will. The answer is not in learning how to fight harder, but in learning how not to fight. That is the true victory that awaits those brave enough to confront prejudice and false authority.

By paying attention to history and understanding the brutality of the past we have a better chance of improving our present and future. The Constitutional documents of the United States didn't spring up out of thin air. They were the hard fought results of having faced adversity, reflecting on the root causes of those issues, and designing a system that accounted for those injustices.

You weren't paying attention when George W. Bush said that the Constitution "is just a goddamned piece of paper!"? He was telling the truth. He was saying that he knows the real law, and exactly why it is that people like him can get away with literal murder. If you know the truth, and your mind is free of fear, you will have the same power. But it is not a power that you exercise through your will. It is a power that is manifested on your behalf, for you to fulfill the purpose of your creation (inception).

Bollocks. ... I have suffered. My people have suffered. But all is exactly as it should be ...

I'm sure if someone were to break in to your flat and slowly torture you to death you'd still be singing the same tune.

of course. I would project out of my body, as I have done on other perilous occasions, and be free when the flesh suit stops pulsating. But you probably don't "believe" that's possible, so you discount it and want to put me in your conceptual box. It won't work. I'm operating from outside the system. I am the hacker, not the hackee.

Oh that's right, that would just mean you were an empty cart on a roller-coaster running its deterministic course. So no harm no foul.

precisely. When things get that "bad", I'm watching that empty roller-coaster do its thing. A body is certainly capable of presenting the illusion of consciousness, since it is itself made of the stuff of the Ego, Rex Mundi.

Appeal to fantasy isn't exactly a strong logical argument.

I think you just like to try in your feeble way to shoot down people who think differently from yourself. I understand this is the service you provide for the world, but know this: I do not require your services. They are respectfully waived.

Uh oh did saying that "poison your tree of life?" Also since this would seem to suggest "[y]ou think you are superior in some way... [does this] ensure that you will never reach the highest levels of experience"?

This is just sad.

So you say. I allow you to think so, if that serves you well.

Originally posted by seamus

Originally posted by Xtraeme
I wasn't advocating Kabbalah I was simply trying to speak in a language you might understand.

You were presuming that mystical babble is a language I might understand, simply because you can't comprehend where I'm coming from? Lazybones.

Couldn't the same question be reversed, "Simply because you can't comprehend where [Kabbalah is] coming from, you presume it's mystical babble?"

So in reply to your "I can't be arsed to read Kabbalah." I'll just quote back your own judgment, "Lazybones."

Apparently that's not possible.

Sure it's possible. To quote my friend Jules Winnfield: "English, --------------, Do You Speak It?!?" (I can see the mods kicking down my door for that one)

At least you're not devoid of theatrical taste.



Great scene!

Just so people are aware, [slander redacted]

Oh thank G-d, the protector of the downtrodden is here to save us.
Will you take a request?
How about Spare Us!

Sorry when I see BS, I call it.

... I see your flailing display of smoke (complete with mirrors) is a result of your not having anything to say to me about my ideas, yet having the desire to have some sort of victory over me. If you want to be better than me, fine. Just realize that that's your reality, and yours alone. You are not allowed to force your view upon me.

Your line of thinking is simply a mishmash of theosophical justifications for why everything horrible in the world is really perfectly OK! This is called a psychological delusion.

You're excusing every atrocity and in doing so provide a backdrop for allowing and supporting more horrors (i.e. Douglas Reed's holocaust denial, "No proof can be given that six million Jews `perished’;...[1]"). Your philosophical viewpoint is devoid of anything useful. The karmic attitude of, "[w]hat you put out comes back to you [2]" is reactionary. Whereas a moral maxim of "defining what's too much by what's too little" is preventative because it attempts to derail sociopaths from taking more than they need at cost to other human beings.

Your philosophy is an excuse for atrocities committed and provides no useful alternatives in the real world where actual people live and suffer.

How's that for "not having anything to say to [you] about [your] ideas?"

Also I'm extremely familiar with this concept of "self" being all there is. I've spent a considerable amount of time thinking about it and I'm fairly confident at some point in the universe it will be true. However the evidence is very far from demonstrating that it's a present truth.

