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.

 

The Death Throes of Authoritarianism? Or True Enlightenment Preparation?

page: 5
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 





We are actually particulars, made up of particulars, much like the universe itself, which is a particular. Universals, not the universe, don't exist. 'Horse' is a universal, 'the horse I rode once' is a particular. Humanity is a universal, Morgan freeman is a particular. ETA: I apologize for the digression. I understand that cold logic is boring. I can't help but love it.


Well, to be honest, I am not that familiar with the whole philosophy of particulars and universals. I just went and did a brief overview, and ummm...., yeah I am confused now.
Philosophy has the tendency to do that to me, it makes everything far more (too?) complicated.

Anyways, I was more talking closer in terms with the Holons idea. An "Universe" consists of many aggregate parts, just as the "individual parts" do. An "individual", such as yourself, also complies to this logic. So there is no real boundaries, either scaling upwards or downwards, between parts and wholes. Yet we make the distinction between them so to communicate relationships, which is how we advance our knowledge of reality. But I regress too as I think we understand each other.




posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by BlueMule

Originally posted by NorEaster

My issue is with encouraging the human mind's refusal to engage and fully immerse itself within the material/corporeal realm via the brain and all other temporary tools of sensation and sentience.


You think only ascetics can achieve unity with God? Having your own transpersonal 'peak experiences' opens up a whole new dimension of immersion in life. No need for asceticism.

Anyone can do it. There are many ways to do it, and the scholarship is out there. There's no excuse.

So I say man up and face it head on, like a gnat facing the wind.


edit on 25-8-2012 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)


There's no God to achieve unity with, or better stated, no God that you can achieve unity with. If such a God did exist, it would exist in an absolute being state, and you, unlike the kind of infinite being that God would have to be to be God, exist in a relative being state. These are incompatible being states, and the being state is the primordial commonality or delineation that can possibly affect that which exists relative to whatever else it is that exists.

You'll have to reinvent God if you want to achieve unity with it.


Like I said you need to study the scholarship. It will help you unmake all those assumptions.

You aren't who you think you are. Underneath the illusory ego-self that you think you are, you are God. Same goes for everyone.

"In itself, the insight is not new. The earliest records, to my knowledge, date back some 2500 years or more... the recognition ATMAN = BRAHMAN (the personal self equals the omnipresent, all-comprehending eternal self) was in Indian thought considered, far from being blasphemous, to represent the quintessence of deepest insight into the happenings of the world. The striving of all the scholars of Vedanta was after having learnt to pronounce with their lips, really assimilate in their minds this grandest of all thoughts.

Again, the mystics of many centuries, independently, yet in perfect harmony with each other (somewhat like the particles in an ideal gas) have described, each of them, the unique experience of his or her life in terms that can be condensed in the phrase: DEUS FACTUS SUM (I have become God).

To Western ideology, the thought has remained a stranger... in spite of those true lovers who, as they look into each other's eyes, become aware that their thought and their joy are numerically one, not merely similar or identical... "


-Erwin Schrödinger


edit on 25-8-2012 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by openlocks
 

You might enjoy the post I made at the end of the previous page, it actually covers the same thing you just said from a different angle, RE no actual boundaries... and provides someone who has explored it deeply and technically as a reference.
edit on 25-8-2012 by ErgoTheConclusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheConclusion
What you've done above is what is often called confusing the map (language) for the terrain (unnamable existence). Everything you just "worked" with in your cold logic are labels... in truth there is no boundary between "Morgan Freeman" and "the horse you once rode".


Okay, so I do need to address this one specific point, and even though it may be just philosophy to you, the statement that the only difference between "Morgan Freeman" and any horse whatsoever, is labeling, is either very wrong or in dire need of a few qualifiers. Morgan Freeman is a very real person, and the instances and progressive developments that have collected within his own life are enough to grant him an inimitable identity. Certainly enough of a unique identity to create a "boundary" between him and any horse that you might offer as an example of whatever point you're trying to make here.

