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.

 

Conspiracies and Religions in a Holographic Reality

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   
If the nature of reality is in some sense "holographic", then religions and conspiracies can be real and yet be unreal. If reality is holographic or biocentric or transcendental then our minds can shape reality. If our minds can shape reality, then we are literally projecting our minds into the unknown but don't realize we are doing it. The unknown will then take on the structure and patterns of our psyche...

It's like we create a holographic reality tunnel with our beliefs. Be they about religion or conspiracy theories. Any of you guys read Robert Anton Wilson? Prometheus Rising is something that everyone should read, imo.

In a holographic reality, our psyche is projected onto reality and like Pope Bob said, what the thinker thinks the prover proves. Our psyche has the psychic strength to unconsciously manipulate our reality tunnel in order to make our religions and our conspiracy theories as real as not - because what the thinker (the ego) thinks the prover (the unconscious mind) proves. Synchronicity and maybe a little retrocausality is all it takes. These phenomena are easy for our unconscious minds in a holographic reality. Our unconscious minds would have no qualms about using psi to make reality exactly how the ego believes it is. Even if that reality sucks.

Thoughts?

[edit on 11-8-2010 by Student X]




posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Perhaps you've been listening too intently to Mr. D. Icke and his fleeting thoughts of fancy on the subject of holographic reality. Maybe it's all real. Maybe that's the real scary thing that too many people are afraid to face. That the hideous world that surrounds us is in fact a reality and we are not dreaming. It really is this bad!!



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by casualtorment
Perhaps you've been listening too intently to Mr. D. Icke and his fleeting thoughts of fancy on the subject of holographic reality.


Perhaps not.


I don't like Iche. I don't listen to him or read him.

Actually, Carl Jung was onto the same sort of thing with Wolfgang Pauli. Have you read Jung's book on UFOs?


Maybe it's all real.


Relatively real.



Maybe that's the real scary thing that too many people are afraid to face. That the hideous world that surrounds us is in fact a reality and we are not dreaming. It really is this bad!!


Do you mean a materialistic monism, in which everything is only matter and energy thus consciousness is just an illusion? Is that the kind of reality you mean?

[edit on 19-8-2010 by Student X]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   
This is a very fascinating subject, which actually isn't restricted to new-age cottage industries.

Quite obviously the universe manifests through sets of various polarities (evergrowing in complexity), and I personally find the idea of a cosmogony based on such original polarities very attractive. In a 'religious' cosmogony-context Tantra is especially clear on this point, calling the three original principles in creation for 'gunas'.

(The christian 'trinity' is a washed-out and falsified version of this).

On the scientific front the physicist E. Tryon in 1972 (-74?) made this idea housebroken: 'How can something come from nothing?' Simple: 0=a+b+c
(E.g. 0=1+2+(-3)). My example.

In other words, 'things' exist in the universe through and by the existence of other 'things'.

But student X, maybe re-evaluate your thoughts on the consequences of this. You are showing a strong anthropocentric arrogance, when presenting your 'observer-created' model of existence.

Your cit: "The unknown will then take on the structure and patterns of our psyche... "

The problem is, that while e.g. mankind observes the rest of the universe, we are in turn also observed back. The roles of subject/object are reversable. In the end everything is part of a total pattern of reciprocal observation/interaction, where no part plays a prominent role. The movie 'What the bleeb do we know?' is HIGHLY questionable.

This said, is doesn't invalidate your other interesting thoughts. Don't know if you're familiar with the Mahayana buddhistic reflections on 'Samsara=Nirvana'. You do know the more epistemological thoughts of RAW on this, but his opinion wasn't a relativistic 'everything goes', where all levels of 'reality'-maps could be said to be equally 'true'. He only said,
that no map is 100% true.


[edit on 19-8-2010 by bogomil]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil

But student X, maybe re-evaluate your thoughts on the consequences of this. You are showing a strong anthropocentric arrogance, when presenting your 'observer-created' model of existence.


I prefer to call it biocentric.