RE: your objection, "Since time does not exist, yet all experiences overlap in time,..."

I'm not sure what the basis is for your asserting time doesn't exist, but if it's Peter Lynds paper "Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminacy vs. Continuity [3]" I think you've perhaps misunderstood his idea. In it Lynd postulates that there isn't a precise static instant in time underlying a dynamical physical process at which the relative position of a body in relative motion or a specific physical magnitude would theoretically be precisely determined.

It's concluded it's exactly because of this that time (relative interval as indicated by a clock) and the continuity of a physical process is possible, with there being a necessary trade off of all precisely determined physical values at a time, for their continuity through time. This explanation is argued to be the correct solution to the motion and infinity paradoxes, excluding the Stadium, originally conceived by the ancient Greek mathematician Zeno of Elea. Quantum Cosmology, Imaginary Time and Chronons are also then discussed, with the latter two appearing to be superseded on a theoretical basis.

In other words reality is merely a sequence of events that happen relative to one another ‒ time is an illusion.

The mistake you're making is that Lynd is arguing that matter is undergoing transforms one after another in a continuous process, but the observation of these changes being assigned the concept of "time" is illusory. He's suggesting time is simply the observation of transforms and the transforms are real. The assignment of a "relative interval as indicated by a clock" is a human invention that doesn't exist. Put another way, all things happen in discrete moments one after the other but this happens in the same frame not a slide of frames.

The goal isn't to seek out those who suffer, but to give them an ear and listen to the traumas they've endured to prevent such a thing from ever happening again. Governments are incremental systems that require some sort of event to spur us to internalize how to better deal with those issues.

Better by whose definition?

Morality by plurality my good man, or since you believe all things are "exactly as they should be" apparently God's divine hand.

By paying attention to history and understanding the brutality of the past we have a better chance of improving our present and future. The Constitutional documents of the United States didn't spring up out of thin air. They were the hard fought results of having faced adversity, reflecting on the root causes of those issues, and designing a system that accounted for those injustices.

You weren't paying attention when George W. Bush said that the Constitution "is just a goddamned piece of paper!"? He was telling the truth. He was saying that he knows the real law, and exactly why it is that people like him can get away with literal murder. If you know the truth, and your mind is free of fear, you will have the same power.

Bush escaped criminal prosecution due to his wealth, deep connections in the intelligence community, and because half the citizens of the United States are intellectually challenged. It's not that he knows some secret occult magic, but because he had a masterful PR machine and knew how-and-when to play dumb.

But it is not a power that you exercise through your will. It is a power that is manifested on your behalf, for you to fulfill the purpose of your creation (inception).

I'll admit this is something I still wrestle with. Causality is a bitch of a problem.

Bollocks. ... I have suffered. My people have suffered. But all is exactly as it should be ...

I'm sure if someone were to break in to your flat and slowly torture you to death you'd still be singing the same tune.

of course. I would project out of my body, as I have done on other perilous occasions, and be free when the flesh suit stops pulsating. But you probably don't "believe" that's possible, so you discount it and want to put me in your conceptual box.

Over the last year I've come to reconsider the idea of "out of body" experiences after looking at some of the research put out by the CIA / SRI, the Monroe Institute and Bruce Moen. I'm actually amenable to changing my viewpoint when there's data to support it.

This is probably the best comment you've put forward yet to support the "lights are on, but nobody is home" argument. For that I give you a .

However you have to realize your experience doesn't reflect all experiences and many people have reported that they did, in fact, feel the excruciating pain of every moment they were being tortured. By putting yourself in other peoples shoes you might be able to see why the attitude of "everything is me" can be an excuse for saying "everything is acceptable" just as easily as it can be a motivation for empathy.

reply to post by Jezus


So on what basis, do you think anything that the body percieves lives on after death (i.e the brain dying along with the rest of your cells and organs in the body?)

Originally posted by Xtraeme
Couldn't the same question be reversed, "Simply because you can't comprehend where [Kabbalah is] coming from, you presume it's mystical babble?"

