It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

I AM, therefore I think

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Most of you are familiar with Rene Descartes famous saying: I think, therefore I am.

en.wikipedia.org...


But Descartes has it backwards, imo. I strongly feel that it should be this:

je suis, donc je pense

In English, it is:

I AM, therefore I think


Which brings us to the classical chicken-or-egg-style question: which came first, the thinking or the one who does the thinking? Which one?


Here's a basic overview of the subject of "soul":

en.wikipedia.org...


This article...

www.plim.org...

...is an interesting take of a scientist of his views of the nature of the soul.


I will share with you my perspectives on what is the nature of the soul.


In a nutshell, it is my perception that our souls are the sparks of the One Infinite Creator, who is the Unity that underlies the worlds of illusion, of duality in which we exist. Some have said that reality emerges from nothing; no, I say that reality emerges from Unity, which is the Source of all.


So, at some point along the lines of the eternal existence of Unity, the One Infinite Creator, that's all that there was -- one big, blissful, unified Being that was eternal and omnipresent. But there was one, small problem -- It could not experience Itself objectively, since all that existed was Unity, so there were no worlds of maya, of illusion, of light and dark, of ups and downs, of yin and yang -- it was one giant world of Unity, from which there was no separated part.


So Unity had a dilemma -- how to experience itself objectively and let look at the meaning of the word, objectively, first, before proceeding:


8. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.


dictionary.reference.com...


Since Unity was Unity, nothing existed objectively without being separate from Unity and Unity wanted to experience Itself in an objective way, but, in order to create that kind of objective experience, It had to create what it was not in order to create an objective experience for Itself.


Enter Lucifer -- who really does exist -- who had the power and energy that was strong enough for him to take the position of being an opposite of Unity, which was dis-unity and everything that Unity was not: viola, the worlds of illusion was born; the worlds of positive, negative; the worlds of yin/yang; the worlds of light and dark and so on.


Now scientists would totally groan at the idea of the measurable, objective reality in which we exist has its source in Consciousness, but, the truth is, IS that the objective, observable and measurable reality in which we live is an expression of consciousness. The cutting edge of science is now exploring the nature of consciousness and they are finding out that there is no separation between consciousness and the "objective" reality in which consciousness created.


So Lucifer volunteered to take the job of creating and holding the power of what Unity was not, so off he went, along with 33.3% of the angels, who also volunteered to join him in his work to hold the negative pole of the creation of the worlds of Maya, of illusion that is based on duality.


Now, in this article...

divinecosmos.com... ious-oneness

...Wilcock delves into the nature of consciousness how it is interwoven with the objective, dual reality in which we exist.


So, as soon as Unity conceived of a reality of duality existing without violating Its own existence and as soon as It found parts of Itself that were willing participants to hold the opposite, negative pole of reality, the entire worlds of duality were immediately created and the Universe as we know it was born.


The One Infinite Creator had each galaxy -- called logos, according to the Ra Material -- ( www.lawofone.info... ) create its own rules, so they all had their own creations play along the rules of evolving only along the rules of positive growth, not allowing any of the creation -- the souls that existed in each galaxy -- to experience negative feelings, negative experiences, negative choices -- the full play of the Law of Free Will. Each galaxy had Free Will, but it was a highly-restricted one.


After a while, the One Infinite Creator was not pleased with the results of positive-only soul growth, as most souls did not have the animated energy, the sheer vitality, the intense spark that the One Infinite Creator really was, so the One Infinite Creator decided to allow one galaxy to allow each of the souls contained in it to fully experience the Law of Free Will (also called the First Law of Distortion) and to fully feel the effects of choices -- good and bad, positive and negative, good and evil, light and dark, etc -- hence, the long-held legend of the "fall of man", the "fall of Lucifer, the angels" -- became fully cognizant with each of the souls that had incarnated into the galaxy that had the fullest-possible expression/experience of the Law of Free Will.


The success of that first galaxy in the creating powerful, intense and awakened souls so startled and please the One Infinite Creator that It allowed all galaxies -- the many Logos of the Universe -- to allow total Free Will in the inhabitants of each galaxy that chose that means of soul growth.


So now the model of a galaxy fully allowing Free Will is predominant throughout the Universe, but what is fascinating is that the negative pole, the darkness of maya, the evil that exists in maya, can ONLY be described as a lack of, rather than a real force on its own, so dark is defined as an absence of light; evil is an absence of love; hate is an absence of compassion, etc.


So now we have whole worlds, whole Social Memory Complexes of recombined souls who have gone through the process of separation, growth through experiencing Free Will and the re-joining the Creator at the end, fully energized by the journey of life.


So life is a journey; the destination is our Common Source; the goal is to become energized, more alive, more vital and more filled with the essence of Life and Love that is a part of Unity, from which we all are a part.


Science and Spirit are One.


