Baddogma's Meta Cafe- Polite Discussions About Scientific Mysticism and General Weirdness

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Right back at ye, Mr Bear.
You know, we have a saying here: 'we're all Jock Tamson's bairns' - basically, we're all the same under our skin. Don't let folk get you down, telling you you're no one special. You're certainly very special in this obscure thread in an obscure off-topic forum of an obscure web site. You're just as good as the rest of them.

I think you should definitely write your book. You're right - so what if folk get upset? They're allowed to.
It's great to hear that you're feeling re-inspired. This thread has made me think -and I'm still thinking - about a lot of things.

a reply to: beansidhe

One of my FAVORITE concepts is about "enlightenment".

Most MHS sufferers are wanting to compare themselves to some lofty type of being.

But if you are SERIOUS about "enlightenment", then that means you seek the dispelling of delusion, which means that you enjoy being proven wrong.

So learning some amazing insight should excite one as much as being proven to be tragically wrong about anything and Everything.

Hardly anyone ACTUALLY wants to be "enlightened".

Rather they want an increase in social status due to you believing their "B.S".

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Very, very true. Enlightment should, I guess, be about realising how wrong you were and how different it could be. But like you say, with so many of these folk (Bandler comes to mind in my profession) enlightment comes attached to white powder, a sweat lodge and someone having sex with someone they didn't really mean to. Enlightening certainly, but not always in a good way.

Rather they want an increase in social status due to you believing their "B.S".

I guess why that's why they are so keen to bang on about 'dropping the ego' or however they frame it. Ego (sense of individuality, self-boundaries etc) is an inherent aspect of how we function successfully and it's pretty crucial in my book. You're hugely vulnerable to manipulation without that wee voice in your head saying ' but this guy's an arse?'

Less enlightenment, more Charlie Manson stuff.

a reply to: beansidhe

Yup.

The thing that's awesome about Liminality, is that you never lose your "ego", and in fact you can live in a "liminal state" for your entire life without losing it. The "ego" just sits there like a potential, and just rises up strongly WHEN REQUIRED; otherwise you have the flexibility to be as "spiritual as you want". "True Spirituality" simply being the act of having "sex" (kibitzing with other) with the Universe (or a part of it).

So you see, most "spiritual people" don't even rise to the level of being wrong.. since Liminality is the beginning of spirituality.

Kev

Does a worm have ego?
Does a tree have ego?
Does the sun have ego?
All are functions of the universe.

In order to become sentient, are we saying we need to experience ego first, for without it there is no other path self awareness?

I think ego is really an interesting thing.. Defined as "sense of self," it seems to be something that can be expanded rather than decimated, leading to essentially the same experiential results. There are some problematic contradictions when one states they have removed their ego.

Regardless, depending on how one actually perceives their 'self,' some aspects change dramatically. "Selfishness" will actually appear to most as selflessness, and others.

In me experience, "enlightenment" happens to this "self," but its difficult to pin it down to a single event unless we define it as a return to baseline, of sorts.

There seem to be a myriad of events that lead to experiences of enlightenment, just like everything else, really. When one perceives such an event once, its easy to look no further, but when it happens multiple times, the picture starts to form of connected experiences. Where, rather than constantly trying to re-experience that single, special event, we see it as one branch of a larger tree.

It seems that that first experience is one of the stickier traps around.

Its also so interesting that someone even CAN perceive a destruction of ego. Our own minds can do some spectacular mental gymnastics. Perhaps someday, we will include such flexibility in our culture, rather than relegating it to obscure topics that lead to delusion.

Jumped back and forth a bit, hopefully things weren't lost in the mix!

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
Does a worm have ego?
Does a tree have ego?
Does the sun have ego?
All are functions of the universe.

I would say yes to both the questions and the statement! I see that any unique system that grows and changes would have a sense of self. The thing is, it would manifest so differently from what we know and understand that it might appear as something else entirely. But, when it comes down to it, a tree grows its own roots and leaves, and a worm eating food doesn't feed the worm "two tunnels down the way." In much the same way, our sun doesn't seem to shine the light we see from Polaris.

