The Death Throes of Authoritarianism? Or True Enlightenment Preparation?

page: 2
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
If someone honestly feels the need to "melt into a pool" then they'll find a pool to melt into without some mahatma presenting menacing music/text/news clip videos about the desperate need for them to hurry up and melt as a means of eternal survival.

Do you not see how you're setting yourself up to be your own version of a "guru" with these stances?

You're trying to define which paths are acceptable and which are not, thus being an authority/savior/guru.

Most "gurus" state flat out "If you don't like my boat... please seek another... this is simply the boat that works for me. If you like my boat... enjoy the ride."

If they choose to "rush" or "menace" the riders of their boat, that is their boat. *shrug*
Some people like to have someone literally stand on their face. *shrug*
edit on 25-8-2012 by ErgoTheConclusion because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheJourney
This is an interesting topic to me. I am one to speak about non-duality, or 'oneness,' and yet my interpretation of it is not what you might think when you hear 'oneness.' My understanding of non-duality is that it is an INHERENT property of reality, and as such opens up the potential for unparalleled freedom of individual expression. In my understanding, infinite potential for unique individual expression is implied in non-duality...
edit on 25-8-2012 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)


Let's look at the plausibility of what you suggest.

My understanding of non-duality is that it is an INHERENT property of reality, and as such opens up the potential for unparalleled freedom of individual expression.

Reality is an objective quantity, and regardless of what anyone suggests with their philosophy, this is the definition of the term reality. It is NOT subjective. It is a finite objective quantity. In that sense, "oneness" is implied, since any finite, objective quantity is - ultimately - a singularity. Still, the suggestion that the surrender of "duality" - or the "this as opposed to that" nature of inimitable identity - opens up any potential for individual expression - let alone unparalleled freedom of individual expression - is a stark contradiction in what the word "individual" means and what individual expression suggests.

You really can't just toss words together as if you're creating a house salad, and then demand that anyone accept the wisdom inherent within, if you're not going to vet the way that you're using the words you've chosen. The statement you just made is simply impossible, and for the very simple reason that I just showed you. This happens a lot on this forum, and it shouldn't. If you want to make a point, figure out what your point is. Non-duality cannot do anything to free up individual expression. That's nonsensical juxtaposition of seemingly related terminology.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheConclusion

Originally posted by NorEaster
If someone honestly feels the need to "melt into a pool" then they'll find a pool to melt into without some mahatma presenting menacing music/text/news clip videos about the desperate need for them to hurry up and melt as a means of eternal survival.

Do you not see how you're setting yourself up to be your own version of a "guru" with these stances?

You're trying to define which paths are acceptable and which are not, thus being an authority/savior/guru.

Most "gurus" state flat out "if you don't like my boat... please seek another... this is simply the boat that works for me... if you like my boat... enjoy the ride". If they choose to "rush" or "menace" the riders of their boat, that is their boat.
edit on 25-8-2012 by ErgoTheConclusion because: (no reason given)


If I may.....what would be the reverse of his condition? I cant see anything in that picture but darkness for the individual.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Think about it: if non-duality is an inherent property of reality, than any possible expression is contained therein. Therefore, extreme individuality is encouraged, because there are no limitations if things are inherently one. If you 'have to' act a certain way, then you're implying duality, because 'this way' is better than 'that way,' and that's not non-dual. In true non-duality, there cannot possibly be ANY restrictions, and therefore there is no limit to individual expression.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheConclusion

Originally posted by NorEaster
If someone honestly feels the need to "melt into a pool" then they'll find a pool to melt into without some mahatma presenting menacing music/text/news clip videos about the desperate need for them to hurry up and melt as a means of eternal survival.

Do you not see how you're setting yourself up to be your own version of a "guru" with these stances?

You're trying to define which paths are acceptable and which are not, thus being an authority/savior/guru.

Most "gurus" state flat out "If you don't like my boat... please seek another... this is simply the boat that works for me. If you like my boat... enjoy the ride."

If they choose to "rush" or "menace" the riders of their boat, that is their boat. *shrug*
Some people like to have someone stand on their face. *shrug*
edit on 25-8-2012 by ErgoTheConclusion because: (no reason given)


Melt if you wish. Just don't expect a complete lack of direct challenge when you try to overwhelm some poor searching mind that's wander onto this forum with YouTube videos and half-baked physics assumptions and Greek Chorus thread hijackings and all the other aggressive tactics that the melters use on this and other forums to draw the limping readers off to IGotYourEnlightenmentRightHereKid.com... for further inspired reading.

