New Creepy 10/28/11 Website Mystery

reply to post by TNTarheel


Precisely.
Since when was utter simplicity raped by ghostly elites?

Can't anyone pucker up for a kiss anymore?

reply to post by TheSilentwalker


If im out of my mind that must mean im as crazy as Druid or Adraves i was just another power hungry attention seeking maniac but i said i failed that doesn't mean i still have the mindset or belief.

Originally posted by TheSilentwalker
reply to post by TNTarheel

 

Precisely.
Since when was utter simplicity raped by ghostly elites?

Can't anyone pucker up for a kiss anymore?

I have to wonder, Walker, if we have "being controlled" and "controlling" ingrained in us. Is it part of our inherent nature now?

I also have to wonder if...perhaps...this whole Oct 28 website has been taken much, much too seriously.

I know that is a very unpopular view but I still wonder.

Originally posted by Molimo
reply to post by TheSilentwalker

 

If im out of my mind that must mean im as crazy as Druid or Adraves i was just another power hungry attention seeking maniac but i said i failed that doesn't mean i still have the mindset or belief.

Don't be so hard on your self.

Watch this.
This is for you. In pure nothingness — if you want to indulge in grasping that?

Originally posted by Molimo
reply to post by TheSilentwalker

 

If im out of my mind that must mean im as crazy as Druid or Adraves i was just another power hungry attention seeking maniac but i said i failed that doesn't mean i still have the mindset or belief.

You are human, Molimo...no more and no less. There are no "perfect beings" among us...we all still journey.

I do not think you are crazy nor do I think you are a "power hungry attention seeking maniac". I think you were just caught up in the moment...and you are not alone.

Peace

How has science become more of a theology? I think you are a little confused here and actually, I can’t blame you for that. If you would have written: “Exo-science is more of a theology” that would have worked.
But saying so in your terms just means you confuse the two — science and pseudo-science.

What do you mean by exo-science? I have not heard that term before.

I am married to a scientist and hang out with scientists all the time. The scientific process works well in theory but it is my observation, and his, that that is not how it is practiced. There's much politics about who gets funded and who does not. Data is corrupted and twisted (yes often downright falsified before it gets published) all the time (though I will say that is more a fault of our capitalist system). Huge egos run rampant. It's not a surprise to me that history's greatest scientific minds worked pretty much outside of the conventional academic institutions.

Your premise of “If I can’t see it with my 5 senses then it doesn’t exist” is a fallacy. Just a quick example: can you or I, or any Nobel prize’d scientist actually see/experience dark matter with any of their 5 senses? No. Pure, flat: NO.
However, scientists KNOW about it (to a certain extent, for now). But that is certainly not a leap of “faith” or whatever “belief”. It’s pure data. Frank numbers on a printed out sheet. That’s why unlike religion (a broad term for belief/faith here) "faith" does not work when science actually… does.

The data would fall under "5 senses" -- it is that which can be measured.

Do you understand the whole point of Schroedinger's Cat? If it's true (and I know you disagree with that, and we can agree to disagree), then every result and data point is observed because the scientist wanted to observe it. Therefore, you cannot trust any measurement ever made. Scary, isn't it? That's why scientists, including Schroedinger himself, hated the whole idea, and ignore the quandary completely. Einstein didn't ignore it.

True enough, science holds a great deal of “intuitive flash of insight”, I agree on that. However, again, this is not belief nor any kind of faith. It’s deeply rooted in k n o w i n g. Which is quite the opposite, if you ask me.

Okay, I like your word knowing. Faith, unfortunately has gotten tainted and a bad rap. We can stick with "knowing" and use that instead.

So, no, sorry, belief/faith and science do not go together hand in hand.

It does though. Scientists have FAITH in the scientific process, do they not?

As much as I agree with you in terms of balance —that I would call reason, for the matter—, as much mysticism basically is emanating from superstition.I am not even questioning its place, mind you — fairy tales DO have an important place too.

I adore fairy tales too. I would not call myself a mystic. At all. When mystical things have happened to me, I'm actually rather embarrassed about them, and I search for a rational explanation, and like any good scientist, I log, I track, I try to remain objective... and then sometimes I reach a point where I have to conclude there's something "real" about the mystic experience. But then it's not so mystical anymore --- it become a knowing, does it not?

Lastly, the even bigger reason why you seem to have it all mixed up and wrong resides in what you say here: “Reason is the guide, faith is the aim”.
Sorry, not. Never. Never in reality and a (precisely) reasonable world. Faith is never the aim. Knowing is. Which is very, very different.
When belief is the guide, then, faith is the aim. Not when reason is the guide.

I'm all about letting go of beliefs, or carrying them only for as long as they serve you, then set them down when they no longer do.

I guess this means bad toasts and awful dancing, and upside down hieroglyphs.

But hey, this is a sane, interesting, friendly and (quite) deep debate actually. Thank you for that.