Philosophy isn't an examination of reality. It's an examination of perspectives. Logic isn't cold. It just is.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Great post! and all I can really say is that the whole concept of "oneness" IS really scary.

I love diversity and I love meeting people who are different and unique and it makes me sad that so many of the population nowadays can be generalized because so much of it has become so content with their ignorance :c



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheConclusion
reply to post by openlocks
 

You might enjoy the post I made at the end of the previous page, it actually covers the same thing you just said from a different angle, RE no actual boundaries... and provides someone who has explored it deeply and technically as a reference.
edit on 25-8-2012 by ErgoTheConclusion because: (no reason given)


Just went and read it. Funny how we said nearly the same thing at nearly the same time. A good example of what you are saying is the brain. I study neuropsychology, and we often deal with right/left hemispheres, as well as individual regions of the brain (frontal lobe, occipital lobe, parietal lobe...). We divide the brain up in this way to study it from different viewpoints and to see how all these regions play a role in different functions and activities. Yet, the brain is a holistic unit in itself and this must be remembered when studying various regions. Each region is interdependent in some way or another of all the other regions. Further, we must take into account that the brain is part of the body, as this is a holistic unity in itself. And again, we must take into account that the body is part of the environment and society in which it lives and has lived.

In reality, for any area of science to be truly definitive and come to very clear cut realizations, it needs to take into account the smallest observable scales (quantum levels) to the largest observable scales (cosmic levels). Biology ran into this problem when all of a sudden everything couldn't be explained through genetics. Now every biologist must study physics, epigenetics, developmental psychology, sociology... and such, to gain a more holistic understanding of biology. The lines between the fields in science are becoming more and more blurred, which is a good thing in my mind.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by ErgoTheConclusion
What you've done above is what is often called confusing the map (language) for the terrain (unnamable existence). Everything you just "worked" with in your cold logic are labels... in truth there is no boundary between "Morgan Freeman" and "the horse you once rode".


Okay, so I do need to address this one specific point, and even though it may be just philosophy to you, the statement that the only difference between "Morgan Freeman" and any horse whatsoever, is labeling, is either very wrong or in dire need of a few qualifiers. Morgan Freeman is a very real person, and the instances and progressive developments that have collected within his own life are enough to grant him an inimitable identity. Certainly enough of a unique identity to create a "boundary" between him and any horse that you might offer as an example of whatever point you're trying to make here.

Philosophy isn't an examination of reality. It's an examination of perspectives. Logic isn't cold. It just is.

Try it... try to determine *exactly* where Morgan Freeman ends... and can exist independently. Entirely independently where he isn't ultimately and fundamentally connected to and defined by the horse down the street from me as well as a rock on the other side of the galaxy.

The *exact* boundary... not just the "approximate convenient" boundary. The logical irrefutable immutable cold "just is" boundary that exists as a real definable measurable thing or "position". Not the boundary that is useful for communication, but where "Morgan Freeman" completely and entirely ends, and "everything else" starts.

This includes the gases he breathes, the physical structure he navigates, the foods consumed (and the places required to grow said food), the energy that flows into him, etc.

This is a subtle but fundamentally critical concept, and it is not to be taken lightly or so easily dismissed. I say this with an earnestness you will not perceive via text, but if you could see my body language and eye contact would be unmistakable.


In fact, he viewed meaning as near enough self-referential: objects, images of objects, words and signs are situated in a web of meaning; one object's meaning is only understandable through its relation to the meaning of other objects; in other words, one thing's prestige relates to another's mundanity.

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



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
And with this I'm off for some camping under the stars with friends who are getting impatient and I've been putting them off long enough to stay in here chatting.
So I will be unavailable for further engagement, but it has been a pleasure. Thank you to everyone for the ever challenging exploration of these things!



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
You know what Morgan Freeman thinks of you guys using him as an example in your arguments?
.
.
.
.

.
.



edit on 25-8-2012 by openlocks because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueMule

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by BlueMule

Originally posted by NorEaster

My issue is with encouraging the human mind's refusal to engage and fully immerse itself within the material/corporeal realm via the brain and all other temporary tools of sensation and sentience.