I'm no one's guru and I've been on this board long enough for everyone to understand that. You know it too, so don't irritate me with that suggestion. I give away what I feel like giving away and this is where I give it away. But mostly what I do is expose notions that have proven themselves to be ludicrous or potentially crippling for those who are vulnerable and searching for some answers. Notions like the one we're discussing in this thread here.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
If I may.....what would be the reverse of his condition? I cant see anything in that picture but darkness for the individual.

Unfortunately I'm not sure if the "his" in your question is NorEaster, the guru, or the seeker.

That said, who is the authority on whether an individual should or shouldn't be in darkness?



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
Melt if you wish.

I do not wish. I keep suggesting that you heavily misunderstand/misinterpret. This is a perfect example.


Originally posted by NorEaster
Just don't expect a complete lack of direct challenge when you try to overwhelm some poor searching mind that's wander onto this forum with YouTube videos and half-baked physics assumptions and Greek Chorus thread hijackings and all the other aggressive tactics that the melters use on this and other forums to draw the limping readers off to IGotYourEnlightenmentRightHereKid.com... for further inspired reading.

I'm no one's guru and I've been on this board long enough for everyone to understand that. You know it too, so don't irritate me with that suggestion. I give away what I feel like giving away and this is where I give it away. But mostly what I do is expose notions that have proven themselves to be ludicrous or potentially crippling for those who are vulnerable and searching for some answers. Notions like the one we're discussing in this thread here.

Wow!

I've suggested to you before: You see enemies where there are none, and you project a great deal. You really can't see how you are the inverse side of the coin you seek to battle with.

/fist pump!
edit on 25-8-2012 by ErgoTheConclusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheJourney
Think about it: if non-duality is an inherent property of reality, than any possible expression is contained therein. Therefore, extreme individuality is encouraged, because there are no limitations if things are inherently one. If you 'have to' act a certain way, then you're implying duality, because 'this way' is better than 'that way,' and that's not non-dual. In true non-duality, there cannot possibly be ANY restrictions, and therefore there is no limit to individual expression.


There is no "individual" of any sort if non-duality is an inherent property of reality. Check out Holon Theory, and think about it for a period of time. Challenge it and put it through its paces. I don't want you to accept it without kicking it around a bit. Then, when you've really taken it apart and associated it with what you already know to exist right at the end of your fingertips - as well as within your fingertips - then apply Holon Theory to your notion of the inherent nature of non-duality as fundamental to reality.

Then, you'll see my issue with the alleged primordial nature of non-duality, and why I reject it as being a bad philosophical interpretation of what constitutes the existential whole.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
And if you reply again objecting to the word 'individual' being contrary to 'non-duality,' let me further explain.

The 'non-dual,' which is 'empty,' or lacking any inherent properties, manifests as an infinite array of APPARENTLY different/individual expressions. So every single possible expression can be expressed, which we call 'individual,' yet does not ultimately separate itself from the emptiness, or non-dual. It's like the idea of Indra's net. A net with an infinite amount of 'different' jewels, yet they all reflect each other, so that each 'individual' jewel contains, in essence, the entirety of all information. Infinite apparent individuality, no ultimate differentiation.
edit on 25-8-2012 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheConclusion

Wow!

I've suggested to you before: You see enemies where there are none, and you project a great deal. You really can't see how you are the inverse side of the coin you seek to battle with.

/fist pump!
edit on 25-8-2012 by ErgoTheConclusion because: (no reason given)


And I'm going to suggest that this is a very common debate device that you've employed here. And I have definitely run into it many times over the years. You have not defined anything, asserted anything, or even defended anything of any specificity, and have now turned the exchange into an indictment of my own weak-confused character - as you did when we engaged once before. That, as any debater knows, is the textual equivalent of coming up over the table on your opponent once you've completely run out of salient points.

Don't engage if you have nothing to offer. This isn't me challenging you. This is me challenging a larger effort that I find to be troubling in this particular year, with the months that we have ahead of us. This is me presenting a differing point of view on an assertion that runs freely from month to month on this forum. Just one little thread in counterpoint. You don't have to resort to engaging in weirdly personal evaluations of me over just this one little thread.


edit on 8/25/2012 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheJourney
And if you reply again objecting to the word 'individual' being contrary to 'non-duality,' let me further explain.

The 'non-dual,' which is 'empty,' or lacking any inherent properties, manifests as an infinite array of APPARENTLY different/individual expressions. So every single possible expression can be expressed, which we call 'individual,' yet does not ultimately separate itself from the emptiness, or non-dual. It's like the idea of Indra's net. A net with an infinite amount of 'different' jewels, yet they all reflect each other, so that each 'individual' jewel contains, in essence, the entirety of all information. Infinite apparent individuality, no ultimate differentiation.
edit on 25-8-2012 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)


Then your definition of "non-duality" is not the same as "oneness" - or the "melting pool" that beckons the individual? And if not, then why are you bothering with this thread?
edit on 8/25/2012 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
You have not defined anything, asserted anything, or even defended anything of any specificity,

If you say so, I guess it's true!