But maybe it is a tad too strong. I will try to balance it.


Your cit: "The unknown will then take on the structure and patterns of our psyche... "

The problem is, that while e.g. mankind observes the rest of the universe, we are in turn also observed back.


Agreed. I would call that which observes back the Jungian objective psyche, which may be analogous to Brahman. Atman = Brahman. As to which came first, maybe that question can't be answered. Retrocausality is mind-boggling...and the paranormal abilities of the psyche transcend time and space...


This said, is doesn't invalidate your other interesting thoughts. Don't know if you're familiar with the Mahayana buddhistic reflections on 'Samsara=Nirvana'. You do know the more epistemological thoughts of RAW on this, but his opinion wasn't a relativistic 'everything goes', where all levels of 'reality'-maps could be said to be equally 'true'. He only said,
that no map is 100% true.


Agreed. The trickster archetype will always find a way to screw up maps. Just when you think it is 100% true, enter the trickster.


[edit on 19-8-2010 by Student X]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 04:43 AM
link   
Student X

I see, that you have been thinking about this, and as the present subject for me, in over 45 years, has grown into a pivot-point in my search for truth, I'm ofcourse happy to meet others on the same path, who don't automatically start dishing out sensationalist versions of various 'religious' or scientific hypotheses.

If you would expand more on your choice of 'biocentric' as the possible approximative correct description based on the following (if you accept it as a basis):

"If a tree falls in the forest, and there's not anybody around to listen, will there be a sound?"

We're talking about a forest, right? There's bound to be animals, insects, other trees and rocks around. The shockwave of air from the falling tree will interact with some of these, and 'sound' will result. Possibly not sound as percieved by a human (whom I guess to be the absent 'anybody'), but still sound as specifically percieved by animals, insects etc.

Am I correct in guessing, that you have some version of the 'anthropic principle' in mind? With implications of complexity?


Your Brahman association is very valid (do you know, the jews have a parallel: Ain Soph) and at a lesser level of this limit of human understanding/experience (by just staying with cosmogony), I'm not quite sure, if what you call retrocausality is outside our grasp.

Admittedly I've had to spend a few years sorting out standard models of epistemology, as none of the available types seem to be able to crack the nut of transmundane existence even slightly satisfactorily, but I believe, or at least hope, that I've passed that hurdle now. And still using housebroken reasoning.

Much to my surprise, an educated guess on my part would now be, that it's the universe itself, which is a scam. A scam scam, not just a hologram or perception and/or conceptualizing deficiencies leading to inconclusive human maps.

Sorry if this post isn't very clearly put together, but I hope, that you can discern different optional openings for further communication. I would be happy to continue this exchange, if you like, and I suggest, that we concentrate on one facet at a time. This subject is enormous, so you take your pick.

I don't suffer from short attentionspan, so a day or two between answers don't mean, that I've lost interest. Just concentrating on quality instead of speed.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
Student X

I see, that you have been thinking about this, and as the present subject for me, in over 45 years, has grown into a pivot-point in my search for truth, I'm ofcourse happy to meet others on the same path, who don't automatically start dishing out sensationalist versions of various 'religious' or scientific hypotheses.

If you would expand more on your choice of 'biocentric' as the possible approximative correct description based on the following (if you accept it as a basis):

"If a tree falls in the forest, and there's not anybody around to listen, will there be a sound?"


I always thought zen koans weren't meant to be solved, but rather used to put the mind in the middle. So the answer I give is both yes and no.


If a tree falls and no one is there to hear, then the objective psyche is still there in some aspect and can hear. Even if that aspect is other trees, animals, insects. All life is a manifestation of Brahman, and Brahman is a manifestation of all life.


Am I correct in guessing, that you have some version of the 'anthropic principle' in mind? With implications of complexity?


Yes.


Your Brahman association is very valid (do you know, the jews have a parallel: Ain Soph) and at a lesser level of this limit of human understanding/experience (by just staying with cosmogony), I'm not quite sure, if what you call retrocausality is outside our grasp.


