Spiritual Reorientation 6: We Are All Prophets

a reply to: Serdgiam

Was your experience due to the normal societal narrative, or did you truly ponder your action to the words? Was your dislike caused by a reaction or a conscious action?

Yes, I truly pondered it.
As I have stated: I find the OP confused and ambiguous. I've looked at many posts and threads by the OP - and can't get a firm grip on the ideas presented. I don't mean that as a flame, or an insult - I am genuinely confused by the style and content of this particular member's (real person's) writings.

S/he admitted to being an atheist earlier - which helps a bit. But I'm still a loooong way from fully appreciating the foundation represented by the epigraphs contributed to the forums.

a reply to: Serdgiam

Thank you for the wise interpretation. I do admit I write abrasively with sweeping assertions and generalizations in the hopes to weed out the ideological among my readers. Most of the time, emotion speaks before reason, and they resort to belittlement of the person rather than face the points I raise. In the vein of the Op, it is whatever label I attack that governs their response most of the time. I do my best to research and triple check my logic and reason and am fairly confident in my conclusions and are ready to defend them. Hopefully, in the end, if my reason is solid enough, the ideology burns itself out, and we can finally step back and take a look at it and why we are so quick to defend them.

I mentioned the idea of the old prophets, who I like to believe were destroyers of the ideals laid before them so that they could create their own out of the rubble. We all possess the power to do this, and in a sense, we can be the living embodiment of their actions rather than the mere followers of their ideas, and products of our culture. They are examples of what each individual can become, regardless of whatever attributes of divinity we apply to them after the fact.

For much of our lives culture creates us, and maybe for that we should be somewhat grateful; but sooner or later, we discover we can change that very culture and create it. It's exactly like your signature says. It is a simple but powerful insight.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

S/he admitted to being an atheist earlier - which helps a bit. But I'm still a loooong way from fully appreciating the foundation represented by the epigraphs contributed to the forums.

Just to make things more difficult, I am not an atheist.

I only seek to be able to define myself before I let anyone else do it for me. I am still not there yet, and likely never will be.

originally posted by: Aphorism
Authenticity is almost impossible if we're not face to face in each other's company. So rather than build up a misconception of you in my mind based on your words, doing you a complete injustice, I work with what I have, and leave the rest up to the imagination.

Sorry to butt in on this word salad of a discussion, but something about your statement is coming across as contradictory on my computer screen... It could be that I'm just not following...

So referring to the bolded parts- you say you would rather not build up a misconception of someone in your mind based on just words, but then in the very same sentence you say that you work with what [words] you have and leave the rest to your imagination. (which would seemingly equate to forming a [mis]conception of that person in your mind, no?)

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Sorry to butt in on this word salad of a discussion, but something about your statement is coming across as contradictory on my computer screen... It could be that I'm just not following...

So referring to the bolded parts- you say you would rather not build up a misconception of someone in your mind based on just words, but then in the very same sentence you say that you work with what [words] you have and leave the rest to your imagination. (which would seemingly equate to forming a [mis]conception of that person in your mind, no?)

I suppose in a way yes. I cannot stop imagining things. Luckily, imagination is never a 1 to 1 ratio to the real world. Unlike those who see perception as reality, I don't believe there is an actual Buzzy Wigs in my mind, only something or someone out there I have yet to discover. If I rely on a misconception to explain her away, I do her and myself a great injustice.

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: Serdgiam
I mentioned the idea of the old prophets, who I like to believe were destroyers of the ideals laid before them so that they could create their own out of the rubble. We all possess the power to do this, and in a sense, we can be the living embodiment of their actions rather than the mere followers of their ideas, and products of our culture. They are examples of what each individual can become, regardless of whatever attributes of divinity we apply to them after the fact.

I agree, they show what we can be. It has been mangled, through social narratives of our labels, to insist that we are not capable. That we are frail, and weak, and must wait. All the while, those who are writing the narrative are working on long-term plans. The weakness though, is that there is still a personal search. It is not explicitly stated anymore, and infrequently taught, but it IS there. I have been wondering exactly what system will be used to replace it, that closes up that loophole. There are several possibilities.. None of which would be effective if we consciously acted rather than reacted.

For much of our lives culture creates us, and maybe for that we should be somewhat grateful; but sooner or later, we discover we can change that very culture and create it. It's exactly like your signature says. It is a simple but powerful insight.

I do believe it is time we started writing our cultural story rather than being controlled by the narrative. We change the world every day, with every single thing we do. And yet, that label of "We Can Change the World," seems to imply to many of doing something that is completely revolutionary. All it really means is to consciously approach our narrative, and start writing a better one for the future.

I find it odd that science is considered not only the pinnacle of learning, but of approaching nearly any situation. And yet, we rarely apply it to things like the government, economy, or even the most productive way to compete. We use it to learn how to best "game" the current narrative, but not to change the rules of the game entirely. Such a shakeup isnt always comfortable or nice, but in the end, if the result is a stronger foundation for everyone to "play" with more possibilities and opportunities for those who seek it.. then everyone benefits.

Much like selfishness/selflessness, the difference in perspective on "greed" is just as interesting. It is viewed as, essentially, a full blown sin and one of the most virulent and destructive to our current society. However, it is perhaps the method of it that is out of line, and not necessarily the morality of the label. If the purpose driving the greed is to increase ones quality of life, that can be pursued in many ways. One of the worst would be what we currently have as our cultural story; that the only way to increase ones quality of life is at the expense of others.

