Why do people ascribe supernatural qualities, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times


reply posted on 12-9-2009 @ 04:03 AM by Edrick
reply to post by dragonsmusic



They are not being supernatural in my opinion. they are using models. like if you look at www.nlp.com you will learn about some unique shi#. unbelievably cool stuff. the phrases trust your heart and listen to your feelings are about using what is called a sensory predicate.


Yes, that was my (Subtle) point....

That it is deliberate.

And an attempt to shut down mans greatest weapon... his mind.

-Edrick



reply posted on 12-9-2009 @ 04:16 AM by dragonsmusic
reply to post by Edrick



fascinating, as spock would say. you are almost always on to something bro. i will be thinking about that concept before i write anything else about it. i like it though. cool.


reply posted on 12-9-2009 @ 05:27 AM by l_e_cox
reply to post by Edrick


The mind is a fantastic invention, but some would argue that it is not man's "greatest weapon."

One can theorize a level of knowledge above rational thought. When someone alludes to "instinct" or "heart" that may be what they are trying to do. In the materials I have studied it is called "knowingness." It is senior to, and more powerful than, rational thought.

But for most people, these benefits are unattainable or unreliable without some technology to develop one's ability to simply know.

It may be that rational thought is looked on as man's greatest weapon. But it is also his Achilles heal! For the mind can be booby-trapped so that it will perceive things that are not real or are not true.

The mind is basically an energy system, so there are energy-based technologies that can be used against it. This would be theoretically impossible to do with pure knowingness. To know one does not need to think. One just goes and looks, or simply makes a decision.

I would not belittle the attempts of people to tap into higher states of knowing. One can fool oneself by thinking one has attained a higher state when one has not. But that doesn't mean it isn't worth trying.


reply posted on 12-9-2009 @ 06:04 AM by Edrick
reply to post by l_e_cox



The mind is a fantastic invention, but some would argue that it is not man's "greatest weapon."

One can theorize a level of knowledge above rational thought. When someone alludes to "instinct" or "heart" that may be what they are trying to do. In the materials I have studied it is called "knowingness." It is senior to, and more powerful than, rational thought.


We are at the most dangerous crux of this particular topic.

That of distinguishing "Knowingness" or "Spirituality" or "Wisdom"

From

Emotions or Heart or Instinct.


To confuse the two would be most dreadful... and in fact, is the problem that I have been alluding to.


Emotions are not superior to the mind, they are beneath it, and subordinate to it.

Instincts are also beneath the mind, and in humans (Especially) they are subordinate TO the mind.

At least, that is how a human being (and society) advances.

Instincts are genetically learned behaviors.

They are formed through pure Darwinian selection.

Emotions are reactions to our perception of value.


Instinct can not look forward.

Emotions can not look forward.


Wisdom, and "Spirituality" (Which is another way of saying wisdom), is a Mental ability.


It is the same with intuition.... it is neither a Instinct, nor an emotion... it is founded on the mind.

It may be that rational thought is looked on as man's greatest weapon. But it is also his Achilles heal! For the mind can be booby-trapped so that it will perceive things that are not real or are not true.


The Instinct does not have the ability to learn and adapt.

The emotion does not have the ability to plan, plot, or postulate.


The mind may be able to be fooled, or tricked...


But that does not mean that the Emotion or Instinct can do what the mind is capable of.


I would not belittle the attempts of people to tap into higher states of knowing.


Nor would I.... my distinction (Point) is that the Emotions, and the Instinct are being lauded *AS* Enlightenment, Spirituality, and Wisdom (Knowingness)


This is the problem.


IT is a trick designed to stunt your growth, by telling you that the highest state of man is that of emotion.... or instinct.


-Edrick


reply posted on 12-9-2009 @ 06:53 PM by Edrick
reply to post by blujay



It's all about soul evolution. Using the energy centers


(Proof Plz!)

The soul resides in the heart. All of your guidance or instincts come from your higher self - this is felt in the heart.


(Citation Needed)

If you feel light or a 'happy heart' this is the decision to follow.


(Citation Needed)



You are reading this text (My post) on a screen that uses highly advanced electromagnetic engineering to project the proper mix of colors, and shades to represent a form of symbolic communication known as Words.

These words are formatted, stored, transmitted, and archived through several extremely complex mathematical algorithms that determine rapid pulses of predetermined quantity to be information of a set type.

These systems work together seamlessly, and allow rapid communication throughout the world, to almost every individual on the planet.

These systems work predictably, repeatably, and reliably.


Your food is planted, grown, harvested, and transported to you on a massive scale that is necessary for the survival of billions of individuals.

Made possible by the Invention, design, and construction of countless labor saving machines that are required for a agricultural civilization of this magnitude.


All of these things are necessary for your survival, communication, discourse, and further education.



Tell me... what do your chakras do, that actually matter to your survival?


-Edrick



reply posted on 12-9-2009 @ 07:08 PM by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Edrick



Just because something is classified by humanity *not even all of it at that* does not mean it doesn't exist and is thusly "natural". Human classifications does not dictate reality.


reply posted on 12-9-2009 @ 07:14 PM by Edrick
Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to
post by Edrick



Just because something is classified by humanity *not even all of it at that* does not mean it doesn't exist and is thusly "natural". Human classifications does not dictate reality.


But human classification does dictate how we interact with reality.

You are going to have a hard time planting crops, if you don't know what a crop is, or a plant, or a seed, or dirt....

Or even if you view all of reality as yourself.


Reason is a Requirement for Human Life.

-Edrick


reply posted on 12-9-2009 @ 07:15 PM by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Edrick



You forget that "proof" is a subjective term. What constitutes proof to one person does not necessarily constitute proof to another. If you are looking for emprical proof of things that by their nature aren't a part of what we call material existance then you are attempting to find a peice of amber with a metal detector.

[edit on 12-9-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]


reply posted on 12-9-2009 @ 07:16 PM by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Edrick



But once again. It does not dictate reality. It affects our perception of reality to be sure but it simply does not dictate reality.



reply posted on 12-9-2009 @ 07:16 PM by Edrick
Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to
post by Edrick



You forget that "proof" is a subjective term. What constitutes proof to one person does not necessarily constitute proof to another. If you are looking for emprical proof of things that aren't by their nature aren't a part of what we call material existance then you are attempting to find a peice of amber with a metal detector.


Then why bother bringing this topic into a discussion about survival in this material existence?

(Second Line)

-Edrick


reply posted on 12-9-2009 @ 07:18 PM by Edrick
Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to
post by Edrick



But once again. It does not dictate reality. It affects our perception of reality to be sure but it simply does not dictate reality.


It dictates the context in which we interact with reality in order to survive.

One cannot eat faith.

-Edrick


reply posted on 12-9-2009 @ 07:19 PM by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Edrick



I take it you are assuming "faith" is a destructive thing?


reply posted on 12-9-2009 @ 07:22 PM by Edrick
Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to
post by Edrick



I take it you are assuming "faith" is a destructive thing?


(Chuckle)

No, I am assuming that it is not constructive, or productive.

I am also assuming that Faith has no caloric content, nutritional value, or vitamins.

-Edrick
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



A MUST Read, "Written By A Female Cop"
  Posted 1 days ago with 33 member flags
Know your enemy ... the Daily Mail & Viscount Rothermere
  Posted 11 days ago with 17 member flags
NBC and the Banned \'Fear Factor\' Episode
  Posted 8 days ago with 6 member flags
What are Seventh-day Adventists (SDAs) REALLY like?
  Posted 11 days ago with 5 member flags