Yes Ain Soph! I think we see such parallels because mystics tap into the very same no-thing, and religions evolve around those mystical experience as a frame of reference. If only more religious people realized this then there would be less religioous intolerance.

I think retrocausality might be outside the reach of science, but not outside the reach of mysticism. Science is based on the assumption of causality and on the assumption of the subject/object dichotomy. In order to demonstrate retrocausality in the lab in a replicable manner, wouldn't science have to change its own rules?


Much to my surprise, an educated guess on my part would now be, that it's the universe itself, which is a scam. A scam scam, not just a hologram or perception and/or conceptualizing deficiencies leading to inconclusive human maps.


Maya within Maya?


I don't suffer from short attentionspan, so a day or two between answers don't mean, that I've lost interest. Just concentrating on quality instead of speed.


That's good, because I am about to lose my internet connection for two weeks while I move to a new city.


See you in early September!


[edit on 20-8-2010 by Student X]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Re: Student X

I'm looking forward to your return to the forum with pleasure.

Hope your move will be smooth.

Greetings Bogomil



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Seems like you two have a good conversation going on. Not really the typical level that you see on ATS. Too bad no others are joining in.

I have agreed with both of you on many points. I agree with much of what student x has said about the observer relationship with "reality" but also appreciate bogomil's mentioning of anthropocentrism.

I do want to get into a conversation about the argument that humans alone manifest reality but, I dont think that that was Student X's intention. I think that X might have been referring more to the personal, perspective based elements of "reality" and not so much of the "entire picture"/ physical side.

In the entire picture I have a feeling that it is not just humans determining reality but, really, I dont think that it was X's original intention to claim a human dictatorship over reality.

I dont believe it is just the consciousness of people creating our reality but, when it comes to conspiracy theories and religion I do believe that humans do create their own realities, especially with conspiracy theories.

I think that one of the most unique things about humans compared to the rest of life on this planet is that we are infinitely curious. This curiosity has lead to all the advancements of humanity. This same curiosity leads humans to fill in the gaps of our understanding with things that make sense to us.

Conspiracy theories are the perfect example of how humans create their own realities. In the non ATS world, most people know nothing of "the illuminati" but, when you come on this message board, the existence of the illuminati is regarded as fact by many members. It is a complete part of their reality, likely a very large part. To question the existence of the illuminati to some people is akin to blasphemy.

Some people are comfortable with their current understanding of the situation. Others, that are infinitely curious, will always know that "reality" is very fragile indeed.

Humans need answers. Where they cannot find them they will create their own.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 06:53 AM
link   
Hi Brahmanite,

thanks for your answer. Due to the respect I feel about Student X's competence, I would like to postpone 'deeper' (apologize the megalomania) comments on the already existing direction until his/her return to the forum, and in the meantime pick up on a few things, which I consider prerequisite to the topic at hand.

If this thread has even a small general group of readers, they may wonder, why I am so circumstantial in my approach (Student X is much more to the point) insisting on going out on apparantly endless analyses of pedantic details, at first not even remotely connected to the mainflow of the thread.

My reason is, that such an extensive subject as 'Conspiracies and Religions in a Holographic Reality' brings us to the limit of human knowledge, understanding and experience, touching areas where the 'maps' still show white spots, or where the pundits debate amongst themselves.

After many years of interest in Conspiracy, Religion and 'Holograms' and some years on forums like ATS, I have arrived at the conclusion, that no answers, or even inspired speculations, can be arrived at with the 'tools' for reality-seeking presently in use. Even in circles of openminded scientists, philosophers, theologians and other interested parties there's mostly still only a beginning awareness, that we need better honed tools, or even completely new ones (the group around Niels Bohr is a pleasant exception).

So far, and in spite of the current fad of pseudo-reasoning asking for 'evidence', it's rather typical for most people to react in the traditional way of entrenching themselves, by presenting their favourite 'holy book' (be it religious, scientific, political or whatever) and say: "See, this supports my evidence", often being totally unable to understand the concept of circle-argumentation.