We each build our own little towers, our structure, separate from anyone else. When others succeed, we trend more towards tearing it down rather than learning and building our own structure better. Not only does this directly infringe on our true capability of a species, it doesnt even allow for what would happen if two people started building their towers together.

But, the future should be rather interesting. There are some things coming down the pipeline that will challenge our narrative. Things have been happening for a bit now, as well. Whether it is for the better, or for the worse.. will be solely determined by how we use the tools available to us all.

small rant, kinda. it happens sometimes

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: AfterInfinity

And that is fair. But adjectives are still labels. Any word is a label, actually.

Not necessarily. Adjectives describe the things we label.

That's what a label does.

originally posted by: EviLCHiMP

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: EviLCHiMP

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
a reply to: EviLCHiMP

Divine love is not an empty concept. You just spoke of people seeing labels instead of the person behind them and just turned around and labeled my concept as empty. That is completely hypocritical.

Can you prove that divine love exists outside of our minds?

Divine love cannot be reduced to an expression of language because language is a label. I can show you divine love through my actions and self sacrifice. I cannot prove something to you that you do not perceive as being valid. Surely you understand what I mean by this.

That proves to me that it exists inside the mind. If it relies solely on my perception, that is.

May it be said that everything we perceive only exists through mind?

In a literal sense, yes. Everything you experience is first an electrical impulse generated through stimulation. That electrical signal happens in the brain.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

I have seen love kill, I have seen love lie, I have seen love strike fear in those it cares about, I have seen love destroy absolutely.

That wasn't love you were seeing.

a reply to: Aphorism

I only seek to be able to define myself before I let anyone else do it for me. I am still not there yet, and likely never will be.

So then why are you writing threads about spiritual realignment?

a reply to: Aphorism

So your own words deceive you. If everyone is spiritual then spirituality is hardly exclusive.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

The weakness though, is that there is still a personal search. It is not explicitly stated anymore, and infrequently taught, but it IS there. I have been wondering exactly what system will be used to replace it, that closes up that loophole.

A whole spiritual reorientation will be needed, where focus isn't on the non-existent aspect of spirituality in which many so called spiritual people spend their time and energy, but brought back to the existent. In my opinion, there will need to be a religion of the future.

Thanks for the rant. I agree full-heartedly.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

That's what a label does.

Maybe a label on a bag of chips does. I'm speaking of human classification.

a reply to: Visitor2012

So then why are you writing threads about spiritual realignment?

Why are you not?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

So your own words deceive you. If everyone is spiritual then spirituality is hardly exclusive.

But it is, because no one practices real spirituality.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

In a literal sense, yes. Everything you experience is first an electrical impulse generated through stimulation. That electrical signal happens in the brain.

What? An electrical impulse? Is that all I am to you After infinity?

originally posted by: Visitor2012
a reply to: AfterInfinity

I have seen love kill, I have seen love lie, I have seen love strike fear in those it cares about, I have seen love destroy absolutely.

That wasn't love you were seeing.

I guess it's all a matter of perspective, eh? Because if I were to ask someone who killed or terrorized or lied or manipulated in the name of love, I'm sure they'd tell me that they loved no one more than the person they did it all for.

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: AfterInfinity

 

In a literal sense, yes. Everything you experience is first an electrical impulse generated through stimulation. That electrical signal happens in the brain.

What? An electrical impulse? Is that all I am to you After infinity?

Yes. Or rather, a pattern of electrical impulses I feel are worth exploring.

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: AfterInfinity

That's what a label does.

Maybe a label on a bag of chips does. I'm speaking of human classification.

It's the same general principle. Labels provide descriptions, and thus definitions, no matter what they are printed on or what they are attached to. That's why we call them "labels". And if you're going to continue splitting hairs, then there's no point continuing this supposedly honest discussion.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

It's the same general principle. Labels provide descriptions, and thus definitions, no matter what they are printed on or what they are attached to. That's why we call them "labels". And if you're going to continue splitting hairs, then there's no point continuing this supposedly honest discussion.

It isn't the same general principle. Shall I call you an "empty", or a "red", or a "salty", or a "funny"? No because those are descriptive words. They are not labels. If me splitting hairs simply means you refuse to agree with me, perhaps an honest discussion is indeed out of the question.

Here's the dictionary definition so perhaps we can agree. I will bold the meaning of the word I am referring to:

label |ˈlābəl|
noun
1 a small piece of paper, fabric, plastic, or similar material attached to an object and giving information about it.
• a piece of fabric sewn inside a garment and bearing the brand name, size, or instructions for care.
• the piece of paper in the center of a phonograph record giving the artist and title.
• a company that produces recorded music: independent labels.
• the name or trademark of a fashion company: she plans to launch her own designer clothes label.
• a classifying phrase or name applied to a person or thing, esp. one that is inaccurate or restrictive: my reluctance to stick a label on myself politically.
• (in a dictionary entry) a word or words used to specify the subject area, register, or geographical origin of the word being defined.
• Computing a string of characters used to refer to a particular instruction in a program.
• Biology & Chemistry a radioactive isotope, fluorescent dye, or enzyme used to make something identifiable for study.
2 Heraldry a narrow horizontal strip, typically with three downward projections, that is superimposed on a coat of arms by an eldest son during the life of his father.
3 Architecture another term for dripstone.