You think only ascetics can achieve unity with God? Having your own transpersonal 'peak experiences' opens up a whole new dimension of immersion in life. No need for asceticism.

Anyone can do it. There are many ways to do it, and the scholarship is out there. There's no excuse.

So I say man up and face it head on, like a gnat facing the wind.


edit on 25-8-2012 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)


There's no God to achieve unity with, or better stated, no God that you can achieve unity with. If such a God did exist, it would exist in an absolute being state, and you, unlike the kind of infinite being that God would have to be to be God, exist in a relative being state. These are incompatible being states, and the being state is the primordial commonality or delineation that can possibly affect that which exists relative to whatever else it is that exists.

You'll have to reinvent God if you want to achieve unity with it.


Like I said you need to study the scholarship. It will help you unmake all those assumptions.

You aren't who you think you are. Underneath the illusory ego-self that you think you are, you are God. Same goes for everyone.


The scholarship that you offer is built on centuries of brutally imposed translation of the writings of men who did the best they could to try and understand things that, at best, they could only see shadows of. I've studied the history of the thought leadership that built the scholarship that you rely on for your version of wisdom. It's chaotic and, as I said, immersed in brutality, with the winners preserving and/or eliminating the wisdom that either served their interests or didn't, respectively.

Hell, we didn't even know the true basis of the Christian gospel narrative until 1945, and the Romans completely erased the historical records of human thought when they burned the libraries of Alexandria.

So, I have no idea what scholarship you think exists that is free of the hand of entrenched power. From what I've learned, no such scholarship survived, if it ever existed to begin with.
edit on 8/25/2012 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


"No one, as far as I know, has yet tried to compose into a single picture the new perspectives that have been opened in the fields of comparative symbolism, religion, mythology, and philosophy by the scholarship of recent years. The richly rewarded archaeological researches of the past few decades; astonishing clarifications, simplifications, and coordinations achieved by intensive studies in the spheres of philology, ethnology, philosophy, art history, folklore, and religion; fresh insights in psychological research; and the many priceless contributions to our science by the scholars, monks, and literary men of Asia, have combined to suggest a new image of the fundamental unity of the spiritual history of mankind.

Without straining beyond the treasuries of evidence already on hand in these widely scattered departments of our subject, therefore, but simply gathering from them the membra disjuncta of a unitary mythological science, I attempt in the following pages the first sketch of a natural history of the gods and heroes, such as in its final form should include in its purview all divine beings--not regarding any as sacrosanct or beyond its scientific domain. For, as in the visible world of the vegetable and animal kingdoms, so also in the visionary world of the gods: there has been a history, an evolution, a series of mutations, governed by laws; and to show forth such laws is the proper aim of science."


-Joseph Campbell

There is a unity in world religion & myth because there is unity in the unitive one-ness mystical experience. It happens again and again throughout history. So what you might have to do in order to undo all the flase programming in your head is study comparative mysticism, comparative religion, and comparative mythology. The triangulation of these fields will highlight a way for you. Start with the works of Joseph Campbell. If you have what it takes then you will answer the call when you get it. If you don't you won't.


edit on 25-8-2012 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheConclusion

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by ErgoTheConclusion
What you've done above is what is often called confusing the map (language) for the terrain (unnamable existence). Everything you just "worked" with in your cold logic are labels... in truth there is no boundary between "Morgan Freeman" and "the horse you once rode".


Okay, so I do need to address this one specific point, and even though it may be just philosophy to you, the statement that the only difference between "Morgan Freeman" and any horse whatsoever, is labeling, is either very wrong or in dire need of a few qualifiers. Morgan Freeman is a very real person, and the instances and progressive developments that have collected within his own life are enough to grant him an inimitable identity. Certainly enough of a unique identity to create a "boundary" between him and any horse that you might offer as an example of whatever point you're trying to make here.

Philosophy isn't an examination of reality. It's an examination of perspectives. Logic isn't cold. It just is.