Yes, friendly and deep debate. I'm not typing to prove myself right and anyone else wrong. That would be no fun, and I wouldn't learn anything new.

Good morning, Sheba

A beautiful day, yes?

Originally posted by TNTarheel

Originally posted by TheSilentwalker
reply to post by TNTarheel

 

Precisely.
Since when was utter simplicity raped by ghostly elites?

Can't anyone pucker up for a kiss anymore?

I have to wonder, Walker, if we have "being controlled" and "controlling" ingrained in us. Is it part of our inherent nature now?

I also have to wonder if...perhaps...this whole Oct 28 website has been taken much, much too seriously.

I know that is a very unpopular view but I still wonder.

I'm with you on that more than you may think , actually.

Being controlled? Absolutely not. We are indeed so VERY good at erecting our very own, thick proper walls. You know that. I know that. Move along. Nothing to see. Right?

As for taking it far too seriously? That's what I have said since day one. Aren't we all taking our selves so bloody seriously, really. Is that not so hilarious when we're not even capable to grasp and accept the kiss from a perfect stranger on the street? Much less a cuddle.

And yet the brag is all about peace, love, enlight-effing-enment and what not.
How can we really take our selves seriously?

You know there was that movie long ago —not so bad, but not a masterpiece either— in which Jack Nicholson eructs: "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!

And that's all I'll have to say about that.

reply to post by TNTarheel


We are being controlled because its something we cant stop like how most if not all animal packs have an alpha male. But humans dont have instincts like them thats why we dont have very nice people (understatement) in power even groups of children have a leader even if its unofficial everyone makes rules for themselves its against their DNA not to i would tell you to read about the five temperaments particularly the chloreic but i couldn't tell if they were reliable or not.

Originally posted by TheSilentwalker
I'm with you on that more than you may think , actually.

Being controlled? Absolutely not. We are indeed so VERY good at erecting our very own, thick proper walls. You know that. I know that. Move along. Nothing to see. Right?

As for taking it far too seriously? That's what I have said since day one. Aren't we all taking our selves so bloody seriously, really. Is that not so hilarious when we're not even capable to grasp and accept the kiss from a perfect stranger on the street? Much less a cuddle.

And yet the brag is all about peace, love, enlight-effing-enment and what not.
How can we really takes our selves seriously?

You know there was that movie long ago —not so bad, but not a masterpiece either— in which Jack Nicholson eructs: "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!
And that's all I'll have to say about that.

As my young one would say...'Nuff said

Originally posted by Molimo
reply to post by TNTarheel

 

We are being controlled because its something we cant stop like how most if not all animal packs have an alpha male. But humans dont have instincts like them thats why we dont have very nice people (understatement) in power even groups of children have a leader even if its unofficial everyone makes rules for themselves its against their DNA not to i would tell you to read about the five temperaments particularly the chloreic but i couldn't tell if they were reliable or not.

There is a difference, I think, between "control" and "guidance". We all need guidance...at one time or another. I can think of only a few instances where control is needed.

I accept guidance with open arms and welcoming heart...I cannot and will not be controlled nor will I try to control another.

reply to post by TheSilentwalker


While that sounds good you really don't know everyone's life story. You can't speak for everyone, or anyone except for yourself. We all have different paths, objectives, and sometimes they seem to intersect. Just because this happens doesn't mean you should get all heated about it, and argue whenever possible (even if for the greater "good"). It's all about perspective, and you can't perceive the perspective of others. So while you may be right in your own mind, so are they. And that seems to be why so many got offended.

Originally posted by TNTarheel

Originally posted by Molimo
reply to post by TheSilentwalker

 

You didn't need to because considering i failed to control this and druid i just thought it was pointless so for most of this thread i will from now on keep quiet maybe i might post occasionally.

Sweet Molimo, please do not feel that way. You could not control the thread because there are no Kings or Queens here. We are all equals...no one more important than the other. We each have our own reasons for being here...no right or wrong reasons...just different ones.

I would just like to say, though I tease about being a Queen, my ideal would be to see EVERYONE realize they are their own sovereign. Yes, everyone gets to wear a crown!! (Mine has emeralds and rubies). If we could figure out how to rule our own selves instead of others, the world would be a much better place, no?

Originally posted by sheba2011
If we could figure out how to rule our own selves instead of others, the world would be a much better place, no?

The world would be a much better place...yes!

Originally posted by sheba2011
What do you mean by exo-science? I have not heard that term before.

I mean pseudo-science. Exo-science is that. Woo. Science woo.

I am married to a scientist and hang out with scientists all the time. The scientific process works well in theory but it is my observation, and his, that that is not how it is practiced. There's much politics about who gets funded and who does not. Data is corrupted and twisted (yes often downright falsified before it gets published) all the time (though I will say that is more a fault of our capitalist system). Huge egos run rampant. It's not a surprise to me that history's greatest scientific minds worked pretty much outside of the conventional academic institutions.