So, something like "experiencing the ego" would be intrinsic, rather than something that can truly be turned on and off. Of course, with the malleability of the human perspective, we can convince ourselves of nearly anything. I think that may point to a subtle mechanism that is only loosely related, instead of being the basis for "sentience" or "ego."

a reply to: Serdgiam

Why is self awareness more important than existence?
What purpose does it fulfill?

ETA these are just questions I don't have an answer to them either but worth considering

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
a reply to: Serdgiam

Why is self awareness more important than existence?
What purpose does it fulfill?

To the first question, I'm not sure that it is more important from my perspective. If we wish to define it in a heirarchy, then self-awareness would simply be a part of existence.

As for purpose, you'd have to ask the designer (if one exists). Though, from a human perspective, it seemingly serves as a steering mechanism, that much like a steering wheel of a car, can get us somewhere new, or spinning in circles.

In an attempt to meld your myth with my own, ego would serve to define the parameters of the function, and awareness of it would allow the unique system to self-modify how it goes about fulfilling the function. Basically, another tool in the toolbox, where a screwdriver isn't more important than a hammer. Depending on the local environment containing the function, a hammer might be seen as more "important" if there is a nail, but its not the whole story. In the same vein, the toolbox could be seen as existence. Not more important than the tools within, but it provides a clear, focused method when it comes to accessing and using the tools. That's a shaky metaphor, but its not too terribly awful.

a reply to: Serdgiam

That's a shaky metaphor, but its not too terribly awful.

Actually it's quite a good one methinks

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Good on loosening writer's block.. .the universe is conspiring to rob me of my own free time, too... which always seems to happen when my thoughts brush the algorithms behind it "all." I haven't figured out if it's a part of me shying away from some stark truth and manipulating my environment away from addictive contemplation, coincidence (likely no such thing anyway) or nefarious critters working to keep some nobody ignorant, but it's odd that whenever my interests are piqued in meta matters, the trifling day-today stuff comes roaring in the guise of mundane distractions... every darned time.

Not that that will deter me from chasing the 'meaning tail' ... just that I'll have to filter more static... if I want to be contemplative, that is.

Enjoying the heck out of the discussion btw... and my flip aside that, basically, the way maths are taught is frequently boring doesn't take away the fact that at (the very) least most of the universe may be described using them...

perhaps there is a way to think about about things 'post maths,' but that's several IQ points beyond my pay grade.

Welcome to the blazing minds on display... got me some catching up to do.

eta: and that thought about distractions may be seen as a Trickster aspect, as the annoyances aren't catastrophic as in some cosmic door slamming shut (or death or a blazing angelic figure waving a finger and shouting "No!"), but rather electronic or mechanical interference, random calls and neighbors and general situations drawing attention away from the ephemeral... and again, hard to impossible to say if it's psychological tricks or an actual faint force working within environmental constraints against any existential realizations... but it sure seems "real."

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Look! Ask and ye shall receive!
Remember you were asking about Celts and antlers/horns? I've just been reading about thi s Mesolitic pendant found in the Star Carr site, Yorkshire. This is way older than the Celts, around 11,000 years old, but it's quite exciting!

Professor Nicky Milner, of the Department of Archaeology at York, led the research. She said: “It was incredibly exciting to discover such a rare object. It is unlike anything we have found in Britain from this period. We can only imagine who owned it, how they wore it and what the engravings actually meant to them.

“One possibility is that the pendant belonged to a shaman — headdresses made out of red deer antlers found nearby in earlier excavations are thought to have been worn by shamans. We can only guess what the engravings mean but engraved amber pendants found in Denmark have been interpreted as amulets used for spiritual personal protection.”

a reply to: zazzafrazz

Ego is just awareness of a boundary.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Even amoebas have "awareness of a boundary".

However humans have toxic egos for the most part.

When a ego gets so snarled up, that one loses the ability to interact in a meaningful and useful manner with "others" (and that includes "the Other"), then that is the problem.

Humans tend to be so sick, that most "other species" don't want to deal with us.

We are a young species is all. Not evil. Just young.

Kev

a reply to: beansidhe
So the universe is being helpful to you and dropping relevant bits of info in your lap, while I am at odds with my little baddogma terrarium... teach me to groove with the universe again, o great one... what or whom am I upsetting??

