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.

 

Darth Vader: "I'm your father" Luke: "No, I'm an actor named Mark Hamill"

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   
So there you are, seeing The Empire Strikes Back. Vader has Luke on the ropes. Then comes the revelation. Darth is Lukes father.

Luke looks at Darth and smiles. "No, you're wrong. I'm just an actor and so are you".



Of course Mark Hamill would never ruin a take like that. The show must go on! We must play our roles. We can't stop the game by taking off our masks!

'All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts'


People have said the world is like a piece of pottery. God the potter. Or that the world is like a watch. God the watchmaker.

But I think its more like a drama. A play. God the director, God the actor, God the audience, God the stage.

"So in this idea, then, everybody is fundamentally the ultimate reality. Not God in a politically kingly sense, but God in the sense of being the self, the deep-down basic whatever there is. And you're all that, only you're pretending you're not. And it's perfectly OK to pretend you're not, to be perfectly convinced, because this is the whole notion of drama." -Alan Watts

At the end of the play, we will all take off our masks. We will find that there was only one actor all along...playing at being individuals. Until then, most of us are lost in the mask we wear. The ego-self we wear. The mask of individuality. And that's as it should be.

Otherwise, it would be as if Luke woke up to the fact that he is an actor in the middle of the show. The show must go on! For now.


edit on 22-8-2012 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   
One of life's most stunning realizations.

The universe does revolve around you, and always has.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Luke may be Lucifer and Darth Vader may be "The Father". "The Father" was evil so Luke went against him even though he was created by him. Those scared will be following "The Father" out of fear while the rest will be following "Luke".

Notice that his last name is "Sky Walker" and Lucifer is supposed to be The Prince of The Air and "The Light Bearer" (when Luke wears white).

If you realize it is a "movie" and that you'll do something that you don't want. You can change it, like Luke going against the Father, or realizing it is a movie and leaving the role (if it was unwanted)
edit on 22-8-2012 by arpgme because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   

edit on 22-8-2012 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Where does Jar-Jar fit into all of this?

Can someone please give me a Philosophy that includes Jar-Jar!?
I really like that guy!



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueMule
 


One of the problems I've had with this theory of monism stems from morality, or, the absence of morality as your hypothesis would suggest. If every sentient being is a "mask" of God, then the death of one mask—whether violent, accidental, of self-inflicted—is entirely meaningless. If I were to kill my neighbor's son right now it would hold no weight in the world, because he is not a real thing, but a reflection of the Highest, as am I. In fact, all morality is drained from the world. Murder, thievery, rape, mental and physical abuse, none of it means anything as death simply erases what was done, and what we have done, as we sublimate back into the Highest.

All motion even, becomes inessential and meaningless. If all 6 billion human masks, several trillion insect masks, the billions of mammalian, marine, and avian masks are all one higher being's eyes, then we wouldn't need to do anything in life, as the Highest would already be observing and understanding every inch of His own creation. Your life is absolutely pointless by this philosophy. There's no reason to do anything at all, and if you feel so inclined to do something, there's no reason it should be anything "good" over "bad," because neither good nor bad exist.

That's far too meaningless of a life for me, personally. I'd like to believe my individual life, and the individual lives of my six billion brethren have personalized meaning. That life, whether by chance or condition, has direction and purpose. In your philosophy we're all meaningless machines of a being who is everything, doing everything, and seeing everything simultaneously: we're inconsequential regardless of what we try.

~ Scribe



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueMule
 





posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by tvtexan
 


Jar-Jar is George Lucas' critique of democracy.

~ Scribe



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueMule
 



- person

early 13c., from O.Fr. persone "human being" (12c., Fr. personne), from L. persona "human being," originally "character in a drama, mask," possibly borrowed from Etruscan phersu "mask."

www.etymonline.com...


Oh how I love a bit of Alan Watts in the morning!

