The Death Throes of Authoritarianism? Or True Enlightenment Preparation?

Originally posted by BlueMule

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)

I appreciate the value in mythological allegory, and yes, it has been the difference in many societies between survival and progressing dissolution, but the educated world has come to a very important juncture relative to mythology and the value of allegorical archetypes. The human brains and minds that exist within the educated societies have been exposed to too much reality for these devices to work effectively anymore. How can anyone pray to the skies when they know full well that the space station is up there? That beyond the space station is the Moon and beyond that is plenty more that they've seen in full color, high res photographs. The allegories can't help but fail when the relentlessness of reality pushes in like high tide to damage each and every one of them.

The Earth's human race is at a very dangerous moment right now, and it has to do with the fact that what it knows to be true refutes what it believes must be true. A workable reality narrative does not exist for the majority of the humans who live within the industrialized world, and while it doesn't exist as a hair-on-fire emergency, it does sit like a gnawing angst within the parts of the brain/mind partnership that manages the reality narrative that we all have to refer to whenever we perceive and/or ruminate on what is as opposed to what isn't or can't possibly be.

Hell, look at all the effort to mate science with spirituality. History with religion. Technology with paranormal phenomena. Why do you think it's so pervasive? Because it sells, of course. And it sells because it's initially addressing the fact that we all know deep inside our brains - and deep within the minds that our brains create - that a new reality narrative is needed and needed badly.

Relabeling old, worn out philosophies and theologies might've worked in the late 60s and early 70s, but there's been way too much that science and technology has revealed to us since then. The shine has been off all that stuff for quite a while now, and doubling down on it all won't make it new again. It certainly won't eliminate the obvious flaws in any of those traditional assertions, even if millions are spent on documentaries that explain that "science suggests" or "historians believe" whatever vague claims that can be somehow used to prop up what's been thoroughly revealed as allegory meant for much more primitive societies.

We are not primitive people. We are not served by assertions that were crafted for primitive people. All that happens is that people instinctively know that they're being treated like ignorant children, and wile many find that comforting in times of extreme stress, they won't for very much longer. It's coming to a time when reality will have to be featured as front and center regardless of what narrative is adopted. You'll know when the time comes, because it'll be a complete societal meltdown that will make that transition a survival issue.

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
reply to post by NorEaster

 

I think you are looking for validation of your PERCEPTION of things.

Looks like you want belief in your perception. But you should realise, it is only your perception.

You cannot write a load of stuff like this using terms that you think valid whilst they possibly aren't.

If you wanted simple answers you must ask simple questions. The very title of this thread is misleading... like titling a thread pot pourri? or mashed potato? seriously, your either / or question requires rewriting.

By page 6, it's more about addressing specific posts that have been addressed to me. The OP is pretty diluted by then.

Perhaps you should address it to just those who think as such, and ask it specifically.

Also give examples of where such people supposedly suggested getting rid of their egos entirely and how they aimed for such. Then ask them the effect they think this has on them and their definition of ego's because you don't seem to understand the irony that your question and replies are showing.

edit on 26-8-2012 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)

I challenged what I challenged, and the Namaste crowd did show up, although not in strength of numbers. Oh well. Not every thread works out as anticipated. Each master plan evaporates as soon as the first move is made, and success goes to the innovative and those with flexibility of response.

Originally posted by NorEaster

Relabeling old, worn out philosophies and theologies might've worked in the late 60s and early 70s, but there's been way too much that science and technology has revealed to us since then. The shine has been off all that stuff for quite a while now, and doubling down on it all won't make it new again. It certainly won't eliminate the obvious flaws in any of those traditional assertions, even if millions are spent on documentaries that explain that "science suggests" or "historians believe" whatever vague claims that can be somehow used to prop up what's been thoroughly revealed as allegory meant for much more primitive societies.

I think that is an interesting point, and it really is a pressing problem.

We see a corollary to this in our media technology. I have long said that the next step in our "entertainment" is simply not going to come from the technology that we continue to pursue and sell. I believe it will be holograms, but that isnt quite the point. Though, the slight irony is there when considering all the talk about "4D" ascension and all that.