And if the answer is "Jesus" do not collect 200$ or pass go.

a reply to: Baddogma



Dunno, I just blunder along thinking about horns and Celts and things a lot. Maybe try that for a while?

a reply to: Serdgiam

Sometimes it makes sense to scope a project in a particular way, sometimes in another way.

You can't scope without a boundary.

If you finish one project, then perhaps it's time to enlarge the scope, to enable starting another project.

Kev

a reply to: Baddogma

Math is, mostly, just like any other language. We use symbols to communicate our "reality" to one another. However, where it is different is when it comes to everyday interactions. As it currently exists, its difficult (at best) to verbally tell the story of, say, the trip to the grocery store. What it lacks in this, it kind of makes up in terms of accuracy and consistent perception of the symbols.

In my mind, this points to some sort of disconnect that may not always exist. At some point, our language of math may very well become something that not only conveys information with potent accuracy, but amazing imagery as well.

In my thought experiments about it, I imagine the spoken language to be rather unique in comparison to what we currently know as spoken language. So, I think one possibility would be using vocalizations that are derived from the math and turned into sound waves. So, the "words" themselves would not only convey imagery, emotion, etc. but also large amounts of 'objective' data.

I think it might end up sounding like radio static, mixed with wind chimes, and the melodies of the birds. It would take a substantial amount of generations to even begin to evolve such a language, but who knows where we will really be as a species in 10 generations, much less 100 or even 1,000. Given our current stage with technology, I'm not sure we can even look to history to make reliable projections. Its new ground for us, as far as we know. Pretty exciting though, even if I wont be alive to see it!

a reply to: Serdgiam

Agreed... your take on struggling to envision a more correct descriptive math language (of a sort) was admirable!

I, too, share the view that our environment may be described and predicted using the descriptive method termed "mathematics" but wonder if there are components of something else... in the spirit that there always seem to be further reductions and descriptions to make, I wonder if a complete description of our environment could include something less ... reductive?

But that's simply saying "there's likely stuff we haven't begun to imagine yet" which is always a pretty safe statement.

a reply to: Baddogma

A poster sent me a link to an "ATS Alternative". Out of curiosity I went and took a look. Well one of the first things I read, was that 'bashing Christianity' was not to be allowed, and that would prevent membership.

Well straight away, I lost all interest in that site.

Now I feel VERY sorry for Christians, as they have been deluded and victimized for several thousand years.. and it is nearly impossible to rescue one from the ancient "mind virus".

I do not enjoy, nor wish to "bash on individual Christians (the victims).

And it's not just Christianity of course.. it's all the Abrahamic faiths.. and even more than that, it's all the Patriarchal faiths.

The confusion and ignorance about souls was bad enough.

But then the destruction of the "family" (imputing Divinity to the "male" only) led to the marginalization of the "female", which led to to wholesale consumption and destruction of all life on Earth.

In the case of Christianity, the "Divine Female" became so marginalized, that there no longer was a Divine Trinity (a very old concept) based originally upon the family. It turned into Father/Son worship and the tacking on of an asexual spirit for purposes of historical continuity --- it became the great lie which destroys the world.

Individual modern Christians are not to blame, for example, for exterminating my people the Sioux, and all the other native peoples. But that they do not cry and weep for the evil fruit they are eating sickens me personally. Now yes, I know, atheists and non-theists also do "evil" and also killed many native Americans and pagans ("literally something like "farmers")
to steal their lands for gain.

I do not put all the blame of the world on JUST Christianity, but the destruction of the reverence of Nature, the destruction of the balance of male and female; the balance between humans and nature.. which is not just allowed but MANDATED by Abrahamic faiths, sickens me to my stomach.

Worshipers of Abrahamic faiths have a delusional heaven to which they wish to escape; but the rest of us have to just live here, in the crapped up and devastated husk, which those dominant religious have created.

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Yes, well.. OR you could just use my shorthand and say "Jesus is a non starter" heh... but I feels ya.

I have met some incredible Christians and the general "golden rule" meme is SO important and that a system of control would spit out that bit of profundity is cool... and then cut to several hundred years of nominal Christians spitting on that beautiful concept and you'd have a pretty summation of why much of humanity lacks "humanity."

Que somber music and credits showing a dead, despoiled garden planet...