No. I can comprehend where Kabbalah is coming from, and that is what gives me the authority to label it "Mystical Babel". I didn't say I hadn't ever read any. I said I can't be arsed to read it.

So in reply to your "I can't be arsed to read Kabbalah." I'll just quote back your own judgment, "Lazybones."

You're one of those "I know you are but what am I" posters, aren't you?

At least you're not devoid of theatrical taste.

Please pay attention. No one reading this needs you to react to my references on their behalf. The references are written for the readers' benefit. Each person has their own way of reacting to it, and to trot out quotes and video clips just takes away from the whole experience. It makes you seem "weak in the head", though I know that not to be the case. You are doing it for nefarious purposes, which you deem to be noble. Fine. Just stop with the monkey-read, monkey-run-around-the-web-gathering-all-the-information-it-can-about-what-it-has-read-and-post-trophies-proving-its-great-capabilities antics. Please. You're not making your point understood, nor are you making my point any less plausible. You are muddying the water with nonsense (which is probably your job, I understand. How's the weather in Langley? No don't bother to "prove" you don't live in Langley. It was a rhetorical question! *facepalm*)

Great scene!

Which is why I quoted it, Dick Tracy.

Sorry when I see BS, I call it.

Your idea of calling BS is to recite a laundry list of slander, avoiding all points at issue? I see. Tell me more.

Your line of thinking is simply a mishmash of theosophical justifications for why everything horrible in the world is really perfectly OK! This is called a psychological delusion.

If you say so, Bwana.

You're excusing every atrocity and in doing so provide a backdrop for allowing and supporting more horrors (i.e. Douglas Reed's holocaust denial, "No proof can be given that six million Jews `perished’;...[1]").

That's not a holocaust denial. That's a fact. A more realistic number is two million. A pittance compared to what the Bolsheviks did to Christians all through Russia during the revolution, but Christians don't own/control the banks and media. Did you know the word "holocaust" means "whole burnt offering", as in ALL of it has been burned up? What about MY people's holocaust? When will that be recognized? It has the distinction of being a lot more close to a real holocaust than the mere dent that was put in the Jewish population. Oh but I forgot. Native Americans don't own/control the banks and the media. So I call bull# on your idea that constant whinging about something that may or may not have happened has anything at all to to with today's reality. I choose to believe that all is well and that existence is by contract. You contract for your existence just like I contract for mine. This puts me in the most empowered position, yet with the least "control" in the thinking of the Ego. In this framework, no one can make a victim of me as long as I create no victims. (hint: it usually starts with making a victim of oneself)

Your philosophical viewpoint is devoid of anything useful. The karmic attitude of, "[w]hat you put out comes back to you [2]" is reactionary.

If you say so, but when there is nothing, and the Supreme Being moves, the ripple that is visible IS a reaction. If you don't like that, get over it. That's how this universe works.

Whereas a moral maxim of "defining what's too much by what's too little" is preventative because it attempts to derail sociopaths from taking more than they need at cost to other human beings.

The idea of prevention is imbued with the fantastic notion that human beings have real power and potent free will. That cannot work in a contract-driven universe. It allows some to do the unconscionable to the unwilling. I refuse to impugn the character of God by believing in such a monstrosity. You think MY views are off? Your view puts every man at the mercy of other men. My view puts me at no-one's mercy, but God's. The all-loving, all-wise, all-powerful Creator.

Your philosophy is an excuse for atrocities committed and provides no useful alternatives in the real world where actual people live and suffer.

Far from an excuse for "others" (who are simply other little copies of that which man calls God) to do evil, it is a call to personal responsibility of the highest order. It has worked resoundingly well for me since adopting it just over a year ago. The people in my circle have been suffering less and less. If you will just remember that death is always an option, then you will realize that we experience nothing that we have not agreed to experience, even if it isn't what our Ego ostensibly wants.

How's that for "not having anything to say to [you] about [your] ideas?"

Nothing I haven't already thought through and discarded for rubbish.

Also I'm extremely familiar with this concept of "self" being all there is. I've spent a considerable amount of time thinking about it and I'm fairly confident at some point in the universe it will be true. However the evidence is very far from demonstrating that it's a present truth.