We have reached to edge of human perception so far as this tech goes, however, we are now seeing the marketing of "ultra high definition" despite the fact the human eye can only see a limited change in arc-minutes. Undoubtedly, people will buy into this left and right and their desire to see how much "better" it is will result in them seeing that very thing. But the reality is, it is only going to make a difference beyond a certain screen size that most will never even consider putting into their homes.

However, a larger change would require re-working from the ground up. And that costs time, money, and effort. Its much easier to just fool ourselves into thinking we see changes that are not really there. The problem is that we are on the edge of that precipice, and simply doubling down on current knowledge and understanding is more of a step off of that edge, instead of simply turning.

What are you trying to say in 5 simple sentenses that a normal person can understand?

Originally posted by r2d246
What are you trying to say in 5 simple sentenses that a normal person can understand?

Nothing. Certainly not in 5 simple sentences. I don't do elevator speeches. If it can be said in 5 sentences, then it's either insignificant or wrong. That's all I got.

reply to post by NorEaster

Frankly, the "oneness" agenda creeps me out. I just thought it might be good to take a look at a very plausible net impact of surrendering any of yourself (and certainly all of yourself) to anyone or any philosophy. Y

Again you miss the point and create a whole thread based on missing the point.

The surrendering yourself, is not to anyone or a philosophy, but to a living breathing real life direct experience that makes everything else not only pale in comparison, but paradoxically also includes everything.

Its impossible for anyone who has experienced this oneness to say anything negative about it. So this whole thread is made out of ignorance. Its not some theory or philosophy. Its something that is real, life changing, and always there and is the main reason why even though i know you've written this thread from not knowing, i still utterly Love you and have nothing but compassion.

Its certainly a dilemma to be in that can only be solved by experiencing that which is spoken of here.

Originally posted by openlocks
reply to post by Logarock

 

But you are trying to say that because and individual is part of a whole in basis, that the individual is not then. Its not happening. Its based on common relationships.....like we all eat, we all sleep.....it goes beyond that.

What is not happening? An individual IS part of a whole. I am not trying to say anything "in basis", that is a fact! Is a brain cell not part of the brain? Is the brain not considered a holistic unit?

I'm confused what your point is.

I am saying that common dinominators in the human trip, we eat, we sleep, we work, cant really help us. These are the areas were we find most of the control handles the collective uses to game us.

reply to post by NorEaster


I think we are recognizing the death of the status quo. Maybe one day we will celebrate our unique individuality without judgment of others.

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by followtheevidence

Originally posted by NorEaster

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

Ahhhh ... or God will have to reinvent us so that we can achieve unity with Him.

But, I am certain - and I can prove - that I already exist. And there's the difference between God and I.

Well the lonely solipsists wouldn't agree but that's another matter.

And simply because you already exist doesn't mean you can't be conformed to His image.

But your original statement is correct - one or the other must be reinvented to eternally co-exist.

As it would be, we are the ones to be reinvented if we allow it.

Originally posted by Logarock

I am saying that common dinominators in the human trip, we eat, we sleep, we work, cant really help us. These are the areas were we find most of the control handles the collective uses to game us.

I'm sorry, but I really am confused to what you are saying to me. I was conversing with someone about individuality being both existent and non-existent. An individual is a collective of parts, just as an individual is a part of a larger whole. This "whole" is not ideologically or conceptually constructed, as in collective governance or religion. I am talking about intrinsic wholes, like a cell, an organ, an organism (human), a collective/group (basic relationships that our survival is dependent upon, not contrived systems such as governance), species, ecosystems (multiple species), and so on. That is an upward scale, and it goes all the way to the Universe. It can also go downwards. Each level of the scale is both a whole unit in itself and also a part within a larger whole.

You are a part of the collective, just as an individual cell is part of a collective of cells that make up an organ. A collective could be a few people or a billion people. A collective, again, is not a concept such as democracy, republic or communism. Those are ideologies. A collective is just a relationship between a group of people. It could be a family, a neighborhood, a community, a region... If you don't like these collectives (feel they are unjust) than you can either work to change them or look for a new collective. Either way you are dependent on relationships with other people, and these relationships equate to a collective. Unless of course you live in the forest away from all people, but since you're using the internet I doubt that is true. The sum of these collectives equates to a species. The sum of species equates to an ecosystem. And so on.

Peace.

