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.
Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by bogomil
You wrote:
('conscious' still undefined on your part)
This has finally convinced me that i am also wasting my time.
It seems that you do not know what it means to be conscious. It is clear to me now that you have not understood anything that i have written.
Namaste.
Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by bogomil
I do not dictate to you how you should be or how you should think or how you are wrong or how i oppose you?
I only speak about consciousness.
There is no opposition in consciousness.
There are no fragments in the one.
The semantics that you like to argue about all come from you, you use words like "your increasingly apparant missionary efforts", solipsism,
megalomania, mundane 'reality'/perspective, trans-mundane.
You wrote:
To my remembrance practically all your many references to whatever is known 'mundanely' have been flawed or plain incorrect. End quote.
This is no more than your opinion based on the fact that you haven't got a clue what i am talking about.edit on 20-5-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by Conclusion1
Sorry about the late answer. My internet connection also had a bad time recently.
You wrote:
["Guided imagination? Okay I am a little questionable here. What do you mean by that? Are we guiding our imaginations or is someone/something else?"]
Guided imagination is just an organized way of using 'fantasy', in a more structured form than just ordinary daydreaming. The specific outcomes are almost 100% subjective, but the phenomenon per se would be worth some serious attention. It COULD be a legitimate way of percieving with proper use.
Quote: [" Now if guided imagination is real and/if I am the one guiding it, wouldn't I have seen one by now? And my experience before only happened once. That suggests that it was not guided imagination."]
I have no reason to suspect your experience to be a completely made up fantasy (and it hasn't been my intention to suggest this as conclusive). But as in my own case, where I have reasons to believe, that I was exposed to 'real' stimuli, the interpretation-part can be more fishy to sort out.
The is rather convincing psychological knowledge about the lack of socalled 'gestalts' (recognizable and meaningful patterns), when interpretating unknown sense-stimuli. And used in a religious, semi-religious or existential context, the same stimulus can be interpretated to be Jesus, Buddha or whatever.
Quote: ["I have to disagree with the rational/scientific/logic answers sentence. It seems that quantum physics is having a hard time explaining what is happening in their field of study. With trying to relate it to relativity. Also with the scientist saying how a particle can be in two different places at once does not seem "rational" unless it is trying to describe science."]
Newtonian physics is still the basis and relates very well to the observable mechanics of the universe (cosmos). Any theological or religious speculation will still have to deal with this part, which is very uniform and demonstrable as 'objective'.
Quantum mechanics is still a young science (it didn't get housebroken until mid-20'th century), and will in my estimation not produce conclusions, uniformity or creative permanent paradigm shifts the next 50 years or more. Any speculations based on it are still speculations, and efforts of 'quantum-religion' practically always mumbo-jumbo. These people constructing such 'quantum-religions' hardly know Newtonian physics as it is.
Why religionists etc. just don't stay with calling their religion/spititual ideology/experience 'faith' and accept the subjective character of it, is beyond me.
Instead some missionary types invent a fake-objectivity, by which they want to justify exclusive elitist claims.