There is only Now. There has never been a time that was not Now. Get over your linear time toy, it's for kids and monkeys.

RE: your objection, "Since time does not exist, yet all experiences overlap in time,..."
I'm not sure what the basis is for your asserting time doesn't exist,

Only experience. Nothing important like squiggles on a chalkboard.

but if it's Peter Lynds paper "Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminacy vs. Continuity [3]" I think you've perhaps misunderstood his idea. In it Lynd postulates that there isn't a precise static instant in time underlying a dynamical physical process at which the relative position of a body in relative motion or a specific physical magnitude would theoretically be precisely determined.

You have succeeded in proving your intelligence to us all. You may rest now.

It's concluded it's exactly because of this that time (relative interval as indicated by a clock) and the continuity of a physical process is possible, with there being a necessary trade off of all precisely determined physical values at a time, for their continuity through time. This explanation is argued to be the correct solution to the motion and infinity paradoxes, excluding the Stadium, originally conceived by the ancient Greek mathematician Zeno of Elea. Quantum Cosmology, Imaginary Time and Chronons are also then discussed, with the latter two appearing to be superseded on a theoretical basis.

infinity is only a paradox to linear-based minds.

In other words reality is merely a sequence of events that happen relative to one another ‒ time is an illusion.

Quite so.

The mistake you're making is that Lynd is arguing that matter is undergoing transforms one after another in a continuous process, but the observation of these changes being assigned the concept of "time" is illusory. He's suggesting time is simply the observation of transforms and the transforms are real. The assignment of a "relative interval as indicated by a clock" is a human invention that doesn't exist. Put another way, all things happen in discrete moments one after the other but this happens in the same frame not a slide of frames.

Things get so complicated when you bring compartmentalization into it.

Better by whose definition?

Morality by plurality my good man,

Oh, you mean "Numbers make Might, and Might makes Right"? But that presumes that the individuals making up the number have potent free will... Ha!

or since you believe all things are "exactly as they should be" apparently God's divine hand.

We've yet to see that win, whereas I have already won.

You weren't paying attention when George W. Bush said that the Constitution "is just a goddamned piece of paper!"? He was telling the truth. He was saying that he knows the real law, and exactly why it is that people like him can get away with literal murder. If you know the truth, and your mind is free of fear, you will have the same power.

Bush escaped criminal prosecution due to his wealth, deep connections in the intelligence community, and because half the citizens of the United States are intellectually challenged.

No, he got away with it because he was doing the bidding of the citizens. He was doing his job. Silence in the face of monstrosity is implicit consent. All US Citizens are corporate slaves, so they will comply with anything the corporation tells them to. Those who don't comply get sent to gaol. It's simple.

It's not that he knows some secret occult magic, but because he had a masterful PR machine and knew how-and-when to play dumb.

You'd like to think that. He was loyally serving the Zionist machine, and you dare impugn his character. Tsk tsk.

But it is not a power that you exercise through your will. It is a power that is manifested on your behalf, for you to fulfill the purpose of your creation (inception).

I'll admit this is something I still wrestle with. Causality is a bitch of a problem.

no problem at all once you have put your Ego back into its proper range of operation, and realized You Have No Power. At all.

Over the last year I've come to reconsider the idea of "out of body" experiences after looking at some of the research put out by the CIA / SRI, the Monroe Institute and Bruce Moen. I'm actually amenable to changing my viewpoint when there's data to support it.

This is probably the best comment you've put forward yet to support the "lights are on, but nobody is home" argument. For that I give you a

.

However you have to realize your experience doesn't reflect all experiences and many people have reported that they did, in fact, feel the excruciating pain of every moment they were being tortured.

By surviving through it, they ensured a horrific story to keep the inmates (cowards) in line.

By putting yourself in other peoples shoes you might be able to see why the attitude of "everything is me" can be an excuse for saying "everything is acceptable" just as easily as it can be a motivation for empathy.

The issue is not to determine to what bad ends a thing can be put. That's no challenge for an ego-driven human being. The issue is to determine to what good end it can be put, and do it.

Where the heck has the OP gone?