Originally posted by NorEaster
and have now turned the exchange into an indictment of my own weak-confused character - as you did when we engaged once before. That, as any debater knows, is the textual equivalent of coming up over the table on your opponent once you've completely run out of salient points.

If you wish to interpret it that way.


Originally posted by NorEaster
Don't engage if you have nothing to offer. This isn't me challenging you. This is me challenging a larger effort that find to be troubling in this particular year, with the months that we have ahead of us. This is me presenting a differing point of view on what runs freely from month to month on this forum. Just one little thread in counterpoint. You don't have to resort to engaging in weirdly personal evaluations of me over just this one little thread.

I'm not trying to be personal, at least no more than you. Simply honest challenging of your belief that you understand the thing/people you are arguing against. I provided a couple of specific examples where you had misunderstood me directly... and a video of someone who speaks more along your style to see if it would communicate better than I could. But ok... I'll stop engaging with nothing.

Namasalutetoyou!
edit on 25-8-2012 by ErgoTheConclusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheConclusion
Simply honest challenging your belief that you understand the thing you are arguing against. I provided a specific example where you had done so to me specifically...

Namasalutetoyou!


Nice try, but what you provided was a mention of when you'd tried before to suggest that I didn't understand what I was challenging. That's not the same thing as providing an example of a previous failure I had to understand what I was challenging. Just like the lawyers I was trained to slap down when I was in corporateland. Each word has its job to do, and its assumed that most folks don't read very well.

You Namaste guys are slick. I'll give you that much. Just like eels.


***** I noticed that you edited your statement again. After I'd grabbed it for a response. I don't think it changes anything though, but I did want to acknowledge it.
edit on 8/25/2012 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Great thread and well wrote. S&F

I like to think of myself as somewhat of a rational middleman between the "spiritual" and "scientific" crowds. I am both a trained scientist and have spent time living with Buddhist monks and practicing meditation. You will never hear monks talking about "oneness", and yet I would say they are some of the most "spiritual" people around. The thing is, a kind of oneness is understood by them, but that doesn't negate the fact of individuality. Just like with the Native Americans, they grasped both realities fairly well. In fact, in Buddhism there is the Anatta (no-self) doctrine and it states that there is no 'you' that is intrinsically separate and independent from everything else, yet this is not a denial of individuality.

To me it is a balance between two extremes, the Middle Way as Buddha and Lao Tzu said. As in your example of holons, each individual (body and mind) is simultaneously a whole made up of parts and a part within another whole. Go either way on the scale of things and it remains true (a cell is simultaneously a whole of multiple organelles and a part within another whole being an organ, you can take it to the cosmic scale as well). So essentially, all there is is this single unitary movement we call the Universe. That is the largest holon. But I am also an individual part within that holon, as well as sub-holons within that holon. And I am also a holon of myself.

So there are three ways to identify myself:
1. I am everything and all there is, is this.
2. I am a part (individual) within a larger holon and a holon of myself.
3. I am nothing but a temporary construct of changing interdependent parts.

I think your assessment that humans are liberating their individual identity from authoritarian collective rule (be it communism, dictatorships or oligarchical democracies) is a great observation. I also think as that happens people naturally will gravitate to more voluntary and communal groupings based on their needs and not necessarily their ideologies. By recognizing their individual holonic identity they will break away from the contrived construct of being a cog within the national/government holon, and will end up reordering themselves in a much more natural way within the holons of society and species and world and ultimately universe.
edit on 25-8-2012 by openlocks because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheConclusion
reply to post by NorEaster
 

Except I'm a part of that Namaste crowd and I don't hold the beliefs you suggest I do.

Nor do virtually any of the others that I have discussed with through the past couple of years, nor do the discussions pursue the *destruction* of the individual entirely, only the realization of the truth of the "individual" relative to the whole. A truth which is physically and mathematically demonstrable. And for those who have experienced it... subjectively demonstrable but only to themselves, thus the plethora of "interpretations" when trying to translate it into limited words.

Have you experienced the total loss of self and knew it had happened and came back?

Namasalute!
edit on 25-8-2012 by ErgoTheConclusion because: (no reason given)


To me, modern day losing self in the whole is a form of seeking self, not really abandoning ego, but ego joining with cost to self.....but for a better self.....not really losing self but finding self.

We can show that the individual exsits even in the whole. The whole then can only be defined by its effects on the individual. The individual is still the reflector of the whole in this case. The whole must take its definition from the individual it produces. The whole must also hold that the individual outside the whole is a foul creature, incomplete. All of these things should be held with suspicion by the individual to some degree and produce a proper jealousy for its rights. I am speaking politicaly.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 

Eels are pretty cool. Frequently misunderstood.

