It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Spiritual Reorientation 7: We are not connected

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 12:18 AM

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: tetra50

Yes, we do. But this is a world-wide, I think, inculcating effort, with a specific goal….and though I'd like to believe the best, it isn't for the best, I think, but for destruction of the private, individual, human mind…..
For coalescence, as the Bible, our religions and our oligarchies, monarchies, and absolutely everything have been addressed to representing our humanity as evil, to justify our continued manipulation and control, vis a vis what I've already evidenced herein. - See more at:

I too have thought this, and many others. I think you're on to something.

Baudrillard's 'Simulacra and Simulation' is a good account of this. Marx also touched upon ideology quite extensively.

The misrepresentation of humanity by humans has had a grave affect on how we treat others and the earth.

Yes, it has, and I am replying in regard to what you noted in the last sentence, to be specific.

What's astounding is sitting back and watching the replies to your writing coming in, and the general, hearty and threatened rejections of the OP's point coming in….

I wonder what that indicates, really? Why is it so threatening, the concept we really aren't connected, as opposed to the opposite? I do believe, not that it matters, that we absolutely do have certain connections, vis a vis what we live through here, and our supposed humanity…. However, find it more informative that so many need and would rather view us as more connected than not…..

Need everyone else to wear your clothes, perhaps?

posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 12:57 AM
True: it's not really about a connection, it's about a separation. We're all one field with physical boundaries separating us. It's more that the separation is the problem, not the connection some kind of solution. We'll have to transcend the separation to feel WHOLE again, that's something different than 'connected'

posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 01:00 AM
a reply to: Visitor2012

You're the Sigmund Freud of spirituality. Failing in your attempt to recognize your self and know what you are, you try to bring everyone down to your limited awareness of reality, incorrect interpretations of spiritual practices and principles, misunderstandings and calling it 're-orientation'.

You are a parody, bearing the mark of someone who refuses any form of spirituality save for what they serve at the buffet. Grovelling at your masters feet, eating the scraps of wisdom from his table and calling it “spirituality”, has no bearing on the real world. Your “spiritual practices” amount to no more than mimicry and custom, and promoting the ideas of better creators, in the hope that you will be rewarded with the same happiness they were able to find on their own accord.

Ah, ad hominem. It's fun sometimes.

posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 01:02 AM

edit on 5|6|14 by Words because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 01:04 AM
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Do you picture the word "giraffe" as it's written or do you picture the animal itself? How does an abstract idea turn into a concrete word then into an abstract idea again? We're exchanging abstract ideas through a concrete medium. We are connected both physically and abstractly.

You have a good mind, but I disagree.

Abstract ideas do not leave our bodies when we speak words. Neither are they stuck in the words we read. It is up to us, when we come into contact with the symbols, to generate the idea. To illustrate, if someone shares with you his abstract idea but in a language you cannot understand, the idea is never formulated in your mind, and thus not shared, despite being an abstract idea expressed through a concrete medium. It is up to you to generate the idea out of what is given to you. It is up to us to interpret the data we come accross.

Sometimes when we read something a second time, we generate new ideas in the midst of an ever growing perspective. We can listen to a joke, but not understand it until we have thought about it for a while. No abstract idea is simply passed from body to body. It is up to us to generate the meaning, the connection, the association in accordance with our own thoughts and experiences. No sharing is happening. No connection is present.

When I read Plato, I am not connected to someone who died 2500 years ago, nor do I believe I am viewing Plato’s mind. What I am viewing is Plato’s creativity—not Plato himself—but the result of a Plato.

posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 01:06 AM
a reply to: Kashai

In order to claim that the non-existence of God is real it must be deduced.

To do that you would have to know everything.

It is illogical for you or me to think you know everything.

Therefore you have not deduced your apparent conclusion.

Any thoughts?

I have deduced my conclusion long ago.

First of all, I think God does exist. It is impossible to discuss the nature of nothing. When we discuss God, we are not discussing nothing. I also think that the “non-existence” of something is a contradiction. Something cannot both be a something and at the same time not exist, or in other words, a something cannot be a nothing. What we must discover is what it is exactly we are talking about when we use the term God.

Let’s deduce. The english word “God” is a word that has been applied by theologians to all ideas of a monotheistic creator and supreme being, as found in various religious cannons. Zues is God, Allah is God, Yahweh is God, the trinity is God etc. etc. etc. The concept of God does exist, as does the concept of “democracy”, or “freedom”, and has simply been used haphazardly by westerners as an umbrella term to connote the general idea of a supreme being. This is what people talk about when they talk about God, and what they refer to is the only God they have ever “known”, and “loved” and believed in—that is, the words, art and scripture of the religions and their bibles.

What have you deduced?

posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 01:13 AM
a reply to: P-M-H

Its like you just joined a bunch of to try to prove, er, force your narrow view.
Maybe you've been beaten too much during life, maybe not enough.
The view of everything-one being connection seems pretty simple to me, feel free to over complicate it as much as you like though. It goes something like this. We came from the same spot, the big bang, we go to the same place when we die. Act like your separate from this if you please, but really you have no choice over it.