"I support this book, it's written on 'divine' (or scientific) authority, and it supports me". End of discussion.

I over-reacted a bit towards Student X by saying: 'anthropocentric arrogance' in response to a post of his/her. Most graciously X saw what my (undiplomatic) criticism was about and disarmed it, by pointing out a constructive perspective of 'biocentric' approach, and I feel an almost thrilling expectation on the outcome of a later communication on this.

Brahmanite, I agree with your thoughts on the psycho-social aspects of the main-topic here, and hopefully a closer look at that perspective will be possible. My general attitude is, that I am afraid, that the micro-cosmic theories of e.g. Heisenberg and Shroedinger automatically would lead to unjustified macro-cosmic conclusions. And in spite of some postulates from zero-point physics' advocates, I still believe, that the seemingly gap between micro- and macro-cosmos hasn't been explained convincingly.

So, from a most politically incorrect position of 'duality', I have no doubt about, that individual, personal, small 'reality-tunnel' bubbles (the inner private landscape) play a very big macro-cosmic role. E.g. burning people for a 'purification of their souls' certainly makes an impact on the surroundings, but I suggest, that the explanation for such trigger-happy reactions to matches and piles of firewood isn't a question of truth-seeking, honest expressions of 'objective' necessity, but rather a basic existential disorder syndrome; either pathological sociopathy or a deep-rooted fear of emptiness/meaninglessness, where ideological 'straws' are defended with maniacal violence.

And that's only the visible, 'ordinary' petty tyrant. How on earth is it possible to even speculate about the mostly unseen puppeteers, having power and wealth beyond the wildest dreams of a thousand hedonists. G.I.Gurdjieff had a special name for such individuals, who seem to suffer from an almost cosmic kind of existential insanity: Hassnamusses. And as Donovan once sang: "How much can one man possibly need?".

[edit on 21-8-2010 by bogomil]

[edit on 21-8-2010 by bogomil]



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 07:03 AM
link   
Continued

......We are beyond ordinary stupid greed and alpha-dominant behaviour here, beyond mere powergrabbing conspiracy, and into some cosmic predatory principle (I think).

The last paragraph was mostly rethorical, but makes a background for thoughts by John L. Lash, going something like this (my summary): "To intermediate between the mundane and the not-mundane 'worlds', society needs individuals with schizoid tendencies, which are tempered by discipline, so it won't end in total insanity". A proposal with deep implications for whom the healers of mankind could be.

This is just one perspective on the present topic, and in say hopefully half a year of communication on ATS, it will be seen to be a meaningful part of a much greater pattern.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Good day to you all,



I still believe, that the seemingly gap between micro- and macro-cosmos hasn't been explained convincingly.


Are you saying here that you are unsure of where or how the macro and micro meet? Where is the halfway point where one becomes the other?




So, from a most politically incorrect position of 'duality', I have no doubt about, that individual, personal, small 'reality-tunnel' bubbles (the inner private landscape) play a very big macro-cosmic role. E.g. burning people for a 'purification of their souls' certainly makes an impact on the surroundings, but I suggest, that the explanation for such trigger-happy reactions to matches and piles of firewood isn't a question of truth-seeking, honest expressions of 'objective' necessity, but rather a basic existential disorder syndrome; either pathological sociopathy or a deep-rooted fear of emptiness/meaninglessness, where ideological 'straws' are defended with maniacal violence.


This, to me, sounds like you are suggesting that it is humanity that determines the macrocosmic reality of things and that the "negative" aspects of our experience are determined by some sort of macrocosmic social disorder. This sounds very anthropocentric to me and does not account for ones reactions to their own environment.

I dont think that burning people is a consequence of some existential social disorder that causes us to do "bad" things. I think that good and bad are relative and almost entirely subjective. I believe that the people who are lighting other humans on fire in order to "purify their souls" or whatever their reasoning be are doing what they feel is right in some way or another. To the ones lighting the matches it is no social disorder that causes them to do this, it is likely that these people would suggest that the ones being burned are the ones being effected by some sort of social disorder.