Has he been abducted? Committed suicide?

reply to post by seamus


OP's left because he realises the unjustified, speculative nature of his claim.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


That's not very logical. Perhaps he has a real life crisis to name just one possibility I can think of.

I relate wholeheartedly to the OP. I used to be rather blind and naive to the harsh realities of life for both man and beast that lie at every turn. I have spent years trying to come to a satisfactory perspective of why life is so uncaring and brutal to all sentient life (not just to man!). Speaking of 'man and beast', this is one problem I have with all the ontological (and teleological) theories presented here; They are all about man, but we are simply another animal.

Therefore any theories about lessons, reincarnation, making choices to come here, suffering yada yada, only make sense if they can be expanded to all life forms (and THEY CAN"T!). Many of you guys just act like man exists in his only little vacuum and completely forget that we have only been here a sliver of time compared to all other life on the planet. What lessons or choices or 'reasons for coming here or suffering' did a T-rex have? That is why all these spiritual and/or religious theories don't make sense, because they are completely anthropocentric.

That being said, it seems to me that if there is an overarching intelligence (or Oversoul), that all life are like leaves on a tree. They are part of the tree, but their purpose it to provide energy and sustenance to the tree (metaphorically speaking), and when their function is done, they are shed for replacement - which as a representative leaf, I can say.. THAT SUCKS!

i dont know if someone else may have said what i think about this subject but i will tell you what i think anyway. We are nothing more then thoughts billions and billions of thoughts that are capable of thinking different thoughts. Like all thoughts some are random some are not some effect others some die off some effect all and some dont effect any. We are the collected thought process of god and so the knowledge that he gains is thru us our world is nothing more then a brain cell a mist billions of brain cells. It would be like a brain cell telling you that you the higher organism that your an ass. When both are part of a whole and so in the image of him. think about it because it never stops because you your self have thoughts where do they come from? And what world are they creating and what thoughts are those thoughts thinking.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Perhaps he does. My bad.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Jezus

 

So on what basis, do you think anything that the body percieves lives on after death (i.e the brain dying along with the rest of your cells and organs in the body?)

Well even if we ignore the experiences that people have the logical conclusion is unavoidable.

The brain communicates with a nonphysical “Experiencer".

You can call it an observer, a soul, or even just conscious energy; but the point is that it is distinct from the brain itself.

The brain synthesizes the information that body collects from the outside world. However, your brain is simply a series of chemical reactions. It is more complicated than the rest of your body but it is still fundamentally a moving piece. The study of physiological psychology is very interesting because it observes correlations between perceived states of consciousness and brain activity. However, we can not scientifically prove other people have consciousness. We are forced to make the logical leap. This isn't to suggest that some people don't have consciousness but the point is that it is abstract. Consciousness is made up of feeling, emotion, or thought. It is nonphysical.

When you understand the abstract nature of consciousness it is easy to understand why the brain can not experience the message it creates.

reply to post by AceWombat04


AceWombat04, what you say "what if" about is what I say "what is" about. I think you've described very well what I believe to be reality.

To me, such a belief is not so much fear-inducing as horror-inducing. It would be better if sentient, conscious human life had never evolved. I certainly wish with all my heart that I had never been born.

I think that ideas about life after death, reincarnation, higher united consciousness, are nothing more than attempts to stave off the conscious recognition of what the subconscious sees very well and recoils from.

An all-good, all-powerful god ought to exist. Humankind needs one. It's just too, too bad for all of us that there isn't one.

The ironic thing is that our psychological needs for a good god and for an afterlife have outlived their usefulness. Belief in god and an afterlife is responsible for the failure of most humans to grapple with the reality we have to live with, and as a result we face extinction as a result of thermonuclear war, or biological war, or engineered worldwide famine, or economic war, or whatever. Most of us are looking for a non-existent god to save us from ourselves. It ain't gonna happen.

reply to post by UltimateCynic


No one can percieve of anything before they are alive, because they don't have the physical contructs to percieve.

What makes people think you can percieve after death.

I don't buy this theory that we live on, are reincartinated and conveniently forget our past lives, how could you have possibly come up with that conclusion, lit's ike stating " the universe came from a marshmallow " without any basis or reason for this theory.