Funnily enough I started writing something similar a couple of years ago but things got in the way of me finishing it. I still have it here somewhere, you may have just inspired me to resurrect it



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
reply to post by BlueMule
 


One of the problems I've had with this theory of monism stems from morality, or, the absence of morality as your hypothesis would suggest. If every sentient being is a "mask" of God, then the death of one mask—whether violent, accidental, of self-inflicted—is entirely meaningless. If I were to kill my neighbor's son right now it would hold no weight in the world, because he is not a real thing, but a reflection of the Highest, as am I. In fact, all morality is drained from the world. Murder, thievery, rape, mental and physical abuse, none of it means anything as death simply erases what was done, and what we have done, as we sublimate back into the Highest.

All motion even, becomes inessential and meaningless. If all 6 billion human masks, several trillion insect masks, the billions of mammalian, marine, and avian masks are all one higher being's eyes, then we wouldn't need to do anything in life, as the Highest would already be observing and understanding every inch of His own creation. Your life is absolutely pointless by this philosophy. There's no reason to do anything at all, and if you feel so inclined to do something, there's no reason it should be anything "good" over "bad," because neither good nor bad exist.

That's far too meaningless of a life for me, personally. I'd like to believe my individual life, and the individual lives of my six billion brethren have personalized meaning. That life, whether by chance or condition, has direction and purpose. In your philosophy we're all meaningless machines of a being who is everything, doing everything, and seeing everything simultaneously: we're inconsequential regardless of what we try.

~ Scribe



I understand you are having a hard time coming to terms with this concept and it is evident due to your continual use of the words "I" "me" and "WE".

There is no "I" "Me" nor "WE".
There is only infinite consciousness which encompasses all.

In order for "You" to be inconsequential, there would have to BE a you to begin with and I'm sorry to say but.....there isn't.

It sounds like it might be time to re evaluate just who "You" really are.
edit on 23-8-2012 by Screwed because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Screwed
 


That is a misreading of the entire entry. Since there seems to be trouble with the concept of the self; whether or not "I" exist, what is to stop any "mask" from doing any immoral thing to any other "mask" which has consciousness? In fact, why does any "mask" perform any action or activity at all? It's really not so hard to comprehend. If the use of the self in the previous reply was too much, then just replace any mention of a pronoun with "mask," or "mask of God," and perhaps the entry will make more sense in the philosophy of monism being presented here.

[edit to add] The question still stands; why are you (as a mask) even doing anything as all activity, morality, and desire is meaningless.[edit to add]

~ Wandering Scribe


edit on 23/8/12 by Wandering Scribe because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Wandering Scribe
 


It isn't "MY" job to convince "YOU" that "WE" don't exist.

It sounds like the mind you are claiming to be "yours" is already made up.
Such is the power of the illusion.
edit on 23-8-2012 by Screwed because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Screwed
 


Ah, but the BURDEN OF PROOF does fall on you, as it is YOU who is suggesting the philosophy is truth. It is not, in fact, my job to find proof of your claim, but your job to provide evidence of your theory. Unless you accept it is not truth, but just hypothesis, in which case you don't need to prove it, but you also can't present it as fact unless you do.

~ Wandering Scribe


edit on 23/8/12 by Wandering Scribe because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Wandering Scribe
 


You can't prove anything to a mind that is already closed.

There is an old saying which fits nicely here.
Overused to be sure but it hits right to the heart of it all.

You can lead a horse to water......

I can't MAKE you see what you won't see.
There would be no amount of proof that could convince you anyway.

It all starts with this so called "you" anyway.
As I said before and I will once more,

It ISN'T "MY" job to convince "YOU" that "WE" don't exist.

I mean that....literally.
It really isn't "MY" job.
WHen the grand play is over then all will be clear.

You are not who you think you are.
I'll leave it at that my friend.

Good night.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Screwed
 


What you're saying then, is you have neither an answer to my inquiry, nor any evidence that this theory of monism is right. OK. That wasn't so hard to say, was it? You didn't have to go for the ad hominem attacks right away, accusing me of not having an open mind about this subject. I'm on the thread, posing a question concerning the subject at hand; that on its own shows both an interest in, and an earnestness to learn about, the theory. You, and not I, it would seem, are too "close-minded" to believe anyone can come earnestly seeking insight.