I notice you chopped the part out about the video in your rebuttal.


Till our planets collide again!
edit on 25-8-2012 by ErgoTheConclusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Great thread Noreaster. Beautifully and lucidly written as always.

I'm unsure how far this "oneness" idea stretches outside of this forum, but from time to time I hear some of my closest friends, who are highly intelligent and loving individuals, express the illogical, contradictory, incomplete and paradoxical proposition "we are one." Luckily, I am always quick to point out the absurdness of such a statement. I almost wrote a thread on it, but chose against it as it was somewhat trollish. But I think it at least shows how wrong, or at least incomplete, the proposition is.

It is not my wish to derail your thread in any way, but I think it helps shows at least the irrationality of such a mindset. It's not refined, or even edited, but I will post some of it here:

Why we are not one.


Logically


  • The statement itself is a paradox. “We” (presupposing that “we” means all of humanity) suggests plurality. “We are one ” is a contradiction. We can only ever be more than one.


  • Is humanity an entity? We know that in language words are entities, and thus a ‘species’ or any definable set can be named as an entity. These ideas, mostly abstract, though immaterial and non-corporeal, can and have been described as entities (namely by the Platonists and idealists like Berkley, though abstract ideas were illogical in Berkley's case); but if we apply common sense, we find that these words don’t exist outside of the mind, but rather provide a kind of shorthand for reference to a collection of tangible objects, events and entities. Humans or humanity is a category, a linguistic convenience. The word Human is used to imply an intangible essence or appearance of commonality shared by all members of the human race. Humanity is only an entity insofar as it is a word. This word doesn’t show that we are one, only that we are a part of a category. A category isn’t one but a grouping of ones.

    Physically


    It is obvious we are not one by the fact that an entire planet can separate one human from another.

    Mentally


  • If we were connected mentally as if we were attached to a shared consciousness, we would be aware of the existence of every human at every time—there would be no need for television, internet, or travel. However, I could be 5 feet away from another man, maybe on the other side of a wall, and I still wouldn’t be able to recognize that he existed unless I had observed him. We can only ever assume others exist by trusting statistics or our own observation, thus being conscious of the fact, not by automatically knowing. If half the population of earth vanished for some reason, I would be oblivious to their absence, and I would still assume they existed until I found out otherwise.

  • If we shared a consciousness, we would be profoundly and perpetually affected by the fact that millions of people perish (107 a minute) and are born (252 a minute) every year(www.cia.gov...). But because we are separated by time and space, completely unconscious of the fact of their birth or death and unaware of their existence, we remain none-the-wiser and not affected.


    Socially


  • One needs only to look at the social landscape to see that there is nothing but separation between people. This is the only place where oneness can be a reality, to exist as a cohesive community, but we see that despite the possibility, we are still far from it.

    Conclusion


    The statement “We are one” is completely false, highly paradoxical and hugely unnecessary. The statement to the contrary,"We are not one," is indeed correct.
    edit on 25-8-2012 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



  • posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 01:52 PM
    link   
    reply to post by openlocks
     


    Discovering Holon Theory was a real revelation for me, and helped me realize the value of unity within the larger whole, even as I embraced and developed my own individuality as a contribution to the texture and value of the composite whole. The last thing I would ever want to do is mindlessly sludge into the whole and relinquish all that I can possibly contribute as a unique holon within its collective. I guess I'm very aware of how crucial it is that each wonderful human being be encouraged to develop itself and discover what it has to give to the larger holon that is the human race.

    In contribution is the reward of all that brilliant effort. Not in hoarding to oneself, but in sharing with the larger whole. This is what I see as being the value of individual expression.
    edit on 8/25/2012 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



    posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 01:58 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by ErgoTheConclusion

    Originally posted by Logarock
    If I may.....what would be the reverse of his condition? I cant see anything in that picture but darkness for the individual.

    Unfortunately I'm not sure if the "his" in your question is NorEaster, the guru, or the seeker.

    That said, who is the authority on whether an individual should or shouldn't be in darkness?


    When light is measured by the individuals relation to the whole then maybe we can measure darkness, but an individual lost to the whole is in darkness. There is no coin there is only the individual and the whole. The whole should affirm the individual, not the individual the whole. It should be a given, without question in the main as a well known modern day philosophy would have it.......that all men are created equal with certain rights given them by a higher power......not subject to the whole.



    posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 01:58 PM
    link   
    reply to post by LesMisanthrope
     




    And I literally have nothing to add to this. Excellent overview.





    new topics

    top topics



     
    18
    << 1    3  4  5 >>

    log in

    join