A Response To Recent Awakenings

Originally posted by sinohptik
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

Why are the semantics so important?

Because when the word "spirituality" is used every person has a different definition. It's essentially a useless word unless it can be defined. The poster who used it gave their own definition, then provided a link with another definition, then when asked about it, provided yet another.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Words are not the thing, you can not sit in a the word chair. Words are what cause all the trouble in the world. If someone were to describe red, another may call it crimson, another maroon. They might even have a war about it, why not? Wars happen all the time trying to describe the color of god.
No-one can tell you the truth, it will be known or not.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


What's wrong with you?

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

Words are not the thing, you can not sit in a the word chair. Words are what cause all the trouble in the world.

Then why should I even regard your post? Words do matter and so do definitions. Which is why I asked for someone's definition of a word. I got three different definitions of one word from the same person. Perhaps the reason why words cause so much trouble in the world is because people use words that they can't even define given three opportunities.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

What's wrong with you?

Explain.
Thanks

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Did you see the other part of my post, which would explain the reasoning behind such disparity?

Either way, i suppose the next question is, do you believe everything in experience is quantifiable, or at least, objective? Additionally, do you feel this is critical in translating conceptualizations, and that words are sufficient to describe all aspects of all things?

Originally posted by sinohptik
Either way, i suppose the next question is, do you believe everything in experience is quantifiable, or at least, objective?

When determining what is real there needs to be objective indicators.

Additionally, do you feel this is critical in translating conceptualizations, and that words are sufficient to describe all aspects of all things?

If someone claims we must distinguish religion from "spirituality", and that person cannot accurately describe "spirituality", their entire point is essentially useless. Maybe I'm just a stickler for trying to figure out exactly what people mean when they make a statement. I guess that's a bad thing these days?

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


asking for proof about this kind of thing is like cheating your way to awakening.That would be a FAKE awakening would it not? asking for some one else to do the work for you instead of awakening your self.

reply to post by AdamJagger1111

He doesn't seem to believe in any such thing unless it can be objectively proven to him, no spirit, no enlightened awareness, no "experience" that cannot be proven to him, presumably within a purely materialist monist (matter alone is primary) WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) framework alone, a rather narrow view of reality, but to top it off, he seems to think that he's smarter than everyone else, which given the extreme limitations of his position is kind of absurd. It's so easy to "win" an argument from the position he's taken, which requires nothing and no effort, so in a way you're right about how no one else can do that work for us, particularly when we sit there with our arms crossed demanding tangible, objective proof, to our smug satisfaction. It's kind of amuzing, really, that is if there was any sense of humor there at all..

reply to post by NewAgeMan


well i'd rather sound like a delusional person to skeptiks than be unawakened any day of the week.

it is pointless trying to explain it to skeptiks because they just will not understand it ,its a personal thing and when it happens you KNOW.its like a light switch turning on inside you.

Wow this forum got off topic quick. Anyone have any actual input to my original post? lol. It doesn't hurt to provide me with information or input on your thoughts. In fact I rather enjoy constructive criticism.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
When determining what is real there needs to be objective indicators.

Interesting.. So, at what point does one know something has gone from subjective experience, to objective fact? Both on a personal experiential level, and on a social level.. Social level, meaning everything from mass "truth," to scientific "fact." As far as science goes, i am just asking, at which point does one know something will absolutely not ever change? A basic example would just be something like moving from the consensus that the earth was flat to the consensus that the earth was round, or finding something like the giant squid, or the coelacanth. How does one determine what is absolute truth in its absolute entirety (no more to learn about any facet of the given item or subject), and what is subject to change? Such change can seemingly take place as new information that completely changes the understanding of the initial information, or new information that makes "false" the initial information. Sometimes a bit of both

If someone claims we must distinguish religion from "spirituality", and that person cannot accurately describe "spirituality", their entire point is essentially useless. Maybe I'm just a stickler for trying to figure out exactly what people mean when they make a statement. I guess that's a bad thing these days?

Not bad at all. Just because im asking questions about your perspective doesnt mean anything negative. It means i am trying to understand where you are coming from. I just ask questions, and offer my own perspective intermittently (unless specifically asked). While others may not, i view all perspectives as valid. Who am i to say that your, traditionaldrummer's, reality is not what you perceive to be true? However, our perspectives do differ, as they must. It is only through communication and discussion that we can learn how different perspectives on any single item or topic can be. Much less "lifes big questions." i do not expect the same curiosity or respect. If i did, web forums, or anything on the internet, would lose its enjoyment factor entirely

So, the way i come at this is that it is very difficult to align two perspectives to the same objective information on individual experience, but perhaps possible in as controlled environment as possible. If two people were to.. sit and watch the same sunrise. They are sitting side-by-side, so roughly in the same spot. variables are reduced to the greatest extent possible, say even down to the socks they are wearing. Perhaps say they are twins, with the same eye sight, eye color, etc. So, they view 30 minutes of a sunrise, no more, no less. They are then told to quantify the entirety of the experience, in any and all ways possible, but only using words and numbers. They are allowed to use measuring equipment, but not imaging. While doing this, they are not allowed any contact with each other, so no communication. How does one assure that they will both write the same "truth." If they differed in any way, how would one determine which one was right, and which one was wrong?