I'll wait for BlueMule to reply, I think. I know they'll at least engage in conversation with me, since we just finished a similar discussion on another thread.

Have yourself a good night as well.

~ Wandering Scribe



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe

One of the problems I've had with this theory of monism stems from morality, or, the absence of morality as your hypothesis would suggest.


Hello friend. That's one of the problems I've had too.

To put it in familiar terms. In the 'Garden of Eden', there is no morality. Only unity.

Only after eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (of pairs of opposites) and getting kicked out of the Garden is there morality. So, morality is not built into the Garden. It's not built into fundamental reality. It's built into the play we are all currently playing outside the Garden. The play is called 'lets pretend we are good and evil people'.

So play your role, and be moral. Be the Clark Kent part of yourself, and forget that underneath you are Superman. Afterwords we will all get together for a back-stage party in the Garden and we will chow-down on the fruit of the tree of Eternal Life. All sins big and small will be forgiven. All tears wiped away.


edit on 23-8-2012 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by LiveForever8

Funnily enough I started writing something similar a couple of years ago but things got in the way of me finishing it. I still have it here somewhere, you may have just inspired me to resurrect it


Looking forward to it!



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by avatar01

The universe does revolve around you, and always has.


But my wife always tells me, "It's not all about YOU, you know!



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by avatar01
 


I used to think the universe revolved around me, until I was about 6 or 7yrs old and looking up at the sun one day. Id been in trouble and remember thinking why do I get into trouble If I put everything here for me, i realy thought that i projected the world outwards. but that day and not in these words I realised the light shines on and not out.

Only now im starting think that light is just a source of information that my eyes receive and my brain stranslates into the world I see and it is all my creation.

I just think other people create what they see too from this information and that it doesn't all revolve around me.



edit on 23-8-2012 by ThePeopleParty because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe

Ah, but the BURDEN OF PROOF does fall on you, as it is YOU who is suggesting the philosophy is truth.


The proof is in the pudding.


Take off your mask and see.

In the meantime, you could study the parapsychological literature that has accumulated over the last century. It tends to support a mental monism.


In his book Global Mind Change, former IONS President Willis Harman discussed three basic ways of looking at the world. He called the current Western scientific worldview “materialistic monism,” or “M1.” Within M1, everything—both matter and energy— is made of a single substance. From matter emerges everything, including the brain-generated illusion called mind. In M1, angels and aliens walking through walls are fine plot points for an episode of The Twilight Zone, but they are impossible in the real world.

In M1, UFOs are conceivable, but only in terms of hard, physical spacecraft with humanoid pilots. Most of the modern technological world was created based on M1 assumptions, so it carries enormous persuasive power. But the whole panoply of noetic experiences defy materialistic explanations, suggesting that M1 is an incomplete worldview. Detailed taxonomies of these anomalies are described by all cultures; they include, among others, the Hindu siddhis, the Catholic charisms, Sufi attainments, and, in indigenous societies, shamanic magic.

Harman’s second worldview, M2, represents dualism, which assumes two fundamentally different kinds of substances in the universe, matter and mind. Many scientists today reject dualism because it begs the problem of how two deeply different substances could interact at all. In addition, it seems lavish to require the universe to maintain (at least) two distinct essences, when it would be far simpler to have only one.

The third worldview, M3, is transcendental or mental monism, which Harman argued is the source of both the perennial wisdom and the emerging worldview of the twenty-first century. In M3, consciousness is primary, and matter and energy are emergent properties of consciousness. M3 accommodates everything that M1 and M2 allow for, as well as rogue phenomena like telepathic ETs, observation-shy UFOs, and collective mind–manifested UFOs. Evidence in favor of M3 has been slowly amassing for over a century. Such recent books as Irreducible Mind, Entangled Minds, and Measuring the Immeasurable (see review 0n page 41) discuss the empirical evidence in detail, ranging from psychic phenomena to creative genius to mind-body interactions to evidence suggestive of reincarnation.


www.paradigmresearchgroup.org...




top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join