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by NorEaster


Of course, being an ATS member, I'm aware of how larger forces work to gain critical advantage in ways that often seem benign and even benevolent, so it's not much of a stretch for me to see how "powers that be" within the eternal realm might recognize an advantage in limiting human cognitive development during a critical gestational stage. In fact, it seems more like a no-brainer, when you consider that the eternal human being is as finite or as infinite as it perceives itself to be. Limit that perception - by religion, ideology, ignorance, abuse, distraction, extreme carnality, extreme "spiritualism", etc - and you've effectively limited yet another potentially troublesome human being. For other human beings in positions of power (as they exist in positions of power here as well) docile humans focused on vague interpretations of "oneness" are as desirable as humans who worship the PTB as God and Jesus and a Heavenly Host.

In essence, whatever it'll take to focus the active mind and get it to stay in line. Namaste or Jesus or 72 virgins. Whatever works for a given individual.

I see Jesus as a man that confronted the worlds power to limit mans perception. He was the total troublesome examiner that came to set men free from their sorted chains. He put distractions on the ground, tried to teach men about bondage, challanged the slave drivers and their tools, disregarded and challanged the measures the world system uses to measure and label. On of His greatest statements was to point out that a man cant really be measured by what he has one way or another. That one blow there really attempts to challange the root of what afflicts man and is hard to hear in lifes daily death rattel. Even today a jesus that dosent serve mamon and prosperity is keept out of the picture.

I agree that the philosophy of Jesus is wonderful and transformative. That said, the history of the deification of Jesus is extremely troubling, and the net result has imprisoned many millions on this side of the veil and who knows how many on that side of the veil. Keep in mind that your existence merely starts here. You'll still have plenty to deal with after your body and brain have returned those borrowed molecules. The evidence suggests that this corporeal phase of your total existence will ultimately be seen - by you - as akin to the 9 months or so you spent gathering your material self together within your mother's womb. A 2nd stage of gestation. Only this stage involves the eternal informational development of the conscious and sentient being that you are now becoming as you respond intellectually and emotionally to each instant of corporeal life.

If this is true, then how important is your perception of reality? I'm going to suggest that it's extremely important. How critical is it that you challenge the dogmas and traditional wisdoms of people who may or may not have bothered to determine whether their own perceptions were and are accurate? If human intellect is built on perception, and if the eternal realm is based on the net result that "perception IS reality" (which is strongly suggested by an impressive series of very credible dots that can be connected), then is it important to do as much to determine and establish the parameters of objective reality while still existing within a realm that is NOT governed by your intellectual perceptions? Again, I'm going to suggest that it's more than important. I'm going to suggest that your future depends on it.

. .

Well the records of his life were written by men that were not philosophers. Fishermen some of them. Their intelect had been spent on understanding very basic reality. What they point out is that Jesus was a man that operated without regard to certain realities and had the power to do so.....within himself. He demonstrated power over the normal molecular boundries. These men indicate that he was even widely know as a magician and even accused of working through the dark arts by those that wanted to discredit him. And you certainly know the extent of these working.

Oddly, with this package of abilites he was more concerned with establishing the true nature of things and God to a people lost in error about the nature of spritual things. You spoke of this life as another gestation phase. He spoke of it as a plain in which we could be born again without entering again in the womb and that this life was not a sort of pulling together of things necessary to move on to a more enlightened stage. Rather there was an awakening that needed to take place in this world. That this world is a place of spritual darkness, deseption, lies and is already a state leading to death the moment you come out of the womb. If these realities were precieved then man could find freedom. And he pointed to himself as reality, a gate way.

Originally posted by openlocks

Originally posted by Logarock

I am saying that common dinominators in the human trip, we eat, we sleep, we work, cant really help us. These are the areas were we find most of the control handles the collective uses to game us.

I'm sorry, but I really am confused to what you are saying to me. I was conversing with someone about individuality being both existent and non-existent. An individual is a collective of parts, just as an individual is a part of a larger whole. This "whole" is not ideologically or conceptually constructed, as in collective governance or religion. I am talking about intrinsic wholes, like a cell, an organ, an organism (human), a collective/group (basic relationships that our survival is dependent upon, not contrived systems such as governance), species, ecosystems (multiple species), and so on. That is an upward scale, and it goes all the way to the Universe. It can also go downwards. Each level of the scale is both a whole unit in itself and also a part within a larger whole.