Try it... try to determine *exactly* where Morgan Freeman ends... and can exist independently. Entirely independently where he isn't ultimately and fundamentally connected to and defined by the horse down the street from me as well as a rock on the other side of the galaxy.

The *exact* boundary... not just the "approximate convenient" boundary. The logical irrefutable immutable cold "just is" boundary that exists as a real definable measurable thing or "position". Not the boundary that is useful for communication, but where "Morgan Freeman" completely and entirely ends, and "everything else" starts.

This includes the gases he breathes, the physical structure he navigates, the foods consumed (and the places required to grow said food), the energy that flows into him, etc.

This is a subtle but fundamentally critical concept, and it is not to be taken lightly or so easily dismissed. I say this with an earnestness you will not perceive via text, but if you could see my body language and eye contact would be unmistakable.


In fact, he viewed meaning as near enough self-referential: objects, images of objects, words and signs are situated in a web of meaning; one object's meaning is only understandable through its relation to the meaning of other objects; in other words, one thing's prestige relates to another's mundanity.

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


I am referring to Internal Context and you are referring to Relative Context, and both combine to provide inimitable identity to whatever it is that is being defined.

The connections between Morgan Freeman and that rock on the other side of the galaxy make up the slurry that is Morgan Freeman's contextual identity relative to the environment that he exists within. And this slurry is ever changing, ever developing, and everything that exists possesses its own unique and individual connection to everything else that exists within this vast web of contextual association.

The Internal Context is the DNA of his body, the collected thoughts from his brain that became his mind, the historical legacy of his day-to-day life, and ...well...you get the picture.

Identity is the very real and essential delineation that exists between all existential wholes, even as integral aspects of identity are what connects all that exists as united within each contextual reality confine. This isn't simple, but it is definable. It certainly does exist as real and objective, even if the precise defining ends up being impossibly dynamic and malleable.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueMule
reply to post by NorEaster
 


"No one, as far as I know, has yet tried to compose into a single picture the new perspectives that have been opened in the fields of comparative symbolism, religion, mythology, and philosophy by the scholarship of recent years. The richly rewarded archaeological researches of the past few decades; astonishing clarifications, simplifications, and coordinations achieved by intensive studies in the spheres of philology, ethnology, philosophy, art history, folklore, and religion; fresh insights in psychological research; and the many priceless contributions to our science by the scholars, monks, and literary men of Asia, have combined to suggest a new image of the fundamental unity of the spiritual history of mankind.

Without straining beyond the treasuries of evidence already on hand in these widely scattered departments of our subject, therefore, but simply gathering from them the membra disjuncta of a unitary mythological science, I attempt in the following pages the first sketch of a natural history of the gods and heroes, such as in its final form should include in its purview all divine beings--not regarding any as sacrosanct or beyond its scientific domain. For, as in the visible world of the vegetable and animal kingdoms, so also in the visionary world of the gods: there has been a history, an evolution, a series of mutations, governed by laws; and to show forth such laws is the proper aim of science."


-Joseph Campbell

There is a unity in world religion & myth because there is unity in the unitive one-ness mystical experience. It happens again and again throughout history. So what you might have to do in order to undo all the flase programming in your head is study comparative mysticism, comparative religion, and comparative mythology. The triangulation of these fields will highlight a way for you. Start with the works of Joseph Campbell. If you have what it takes then you will answer the call when you get it. If you don't you won't.


edit on 25-8-2012 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)


And yet, there are extremely definable aspects of reality that are either ignored or denied outright by every one of these disciplines. Infinity - as a physical/material reality - is just one of these fallacies, and yet quantum physics completely debunked the fallacy of material infinity nearly 100 years ago. And the immediate impact on that fallacy's failure is the elimination of an absolute (therefore infinite) deity entity (God, for instance) having the literal capacity to directly, or indirectly, affect the material world. So, why would comparing and contrasting these religions and philosophies teach me anything about reality, if none of them ever got the simple basics of reality straight? I wouldn't get my stock tops from drunks just because they beg for spare change on Wall Street. Proximity isn't accurate perspective and never has been.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Enough for now. Maybe more tomorrow is anyone is interested. Thanks for the fun.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheConclusion

Just like you can't actually say there is a true immutable "boundary" that divides you into your "right half" and your "left half". They are just arbitrary language labels used to create a map, but are not the reality. There is no "right half" or "left half" of you, you are simply "one" body... but the understanding this brings doesn't end there... this cold logic extends all the way up to infinity (or The Universe if you wish).