How can all the "negative" aspects of reality be due to some existential macrocosmic social disorder when your "disorder" might sound like "order" to me. Your "negative" might bring me something positive.

How can we judge all things in this experience based on them being the effect of psychological order or disorder when those very terms can never be associated with any form of objectivity what so ever?

Order and disorder are mere concepts fabricated in our heads, these can never be regarded as relating to any objective reality because our understanding of them is based on personal interpretation alone and therefore no element of this existence that is regarded as objective can ever be equated to good or evil or order and disorder.

In what little there is of objective reality there is no room for order and disorder, good and evil. There just is. It is not good, it is not bad, it just is.

This is why I do not believe that we can assume that our objective reality is determined by human consciousness alone. I do believe that it is consciousness that creates the world we know but, I feel that it is a conglomeration of every form of conscious entity coming together and collectively determining what our objective reality is.

I will leave it at that for now.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Re: Brahmanite

My favoured idea is, that the sum-of-the-parts of cosmos is intrinsically dualistic, and that the totality-greater-than-the sum-of-parts of cosmos is non-dualistic. So I'm only supporting the idea, that the seemingly gap between micro- and macro-cosmos is a question of human insufficiency in map-making to the extent, that I still have a long way to go, before I can switch from hypothesis to theory.

IF there is a halfway point, where micro- and macro-cosmos meet, it would likely be in the dualistic cosmos' perception of itself.

Mankind's options are to choose between the dualistic options of cosmos. But then you have to discover these cosmic options, before you can make any choice, and in any case, how many people care to make choices.

At a SLIGHTLY more ordinary-life level, I consider the inner functioning of cosmos as an endless set of mirrors ever reflecting each other and then re-reflection the original reflections (you ever been inside a 360 degree mirror-cabinet?). Translated: If there was 'anything' there from the start at all, it has been sent around and 'amplified' untold zillions of times. Most likely there isn't much (some sub-particle strings vibrating?), ...if anything...., there at all. On the other hand, I'm so conditioned from living in the cosmic attitude/(illusion?) of matter, that I also have a relative reality, where lorries are 'real'. Though presently I'm not in the mood of testing my ability to disregard illusion of matter, by walking in front of a lorry, no matter how attractive the hologram model is.

And finally down-to-earth: Ethically I'm a utilitarian, working from an assumption of lessening of suffering, and seeing the purpose in social rules such as traffic-regulations. The only value-system worth considering in this is, that you may be the under-dog tomorrow.

Personally I also believe, that inside even a dualistic cosmos symbiosis versus predation will be a cosmic version of utilitarian ethics; basically it's a question of functionality.

Intellectually I do not see an immediate possibility of absolute answers, only approximate interpolations, which as a curve infinitely will approach, but not reach ultimate reality.

I can only agree to, that cosmic co-sensus is a kind of superior relative 'reality', but completely without being a 'theist', I think it quite possible, that a trans-cosmic level would bring added understanding to that question. Or at least a totality-greater-than-sum-of-parts level.





[edit on 21-8-2010 by bogomil]



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 01:51 AM
link   
Like Arlo Guthrie waiting for Alice to come around (if anyone remembers that), I'm waiting for Student X to come around. In the meantime I'm going a bit on idle, and anticipating some questions on whether this thread has any connection at all to 'conspiracies and religion' I will present some personal thoughts on this.

I believe, that 'the truth is out there'. Or at least something more true, than mankind's present relative 'reality' offers. Not that I believe, that we are even close to finding ultimate truth (I'm not even sure, if we ever can acchieve that), but I'm sure we at least can get closer.

The gap between being dumb and ignorant to being less dumb and ignorant, is something we have a possibility to do something about, and I consider our greatest obstacle to this aim to be invasive, hierarchial, totalitarian and monopolistic (semantic variations on the same theme) ideologies. This hurdle manifests in practically all levels of human life, and can be approached from many perspectives. Not least the 'religious' perspective, especially in the case of organised religion.