Your idea is simple because it's lazy. Children read children's stories because it's easier to process. It's the shallow end of the pool.

We come from the same spot? Which spot is that? The idea is just so meaningless, and is so narrow it doesn't even allow for itself to pass through.

posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 01:48 AM
Fundamental forces seem to work mostly on an inverse square law basis, which never seems to diminish totally to nothing. That means forces like gravity and electromagnetism are connecting every single particle in the universe, if only ever so slightly. I don't care if you say that is only a physical connection, that is still remarkably profound... that particles not only on Venus, but within the furthest galaxy are exerting force upon everything that is.

But I don't think that is what you are addressing here in this thread, I think you are concerned here about connections of consciousness. The real argument here, if you take the direct route, is mind-body materialism vs any alternative explanation. The point about lack of connectedness relies on the assumption of materialism. Materialism is definitely what appears to be the obvious answer, but I don't think that necessarily allows us to assume it a priori. For instance, just like this thread's thesis, materialism hinges on what consciousness really is, and unfortunately, science has yet to pin that down.

You might be familiar with arguments like those of David Chalmers about the "Hard Problem of Consciosness"- namely that explaining functions like memory formation, visual transduction, or speech assembly are merely that- functional explanations. The true beast to be slain is an explanation of first person experiences; how is it that this brute, inanimate matter, when so assembled, somehow gains a first person perspective and self-awareness? That is a miracle on par with any in the Abrahamic traditions... maybe greater even. Now we have inklings of half-explanations given to us by the likes of Penrose, muttering something about microtubules in neurons giving rise to "quantum networking", yada yada, but even showing what physical processes play host to consciousness does not explain how that magic transition from third person to first person occurs. Even John Searle, one of the greatest modern materialists, recognizes that mind is a separate ontological state, and that this fact demands explanation.

Until that great hurdle has been surmounted, materialism cannot be taken for granted as the known answer, and thus theses like these are standing on pylons loose in the water.

posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 07:37 AM
a reply to: Aphorism

We are all connected in a very real sense.
We need each other, in fact most people go insane without other people around.
We rise, or fall, together.

posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 09:32 AM
a reply to: Aphorism

What's red, long, has wheels and a ladder and puts fires out? I'm pretty sure we're thinking of the same thing. I haven't told you what I'm thinking of specifically yet you still know what it is.

What's the thing you're supposed to get at least 8 hours of every night? I haven't named it yet you still know what I'm thinking of. If there is no abstract connection between us then how do you know what I'm thinking about without me specifically naming what it is?

The fact that you can get something abstract like a thought out of something concrete that matches what is in my mind is proof that there is some kind of connection there. Even if the medium is the concrete, we are abstractly connected through that concrete medium, in this case it's a website on a computer screen.

Do you not know what a person is feeling when they are crying over a deceased loved one? Is empathy not an abstract connection we share with one another?
edit on 6/5/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 10:10 AM
We did have a skirmish on one of your earlier threads but I have continued to read with great interest. I would like to know, in the context of your OP, how you relate empathy into this concept.

Empathy or the act of compassion can be a one sided connection to another human being. The individual may refuse any actions (offers of help) or may lack the capacity to perceive that they need help. This does not change the empathy which remains a one-sided connection.

I am also intrigued as to why you feel the need to annotate the brief sections in your writings and that they always amount to 4. This could be seen as ritualistic behaviour.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 12:26 PM
a reply to: Aphorism

You are a parody, bearing the mark of someone who refuses any form of spirituality save for what they serve at the buffet. Grovelling at your masters feet, eating the scraps of wisdom from his table and calling it “spirituality”, has no bearing on the real world. Your “spiritual practices” amount to no more than mimicry and custom, and promoting the ideas of better creators, in the hope that you will be rewarded with the same happiness they were able to find on their own accord.

You told me a while ago, in your previous 'reorientation' thread, that you don't know what or who you are. You said, one day you may find out. Now I find it preposterous that such a person would then decide to teach on matters of reality and spirituality ("spiritual reorientation") . If you have no clue what you are, then you have no clue what anything else is, especially anyone else including me much less the Universe and everything in it.

edit on 5-6-2014 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 12:58 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 01:01 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 01:06 PM
a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

Maybe it's not character bashing. Maybe it's pattern recognition.

posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 01:12 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 01:30 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 01:38 PM

originally posted by: BlueMule

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: BlueMule

Regardless what you think it is.
It's down right rude and freaking childish.

Unless I'm right, and there's a pattern there. Then it's not rude. It's a fact.

Aphorism isn't interested in learning from ats members. He is interested in his sport, and preaching. Talking to him is a waste of time, just like talking to a fundamentalist. Saying that isn't rude, it's simple observation.

I appreciate your sticking up for people, but be careful lest you become zealous.

But Aphorism still makes excellent points. Perhaps his stalwart nature is less a matter of confidence and more a matter of investigation and preparation.

(post by HarbingerOfShadows removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 01:40 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in