Definitely a highly recommended read and trust me... hard nosed in brutal cold logic. Many find him excruciating to get through but I loved it. The book is small but not a quick read.
edit on 25-8-2012 by ErgoTheConclusion because: (no reason given)


Thanks for the book idea. I remember seeing it in the Matrix. I will check it out.

Yes I have a love hate relationship with labels. Unfortunately, since the map isn't the territory, but we use it to argue and express our ideas, none of us can be right. And then we will have to get in a discussion of abstraction, semantics, universals, particulars, ideas and their validity—which would lead us to the conclusion that language itself is at fault. We have no time for that!

I like what Korzybski did:


One day, Korzybski was giving a lecture to a group of students, and he interrupted the lesson suddenly in order to retrieve a packet of biscuits, wrapped in white paper, from his briefcase. He muttered that he just had to eat something, and he asked the students on the seats in the front row if they would also like a biscuit. A few students took a biscuit. "Nice biscuit, don't you think," said Korzybski, while he took a second one. The students were chewing vigorously. Then he tore the white paper from the biscuits, in order to reveal the original packaging. On it was a big picture of a dog's head and the words "Dog Cookies." The students looked at the package, and were shocked. Two of them wanted to vomit, put their hands in front of their mouths, and ran out of the lecture hall to the toilet. "You see," Korzybski remarked, "I have just demonstrated that people don't just eat food, but also words, and that the taste of the former is often outdone by the taste of the latter."



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
Oneness is the quite pool on whos surface scum rises. Unlike the moving stream, no stones are shaped, no boats are carried, no mills are driven.
edit on 25-8-2012 by Logarock because: s


I like.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Hold out your hand............
Who sniffs or who bites............
Prudent is the hand..............
Treat it with detachment....

We are all connected ......regardless of ideology or dogma............

Sing in the rain, like you invented singing......

Namaste!!!!



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
Enough for now. Maybe more tomorrow is anyone is interested. Thanks for the fun.


Definitely interested. I myself do not have the knowledge to participate in any real useful way but it is a subject I have been exposed to quite a lot on these boards so am very interested in.

I've enjoyed the discussion so far and hope it continues.




posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

So, why would comparing and contrasting these religions and philosophies teach me anything about reality, if none of them ever got the simple basics of reality straight?


Possibly because people don't need simple basics of reality in order to wake up to the Divine presence. The function of mythology is not to give you simple basics. It gives a society an internally consistent system of symbols and concepts that will validate and maintain a social order, it guides people through the stages of a lifetime, it initiates them into transpersonal mystical experience, and it gives them a metaphorical image of the cosmos so they can psychologically relate to it somehow. Ideally, a fully-functional mythology will keep pace with cultural evolution and revolution.

"All religions are true for their time; they are true as metaphorical representations of the range of human psychological and spiritual experience" -Joseph Campbell


edit on 25-8-2012 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
Oneness is the quite pool on whos surface scum rises. Unlike the moving stream, no stones are shaped, no boats are carried, no mills are driven.
edit on 25-8-2012 by Logarock because: s


The way I visualize oneness is to start by remembering the devestating ache of lonliness. A realization that I am all there is. I remember when I thought that I was you and it was comforting to dream that there where many others like me. Then I realized that I was them also and the lonliness returned. I visualized that I was every single creature, every single star, every single planet every single rock but all along it was just me. I continue to divide my conscious thought again and again to provide myself with companionship but I still cannot deny the truth, I am everything.




top topics



 
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join