While the average passive religionist isn't interested in the finer points of doctrines or theology, I have no doubt, that there are individuals higher in the hierarchies, who for different reasons consciously (mis)use the whole concept of religion for their own purposes, and this misuse can range from social engineering to paranormal, even transmundane, levels.

E.g.: What do you dudes and dudettes (courtesy of The Djin) think of 'soul eaters'?

Obviously it's possible to rove quite a lot on the canvas this thread paints, from weird science to abstract existential speculations and meditational methodology; .... and I wouldn't be surprised if 'god's soldiers' turn up, and the 'price of tea' will be involved.

But even so; this can be lofty or banal, but there is a common theme through it all, not out of tune with this section of the forum.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Hello again! The move went pretty well but it was very exhausting. I'm still very busy but things are getting back to normal.

I'm glad to see that conversation continued. Welcome Brahmanite!


The other day I was thinking about this thread and something occurred to me - evidence!


We need evidence that people can manipulate reality to make it fit their personal reality tunnel, so that we have something tangible to chew on. I think I have just the thing. The sheep-goat effect! Are you guys familiar with it? Here is what Charles Tart recently said about it:

Pioneering Parapsychologist Gertrude Schmeidler Has Died

[...]

"Think of it this way. If you were asked to guess red or black with ordinary playing cards, no feedback until you'd done the whole deck, you would average about 50% correct by chance. If you got 100% correct, you don't need statistics to know that would be astounding. But if you got 0%? Just as astounding!

The sheep thought they could do it, they got "good" scores, they were happy. The goats knew there was no ESP, nothing to get, they got poor scores, they were happy, that "proved" their belief. These were not people who were sophisticated enough about statistics to know that scoring below chance could be significant….
Many other experimenters replicated this effect over the years.

The only way I've ever been able to understand it is to think that the goats occasionally used ESP, but on an unconscious level, to know what the next card was and then their unconscious, acting in the service of their conscious belief system, influenced them to call anything but the correct one. The goats used a "miracle" to support their belief that there were no such things as miracles….

Talk about living in samsara, in a state of illusion! Our human knowledge is richer for Gertrude's work. She had been retired for some years and died peacefully in her sleep on March 9th."
-Charles Tart

The unconscious ESP of 'goats' is both subjective and objective, and it acts outside the ego and yet is of the psyche. I would call it the trickster archetype.

I think that all categories of psi can act unconsciously (including retroPK
) and they act to serve the belief system of the 'goats', thus suppressing psi and they are none the wiser. The same sort of thing goes on with conspiracy theories. The unconscious psi of the conspiracy theorist can reach out and create synchronicities.

And so, as a result of this unconscious psychic tug-of-war, we see conflicting psychic forces serving conflicting reality tunnels. Conflicting and inconsistent and elusive evidence for each reality tunnel is the result.

And thats when it occurred to me that a team-based competition revolving around group-psi and these robots could be interesting...

[edit on 5-9-2010 by Student X]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Hi X,

glad to hear your moving is over, and nice to have you back.

Now it's late in Europe, so I'll think about your post and write tomorrow. In the meantime: I'm questioning an observer-created universe, based on individual 'observing'. But a kind of co-sensus subjects/objects effect is likely.

In any situation of 'observing' there are a great number of universal fragments (dualities) participating. Not only the observer and Schroedinger's cat, but also the box, the floor, walls, maybe other people close to etc. Altogether this forms a greater pattern, and the outcome will be a result of such complexity. Ultimately ofcourse involving all cosmos.

I'm not even sure this is relevant. I need read everything again.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Glad to see that you have safely made it to your new location X. Good to have you back.

The goat sheep situation is very curious, especially if analyzing through a human-creator perspective. I definitely lean more towards the perspective Bogomil suggested in their last post in saying that "Not only the observer and Schroedinger's cat, but also the box, the floor, walls........Ultimately of course involving all cosmos".