Thank goodness theory is different than practice! We would not advance much without that, would we?
I agree with you on false capitalist data. You could not be more right.
Working outside a conventional bubble doesn’t nearly mean sticking the irrational into it.

The data would fall under "5 senses" -- it is that which can be measured.

Do you understand the whole point of Schroedinger's Cat? If it's true (and I know you disagree with that, and we can agree to disagree), then every result and data point is observed because the scientist wanted to observe it. Therefore, you cannot trust any measurement ever made. Scary, isn't it? That's why scientists, including Schroedinger himself, hated the whole idea, and ignore the quandary completely. Einstein didn't ignore it.

More than “5 sense data” can be measured Sheba. Ask your hubby and I’ll stick to the dark matter example, for that.

I absolutely grasp and understand the Shrödinger’s Cat paradox. From both ends I might add. That’s why I like it so much actually, despite appearances and my not subscribing to it.
Not trusting any measurement is a nice woo concept. That’s all there is to it.
As for Einstein, quite honestly, the poor guy has become nothing but like the holy bible. People pick and choose and make him now say/think just what they want. Just like in that poetry you posted.
To each his/her own though. I have certainly no problem with that.

It does though. Scientists have FAITH in the scientific process, do they not?

NO. Scientists do NOT have FAITH in the scientific process. If they do, then they’re not scientists. See The Global Consciousness Project.

I adore fairy tales too. I would not call myself a mystic. At all. When mystical things have happened to me, I'm actually rather embarrassed about them, and I search for a rational explanation, and like any good scientist, I log, I track, I try to remain objective... and then sometimes I reach a point where I have to conclude there's something "real" about the mystic experience. But then it's not so mystical anymore --- it become a knowing, does it not?

Mystical things do not happen to people. Events are turned mystical by people, that’s different. It’s when one cannot rationally explain something that they turn to mysticism. Because it’s like the Joker in a card game. It’s worth anything, when…it is not in terms of rationality and reason.

It does not change the fact that you (or me or anyone for that matter), can link anything to anything. Precisely because we would miss one piece or bit of understanding to a crypto-code (see oct28) or a kick-ass hypothesis from some brilliant YouTube “scientist”. Indeed, it can become knowing then. It’s up to you.

I'm all about letting go of beliefs, or carrying them only for as long as they serve you, then set them down when they no longer do.

Beliefs are like poetry and art. A jolly ride to the stars and back.
What most fail to grasp is the “back” part.

Yes, friendly and deep debate. I'm not typing to prove myself right and anyone else wrong. That would be no fun, and I wouldn't learn anything new.

Again, thank you for this. Now THAT is healthy and tangible.

Originally posted by Molimo
reply to post by TNTarheel

 

We are being controlled because its something we cant stop like how most if not all animal packs have an alpha male. But humans dont have instincts like them thats why we dont have very nice people (understatement) in power even groups of children have a leader even if its unofficial everyone makes rules for themselves its against their DNA not to i would tell you to read about the five temperaments particularly the chloreic but i couldn't tell if they were reliable or not.

edit on 30-9-2011 by Molimo because: (no reason given)

Mo, are you THAT innocent..???
Since when instinct has to do with nice people? Even more so, "nice people" in power.
Since when is power an alcove for "nice"? Are you living under a thick rock? Have you had a look at Humanity's History? Agreed, it may not be the picture you'd like it to be. However, sorry to burst your bubble, but that's irrelevant.

And you should always remember this: "You cannot go against nature. Because when you do it's part of nature too".

reply to post by sheba2011



You cant just give everyone power because some just aren't meant to have it they either abuse it or dont know what to do with it not the people of this generation anyway.

Maybe we can't help ourselves. Free will may be an illusion.

-Silent great song. Loved it. Thank you.

-How is science not a religion? The human genome has 23 paired chromosomes 20 000-25 000 genes and about 3 billion base pairs. Life has been on earth about 3-3.5 billion years. So in 3 billion years somehow 3 billion base pairs managed to line up in such a perfect way to allow me to type this message. That is a lot to swallow without a little faith.

Originally posted by 200457
reply to post by TheSilentwalker

 

While that sounds good you really don't know everyone's life story. You can't speak for everyone, or anyone except for yourself. We all have different paths, objectives, and sometimes they seem to intersect. Just because this happens doesn't mean you should get all heated about it, and argue whenever possible (even if for the greater "good"). It's all about perspective, and you can't perceive the perspective of others. So while you may be right in your own mind, so are they. And that seems to be why so many got offended.

I was not aware I pretended to know everyone's life story. You are here putting in my mouth and mind thoughts I never even glimpsed.
Perspective indeed is what it is about. You should actually listen more carefully to yourself.
I do not pretend to be right.
I pretend to offer a sane, impartial perspective actually.
And if anyone is offended at this, well the simplest way I could put it is that they can go f- themselves with it. It only means they have no ears.
Hope this helps.

reply to post by TheSilentwalker


See there you go again