Now, take those two papers on the 30 minute experience, and give them to another set of twins, same eye color, etc. Reducing variables to a degree (just for simplicity, as a real experiment, one would obviously want to sample on large scales with many controls). Have a photo book of say, 365 sunrises (each day of the past year). The test set is separated (as the original set), and each are given both manuscripts from the original experience. How does one assure these two separated individuals pick the same picture of the sunrise? How does one assure these two individuals pick the correct picture of the original experience?

Hypothetically, if these sets were then brought together and were given a.. hologram software generator (a la star treks "holodeck"). Lets say they know how to code, and are absolute masters. They can perfectly replicate "reality" (once again, hypothetically, thought that should be obvious ). Only given their memories, and test items (experience manuscripts, measurements, and pictures), they are told to recreate the original sunrise. How does one assure they are able to replicate the experience exactly? To make it easier, lets say they only need to create a single half-second that matched up with a single half-second of the original 30 minute experience. How would one ensure the quality and depth of data was sufficient to be able to replicate the experience precisely, down to the smallest minute detail? Everything from the different atmospheric pressures, to the different lengths of grass on the ground, to the flow of blood through their veins. Emotions can be dismissed, to once again make it a bit easier. How does one eliminate the possibility for something to be missed, or lost in translation?

Please let me know if i was completely unclear about what im trying to convey (believe me, i know it can happen, i can be as clear as mud sometimes ). I also apologize if at any time you think this one is insulting you. It is never my intent, but its hard to communicate completely effectively over the internet

It is basically trying to figure out how to control variables if doing something like the above. As far as the hypothetical part, i know its not possible, but lets just say it is for the last part of the experiment. Plus, holodecks would be cool

To be honest, im not really sure how one would go about it, but it would be a necessity to be able to relay the entirety of "truth" of a given experience. I am interested to know your input on it.

reply to post by Phantom28804


While it may not seem it, my last wall of text is pointing back towards the original post!

In basically trying to figure out how to relay the information objectively on the totality of an experience.

reply to post by Student X

But she didn't cross a threshold. The bug did.

This is all perspective. Take the sighting in Fatima, Portugal where three children supposedly witnessed a sighting of the Virgin Mary. These children did not cross any threshold, or enter any altered states of existence. They simply were in the right place, at the right time, and the mystical came to them. Whether this is a legitimate experience or not, there are hundreds of similar accounts all over the world. The mystical can seek you out, just as easily as you can seek it out. It works both ways. Many, many times a persons introduction to the mystical is by having an unexplainable experience which they did not try to instigate.

She did not employ any altered states of consciousness to make her prophecy.

Prophecy does not require altered states of consciousness. Take other forms of divination: astrology, the Tarot, the I-Ching, skrying, et al: these do not require the divinator to be consumed by the Breath of Life while contained within their chamber. I perform astrological and Tarot divination all the time for peoples' future and I never intoxicate my mind to do so. The Greek method for uncovering prophecy is only one way of doing it.

I mean, take the ancient oracle of Delphi for example. "Plutarch described how a woman would enter a small chamber ("adyton") in the temple of Apollo and inhale sweet-smelling vapors ("pneuma") from a fissure in the mountain before entering a trance.

Dee and Kelley, medieval astrologers, alchemists, and magicians worked their trance states in quite a different manner. Kelley would skry into a "shewstone", wherein he would receive visions of beings who divulged to him the secrets of the Angelic Language, Enochian. From this simple process, involving no altered states or inhalations of magickal aromas, Dee and Kelley laid down a magickal practice used by almost all orders and spiritual groups seeking to reach higher planes of reality.

So, while Greek oracles and prophets are the most known account (because most American schools teach them for several years) they are hardly the only, or the truest, form of prophecy out there.

But Mrs. Carmody didn't seem to enter any trances, or employ any systematic methods of divination. All she did was make a guess that payed off.

I must disagree, she prays and seeks the Lord's guidance frequently throughout the entire movie. At one point, while in a bathroom stall, she even invites the Holy Spirit to possess her, and use her body as a vessel right before declaring that she is now an instrument of the Lord. So, in her mind her prophecy is just as valid as an seer stationed at Delphi praying to the naval-rock. Again, Carmody's method is just as valid, only from a different spiritual-religious angle.

I would call her a false prophet. There are lots of them running around. They are like broken clocks that are right twice per day.

This I would also agree with, since the movie ending (different from the audio-tape) clearly shows that humans find a way to control, and get rid of, the mist and its inhabitants. So yes, her prophecy ended up being false (as did most seer's prophecy throughout history). The point being, her means and methods and experiences were legitimate.