I feel that it might be that what we experience as reality is not merely a holograph, but instead is composed of a giant orchestra of individual elements playing their part in the great composition. When each of these "instruments" plays their part with the right timing and in tune every instrument comes together no matter how seemingly inconsequential it is and forms harmony as the beautiful and grand symphony that we know as none other than "Reality".

Any musical composition is formed by the individual elements playing their own unique piece to contribute to the greater awareness that is the composition. While all pieces form the one, it is also very apparent that some instruments play a more noticeable role in the entire composition. Some instruments will be overpowered by others to the point that one may catch themselves suspecting that without the seemingly unnoticeable instrument the composition would sound the same. While a person could not differentiate that instrument from the rest, if they were to mute the instrument entirely the whole composition would surely be recognizably altered. That's for the seemingly unsubstantial elements of the composition Now, look at any of the lead voices in this symphony. It is unquestionable from the start that to mute one of the main voices would completely alter the sound.

What I am talking about though, is not muting a main voice but what effect it has on the composition when the voice is merely altered, changed to play a different melody. This would undoubtedly move the entire composition into a whole new direction, or at least it could, or it could just add nuance.

I like to humor the idea that reality as WE not I experience it is a grand symphony, if one element has a hiccup we will all be effected by it. Some will effect things more than others. Play with the thought of us, humans, being one of the lead voices in this symphony. Surely the song would not be nearly the same if it was just the lead voice playing, but at the same time, our voice is so necessary that if we alter it we can move the entire composition.

I dont think that we play the only part in composing this reality, but I do think that our part is so integral in the grand composition that we can certainly mold the final product much more easily.

This is where magic and shamanism and NLP and psi along with many others come in. I guess we could view these as 'practicing your instrument'.


So X, I think with the goat sheep thing there was certainly a lot of the subconscious at play, but not of the "subject" alone. When one puts energy into formulating an opposition to something or a negative viewpoint they are still devoting energy to it. When one becomes strongly opposed they are often dedicating just as much energy to something as a person who is passionate about the same thing. These could be the subconscious connections at play here. While "in the lab" these subjects, through their negativity, could very well be picking up on the "energy cloud" that has been generated about the test, the very same energy cloud that proponents pick up on.

i dont think I look at it as if the order of the cards was undetermined until they were flipped over. I think I look at it as if the order of the stack WAS in existence even though it was unknown and that potentially what was being picked up on was the "cloud" that exists around the reality of that stack of cards. kind of like Remote Viewing; viewers are picking up on the cloud of reality that exists in the collective unconscious of what they are "viewing". Its not that they are determining the events, rather, they are injecting themselves into the reality of the existence of the subject, whatever it may be that is borne of conscious entities being aware of its existence.

Wow, I could go on and on. i will leave it at that for now. What do you all thiink about this "grand symphony" thing?



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Brahmanite
 


I like the grand symphony metaphor. It gives us pairs of opposites that unite within a greater whole, just as yin and yang unite within the Tao. Beyond the surface duality of yin and yang is deeper monism. So, there is a tension and a harmony between the pairs of opposites because of the transcendent unity that encompasses them all.

This plays out in a religion on the esoteric mystical level. For instance the story of the Buddha and the demon king. There is a hidden alliance between regression and progression. This can be metaphorically understood as transcendent harmony within the grand symphony.

So the skeptical parapsychology goat subject who always misses is playing a part in a grand symphony, as is the sheep who never misses. There is a grand tension between the sheep-goat reality tunnels, as a pair of opposites, and this tension must exist because it is the tension of the various musical instruments that produces the notes and hence the song of reality.

I wonder if a musical instrument centered symphony is like a biocentric reality...

[edit on 6-9-2010 by Student X]



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Student X
 


I think you are close enough to truth as we can get with any certainity. Beyond that. We'd have to be able to do the impossible. Move completely beyond our current points of view.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Well it seems to me to be all just a elaorate computer programe (yes I know computers a sucky word for it but ? a better one)

I think mayabe these threads can help shed some light

and much respect to those who made em!

makes me head spin.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

critical-path.itgo.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I hope you find some of these an interesting read!



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join