[edit on 20-10-2009 by Historical-Mozart]




posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Thank you for your article I really liked it, I just read about Thomas' Benedicts NDE and it actually says the same thing you are saying. Very interesting, and a lot to think about. I have started reading the Tibetian book of the Living and Dying, it all comes together somehow. Thanks for your time and thinking on this matter.



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Historical-Mozart
 


Je suis, donc je pense.
I AM so i think...

Well, that statement is curious, to my point of view. It all depends on the understanding of thoughts and its origins. I AM because my soul is experiencing the physical dimension. Thoughts, IMO, are not ours, we are only receptors, like a radio capting a certain frequency.

Peace



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by isa75
Thank you for your article I really liked it, I just read about Thomas' Benedicts NDE and it actually says the same thing you are saying. Very interesting, and a lot to think about. I have started reading the Tibetian book of the Living and Dying, it all comes together somehow. Thanks for your time and thinking on this matter.



Thank you, isa75.


I have felt this way for a long time, but did not find the right place to put my own perceptions into my own words, until I came to ATS, which has a big-enough audience with which to read my posts.


I'm grateful for ATS.



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   
S&F, I agree wholeheartedly.



I am, therefore I heart!



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by lagenese
Thoughts, IMO, are not ours, we are only receptors, like a radio capting a certain frequency.
Peace



Hi lagenese,


Yes, the idea of thoughts flowing through us, not necessarily originating from us, is something that I'm taking more seriously, as there is more and more evidence of that happening; however, each of us are capable of originating thoughts as well, so it goes both ways, imo.


If we could not originate our own thoughts, then that would be a direct violation of the Law of Free Will, so, certainly, we are able to generate our own thoughts, but it also is true that our "own" thoughts can originate from somewhere else.


Imo, the younger soul originates far less of the thoughts that it entertains; the older, more experienced souls (having reincarnated repeatedly) originate more original thoughts and receive less thoughts from others, yet, ironically, is more perceptive of the thoughts of others, especially the kinds of thoughts that are centered on Universal Truths.


Now I don't know where in the hell those thoughts that I just now typed out came from...



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
What's interesting is that we can't even discuss these ideas outside of language, and language reflects the essential problem being discussed, that of the center of formation of meaning and understanding, and the endless play between the observer and the observed, or in the language of linguistics, Signifier and signified. It's chicken and egg.

Jacques Lacan (1901-81), was a French Freudian and linked psychoanalysis with linguistics. He said "the unconscious is structured like a language."

He placed the conscious center, the 'soul', if you will, outside the dichotomy. He acknowledged an 'other' place where meaning formed, in the active center of language.

'Cogito, ergo sum' becomes: "I am not, wherever I am theplaything of my thought; I think of what I am wherever I don't think I am thinking."
-Jacques Lacan, from "The insistence of the letter in the unconscious."

The New Age/Millennia creation stories like the one you stated have their grounding in philosophical canon and linguistic theory, along with literary criticism. It may seem purely academic, but one can't escape language, and its power. The telling of the story is an interpretive act, taking parts of mythological text and finding new meaning, which brings us full circle in the question. If the soul exists as a counterpart to God, who is God and who is the creation?



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by John_Brown
What's interesting is that we can't even discuss these ideas outside of language, and language reflects the essential problem being discussed, that of the center of formation of meaning and understanding, and the endless play between the observer and the observed, or in the language of linguistics, Signifier and signified. It's chicken and egg.


John_Brown,


Thanks for contributing. Very well put.


Yea, language is a big part of how we communicate, but who/what created language?


In my readings of Courtney Brown's book...

www.courtneybrown.com...

...(here's his website), Cosmic Voyage]/i], I recall the meetings of Earth-based humans who were traveling outside of their bodies meeting with beings from elsewhere, so, naturally, they could not communicate with each other using a common language that was understood by the Earth human, and in this case, was English, so how did they solve this language barrier?


What they did was to send to each other spheres of bright balls, called "rotes", which was sent by the sender, received by the receiver and it contained the thoughts/information/energy that was sent by the sender.


The receiver, upon receiving that "rote", was able to perceive fully the thoughts that the sender sent, including pictures, thoughts in word forms, feelings, etc. So it appears that they were able to communicate with each other outside of language, yet each one was able to understand each other through each one's own language.


I thought that this "rote" bit of cross-entities communication was really fascinating.


And, to me, consciousness comes first before any sort of symbolic forms of communication develops, so, to me, consciousness created both the chicken and the egg.



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   
I Am therefore all is.

Cheers,

Erik



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Historical-Mozart
 


Understanding the manner in which Rene Descartes came to this phrase and the reason for his 5 meditations explains a great deal about the phrase,”Cogito ergo sum”.

Everything that we know is from our experience which is mostly from our sensory perceptions. These perceptions can be false at times so we cannot completely rely upon them. The only thing that we can rely upon always being True is that since I am a thinking think I must therefore ‘be’ (I think. therefore I am). This describes ‘us’, the created creation-the seeing seer-the moved mover...