You are a part of the collective, just as an individual cell is part of a collective of cells that make up an organ. A collective could be a few people or a billion people. A collective, again, is not a concept such as democracy, republic or communism. Those are ideologies. A collective is just a relationship between a group of people. It could be a family, a neighborhood, a community, a region... If you don't like these collectives (feel they are unjust) than you can either work to change them or look for a new collective. Either way you are dependent on relationships with other people, and these relationships equate to a collective. Unless of course you live in the forest away from all people, but since you're using the internet I doubt that is true. The sum of these collectives equates to a species. The sum of species equates to an ecosystem. And so on.

Peace.

edit on 27-8-2012 by openlocks because: (no reason given)

We all have the same basic needs in these bodies and in that way we are part of a whole but it ends there for the large part. That oneness is all the eyes can see when we see many folks going about thier day on city streets. But in the higher seperation it means nothing. Transending our understanding of the basic connections the individual comes into better view.....the seperate consciousness the individual essence.

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by NorEaster

 

I think we are recognizing the death of the status quo. Maybe one day we will celebrate our unique individuality without judgment of others.

Right on.

reply to post by Logarock

We all have the same basic needs in these bodies and in that way we are part of a whole but it ends there for the large part. That oneness is all the eyes can see when we see many folks going about thier day on city streets. But in the higher seperation it means nothing. Transending our understanding of the basic connections the individual comes into better view.....the seperate consciousness the individual essence.

Again, I am not denying individuality. I am putting it in its right place. Our needs are not all that connects us. What I was describing was a web of interdependent units that form holistic units. If cells did not collectivize in a dependent and cohesive manner there would be no organs. If organs didn't collectivize in a dependent and cohesive manner there would be no organisms (humans). If organisms (humans) didn't collectivize in a dependent and cohesive manner there would be no species. If species didn't collectivize in a dependent and cohesive manner there would be no ecosystem... on and on. Everything is by nature interdependent and connected.

Further than that, there is such a thing as a collective psyche. It is the basis which all our philosophy, religion, art, culture, ideas, thoughts... arise from and/or are filtered through. I either act or react almost entirely based on this influence. The individual I am is an extension of the environment I grew up in and currently live in, which includes the collective psyche. I speak english the way I do and cut my hair the way I do and even think the way I do, because I was influenced by the collective psyche that surrounded me. I either conformed to the norms or rejected them, but this is all a part of the collective psyche. Built within a culture of oppression is rebellion and conformity. Dependent on my experiences I will choose one or the other.

So there is both physiological and psychological factors that connect us together. In fact, there is scientifically no such thing as separation. That is a made up concept of a human psyche in desperate need of re-establishing their individuality. But again, just because there is no separation doesn't mean there is no individual.

When it comes to "oneness" I believe that topic and the realization of its truths are not technically for this waking life. They are something entirely different. The realization of "oneness" is simply the realization that is inherent in all beings that are of the same "source." We know on an unconscious level that we are indeed "one," but here we are separated in to unique perspectives for obvious purposes. To band together or embrace a "togetherness" that is necessary to cause change is entirely something different. I believe that is the actual topic of the "oneness" movement. We are growing together, as it is a necessary agenda based on the resistance for that direction from certain nefarious causes.

It is the same all around. This is a realm of unyielding balance. For we have been separated for so long, we must stand together once again. Obviously, that balance will again unbalance in time to create the opportunity of balance in the future. Neutralism and logic are the best legs to stand on from my perspective.

Now and you cannot be separated.
You are the now. And now is all there really is.
This is 'oneness'.

Humans have thoughts arising that make them believe there is more than this. They imagine past and imagine future and they imagine there is somewhere else but there is only ever the present experience.
Words decieve.

reply to post by NorEaster


You're making the same ol' mistakes as most everyone else. You won't lift a finger to study the scholarship or to see if oneness is real. You hide behind flimsy walls of assumptions, misconceptions, etc.

As far as I'm concerned, people like you are the way you are for a good reason. Maybe it's that God is enjoying being you. Maybe he regards it as a challenge. The show must go on!

