Access denied for universal perspectives

Often I find, that maintaining one universal perspective will restrict my participation in many circumstances. I have found that my choice of perspective varies directly with relevant forum. Here on ATS, it is quite evident between the different forums, such as Space Exploration, 9/11 conspiracies, paranormal activities and origins of creation, that a different perspective is required in each. Relevant points to raise in one forum are unsuitable for another, despite the fact that they may directly impact on proving or disproving a point of view.

For example, in the paranormal I can discuss the possibility of the physical world being an illusion and the spiritual realm representing a much more accurate reality, but if I use this to support a claim that the Earth is not definitively solid in the science and technology forum, it would be deemed inappropriate. This also exists at work or in public or even around the dinner table, where different perspectives are required for different circumstances.

Having spent a fair bit of time on ATS in the past few months I sometimes forget that this is not representative of the general public, thus I when reminded of this, I realise that the majority of people may not even be aware of the need to alter their perspective. In summary, it would be ideal to be able to maintain a universal perspective for all circumstances, but while the masses remain in the dark, it just is not practical.

Amen! Compartmentalize the mind of humanity. Divide the land. Divide the people. Divide the mind. The War on Humanity rages on and the defining strategy is divide and conquer.

It's interesting to me really. To watch it all in action. Of course, being part of humanity makes it gut wrenching at times.

Ever notice how all the different sciences have their own language? Everything is super-specialized. Perfect means to keep humans from putting all the pieces together. No one ever sees the full picture.

You have to pick one side of a fight or another. You aren't allowed to pick a third perspective. If you do then your words are immediately dismissed by both sides.

Why is this thinking rarely corrected by the individual? Simple. The ego won't allow it. The ego can't survive without an enemy. So we lie to ourselves to preserve the ego way of thinking.

Dishonesty with self is the root of all evil.

There's more to it than "mere" dishonesty.

Many do not know how to articulate their subtle experiences. Maturity doesn't always mean, we know how to say what we need, what we want, and what is deficient.

Maybe we don't have the words; maybe we given up trying to get through.

It's never simple.

Nevermind...too off topic.

[edit on 3/25/2006 by Arm Of Geddon]

A recent example of what I'm on about was a thread asking for views on what happens when you die. It was posted in the Science and Technology forum, thus answers concerning re-incarnation and anything spiritual were quickly shot down, despite their relevance. In order to participate it was required to come down a level and think on a lower plane.

I've lived like that my whole life (maybe you have too). Whenever I want to speak to another person I have to find out what level they are speaking from and then match it. And while having the conversation I have to keep it on a leash so I don't go slip to another level.

At this point, I've gotten extremely efficient at it. I can get along with everyone no matter what level they are on. Conscious level jumping was just another game to keep the boredom away.

But now I'm bored of it too. I want interact on all levels at once. An integrated omni-level reticulated intellectual-emotional-spiritual lattice of interacting consciousness. Is that too much to ask?

This sounds as if you are saying, you're seeking a "higher level."

Why not "God"? Maybe He can take you "higher than before."

Ask anybody who was here two years ago, what I was like then.

I'm different because I asked God to make me into something else.

Shift happens.





[edit on 26-3-2006 by chaiyah99]

I cannot answer the question "Why not God" without usurping the thread.

Way kewl response. Perfect stopping point.

So, where do you want to go, next?

Seeing that I don't know your interpretation of the "God" concept it would have to start there. Then I would have to explain my interpretation if it was different from yours. Then I would have to reconcile how our concepts of "God" could or could not raise my level of consciousness. Doing all that would basically be taking over the thread.

I'm beginning to "get it" that incarnated existences occur at different frequencies, somewhat like radio stations.

As we all know, "matter" is mostly space; that space provides the "room" for magnetic charges to connect in different configurations simultaneously.

Okay, so where can this conversation go, that starts out in science and wanders toward the movement of a soul from one body to--presumably--the next body/vehicle/function that it may inhabit, in theory or practice.

What gives us clues about "different frequencies and different levels" of course, is our dreams, which are always interesting even if we don't know how to define what they "mean."

So, going to "God" is not the only destination our thoughts can take; altho He serves, as Progenitor, as a model and prototype for what may be possible.

We can also head into both Physics and meta-Physics, and still retain some flavor of this thread. Physics, after all, cannot be photographed; however, we have lots of photos of orbs and ghosts.

Gets sticky, doesn't it?

Chai

If we wanted to start going into all the interconnected multi-contextual concepts of the interactions between consciousness and existence we would need a whole new forum.

I took this thread to be a way of identifing the pattern of universal perspectives being unaccepted by the different specialized forums on ATS. With my first response I took that idea a step further and added the conspiracy angle to it.

That's the reason I've not gone into the "God" concept and won't go into the above things you mention. It's not an attempt to stonewall any further conversation on the specifics. It's respect for the poster and the idea behind the thread.

You could always start your own thread to go into the specifics and I'd be more than happy to come join you.

Which DEPARTMENT should such a thread reside >IN
This is not Theology, this is Ontology, the Ontological Argument being : "I think therefore I am."

That's not religion, even.

Don't worry. If all else fails put it in this Department, Website-Related Discussion. Or you could put it in Skunk Works. However, if you want to ensure it doesn't end up in BTS be sure to attach the conspiracy angle to it.

And if nothing else, a moderator will assign it where they think it best fits.

Skunk works, it will be.

A classic example of needing to adopt alternate perspectives for me, is when I participate in the science and technology forum. In these instances any talk of the "paranormal" is taboo, thus I have to enter into the discussion with the assumption that current scientific theories are factual. However in a non-scientific forum, you may find me challenging those very same theories I supported in the science forum. It's a compromise.

A variation on this, is the terminology used depending on the intended audience. Terms such as paranormal, real world, superpowers are used, despite feeling that they are not accurate assessments of the point I maybe raising. In these instances, the perceived meaning by the intended audience is more important than the actual meaning of these terms.