I am, that I am describes the uncreated creator-the unseen seer-the unmoved mover...or what we call God. It’s fine to say that we are a part of God, God is within us, but big problems arise philosophically when we say that because of ‘us’ there is God or we are God.

I am, therefore I think appears to be describing a God complex or at least is hinting in that direction. I see a problem here but this is my opinion, I suggest taking a close and careful look at how your statement reads.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Devino
 


I say I'm God all the time, I even truly believe it. Seperation is an illusion, what are these philosophical problems that would arise?



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Historical-Mozart
Enter Lucifer -- who really does exist -- who had the power and energy that was strong enough for him to take the position of being an opposite of Unity, which was dis-unity and everything that Unity was not: viola, the worlds of illusion was born; the worlds of positive, negative; the worlds of yin/yang; the worlds of light and dark and so on.

One mistake you should be careful to avoid is the opposition comparison between unity and dis-unity. Some of the ideas you're dealing with have no opposite, only the absence of the idea. For instance light and dark are not opposites. Darkness is simply the absence of light. To make a room darker, you don't increase the darkness, you decrease the light.

In the same manner cold is the absence of heat, evil the absence of goodness. There is only energy, and the lack of energy. Lucifer's dis-unity is not a show of strength, but merely the evidence of what happens when you remove the energy that radiates from the Unity. If this were not true then it would be possible to dis-light a room. There is no resistance to the light of a single lit candle.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
I'm Pink...therefore i'm spam



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Or its all just a biological computer.

Why does it have to be anything more than that? Are you afraid? Technology will soon show you that everything can be replicated even human intelligence.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates

Originally posted by Historical-Mozart
Enter Lucifer -- who really does exist -- who had the power and energy that was strong enough for him to take the position of being an opposite of Unity, which was dis-unity and everything that Unity was not: viola, the worlds of illusion was born; the worlds of positive, negative; the worlds of yin/yang; the worlds of light and dark and so on.

Lucifer's dis-unity is not a show of strength, but merely the evidence of what happens when you remove the energy that radiates from the Unity. If this were not true then it would be possible to dis-light a room. There is no resistance to the light of a single lit candle.



Good points there, dbates


I agree that the opposite of light is the absence of it; the opposite of love is the absence of it -- yes, that is correct, imo.


My point about Lucifer's role in the worlds of illusion is to create the opportunity to have a lack of anything good that is part of the Unity, of which we all are a part. Unless there is an ability, an opportunity to have a lack in a world of Unity, there's really no opportunity to have any lack of any kind, so you can say that Lucifer's role is to hold the negative pole of "lack", rather than be a power in itself.


But the PTB bastids would argue otherwise, as they dearly love their Lucifer.


And, yes, the exponential power of the positive far outweighs the power of the lack of the positive power, I agree.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
Or its all just a biological computer.

Why does it have to be anything more than that? Are you afraid? Technology will soon show you that everything can be replicated even human intelligence.



We are not "just a biological computer" -- far from that. We use biological computers -- our brains -- but our minds encompass our entire bodies and the thinking that goes on in our minds is in the non-local fields of reality, which lies outside of 3-D physical reality as we know it.


Yes, computers will someday replicate the biological thinking process of a human brain, but they will NEVER replicate consciousness. NEVER.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Devino
 


To not call yourself a god would belittle yourself, for do you not set your own destiny?



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4stral4pprentice
reply to post by Devino
 

I say I'm God all the time, I even truly believe it. Seperation is an illusion, what are these philosophical problems that would arise?


Just to be sure that we are talking about the same thing, think about being omnipotent and omnipresent. Just from this very finite thought about God it is evident that we are not infinite. This debate is a contradiction to the ineffable which gives good evidence that you and I are a part of God's creation or that which was created by God and not God (the uncreated creator). I think it's one thing to say that we are of God but completely different to say that you are God.

reply to post by dbates
 


I think this is a brilliant thought and it also works in describing electricity, there is no negative electric current only positive. A good friend of mine also pointed out that in this manner then there is no death only life, I liked that one.



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Devino
I think it's one thing to say that we are of God but completely different to say that you are God.



Devino,


I think that both "I am a part of God" and "I AM God" are correct.


When one is in duality, then "I am part of God" is correct; when one has re-merged back with the One Infinite Creator -- God -- one then knows everything that God knows, feels everything that God feels and is a part of God in a holographic sense, so one can say "I AM God", as there's no part of God that is lessor or greater than another part of God -- it's one giant Unified "I AM".



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Historical-Mozart
 


I think I understand your point and I am having this debate here at home as well and it is a difficult one that's for sure. I guess it is my feeling that God is greater than the sum of the parts.

I believe that the purpose of life is to experience for God and because of this reason I am separate now. However belief is something that cannot be debated so maybe I am falling into my own logic trap, debating the undebatable.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join