When you get tired of the game of hide-and-seek you're playing with yourself, you'll stop and wake up. Until then nothing will wake you.

reply to post by openlocks

Originally posted by openlocks
Again, I am not denying individuality. I am putting it in its right place. Our needs are not all that connects us. What I was describing was a web of interdependent units that form holistic units. If cells did not collectivize in a dependent and cohesive manner there would be no organs. If organs didn't collectivize in a dependent and cohesive manner there would be no organisms (humans). If organisms (humans) didn't collectivize in a dependent and cohesive manner there would be no species. If species didn't collectivize in a dependent and cohesive manner there would be no ecosystem... on and on. Everything is by nature interdependent and connected.

You mention if cells did not collectivize in a dependent cohesive manner, there'd be no organs, thus no organism. I agree on that point, but that is where it seems to end. Humans don't collectivize in a dependent and cohesive manner like cells. Smaller communities may 'join' together to an extent, but even then there is still separation between couples, families, etc. etc. The lone wolf heads off on his own at some point, completely separated from his pack and his family. This suggests an urge to individuality. Humans war with each other. This suggests that we are not cohesive. So you're right when you say if humans didn't collectivize in a dependent and cohesive manner there would be no species. Humanity is no cohesive species.

We know that 99.9% of all species that have existed have gone extinct. This shows that nature isn't interdependent and connected as we would hope. We definitely depend on nature but nature doesn't depends on us. We could disappear tomorrow and the world would probably be a better place.

Even where we are connected physically with people, say on the internet, there is nothing but differences in opinions, ideas, words etc. We are not like cells. We do not form a cohesive whole unless we are physically and mentally attached, which is impossible. Yes we can work together to satisfy our needs, but this doesn't suggest a necessary connection between 7billion organisms.

I couldn't imagine putting all 7,000,000,000 people into one place, say a massive field or something. It wouldn't be long before humanity tore itself apart.

It does seem interesting that this idea of a cohesive species is rising, at least in my observation, as more and more people are beginning to use the internet. We are almost physically connected in this manner by being able to share and discuss information. We can create a synthetic connection with someone around the globe. Maybe this is the source of this "oneness" some people claim to be experiencing?

Originally posted by BlueMule
reply to post by NorEaster

 

You're making the same ol' mistakes as most everyone else. You won't lift a finger to study the scholarship or to see if oneness is real. You hide behind flimsy walls of assumptions, misconceptions, etc.

As far as I'm concerned, people like you are the way you are for a good reason. Maybe it's that God is enjoying being you. Maybe he regards it as a challenge. The show must go on!

When you get tired of the game of hide-and-seek you're playing with yourself, you'll stop and wake up. Until then nothing will wake you.

Spirituality is a playground for those who tire of and find no meaning in life. It is spitting on God's masterpiece then immediately turning around and attributing that spit and that contempt to Him, when it was you all along. Personally, I don't want anything to happen to your playground, and I want you to stay there, for I couldn't imagine the mystics being productive at pushing mankind forward, only backward.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

Originally posted by BlueMule
reply to post by NorEaster

 

You're making the same ol' mistakes as most everyone else. You won't lift a finger to study the scholarship or to see if oneness is real. You hide behind flimsy walls of assumptions, misconceptions, etc.

As far as I'm concerned, people like you are the way you are for a good reason. Maybe it's that God is enjoying being you. Maybe he regards it as a challenge. The show must go on!

When you get tired of the game of hide-and-seek you're playing with yourself, you'll stop and wake up. Until then nothing will wake you.

Spirituality is a playground for those who tire of and find no meaning in life. It is spitting on God's masterpiece then immediately turning around and attributing that spit and that contempt to Him, when it was you all along. Personally, I don't want anything to happen to your playground, and I want you to stay there, for I couldn't imagine the mystics being productive at pushing mankind forward, only backward.

The last two posts demonstrate exactly why the individual should always strugle against the authoritarianism of the collective mindset. It was rare indeed that the founders of this country were able to set down in a group and forge out a philosophy for the individual. Oh they must have looked like mystics to many in Europe with their mystic books by John Lock and the like. Jefferson and his mystic library of mystic thinkers. Even the practical side of the development, Federalist papers, asked the question of how we can be antiauthoritarian and still have good government.