It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Logarock
Originally posted by NorEaster
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 dominicus
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.
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.
Originally posted by openlocks
reply to post by NorEaster
There seems to be three kinds of spiritualists (I'm sure many more, but I have deduced three). The first are those who look to fill up despair and doubt with hope and belief. They read the words of Jesus and Buddha and the others, about spirituality, and take their word for it. This makes them feel good, so to challenge spirituality is to challenge their ability to feel good. The second seems to be those who have had some wonderful experience that they cannot explain. They are now searching for an explanation and have found the spiritual crowd who claims to be the holders of "Ultimate Experience". Thus they lump themselves in with this crowd. But in reality, they are just confused and hold no real allegiance to the spiritualists. Unfortunately though, they spend so much time studying spirituality that they eventually contribute their experience to spirituality and it becomes a belief, and so they do eventually learn to defend the spiritualists beliefs. The third is the person who has an experience and looks for explanations in every place they can look. They briefly move through spirituality before moving on to science. Eventually they realize nothing and no one can explain their experience because it is beyond the bounds of human comprehension, which is why they were confused to what it was. These are the spiritualists to take serious. They can show someone how to have tremendously liberating experiences, but hold no beliefs or assumptions about what the experiences mean.
As far as bringing more attention to your theories, you must publish them and send that publication to every relevant philosopher/scientist you can think of to allow them to review and critique it. To get published you need to begin developing relationships with relevant channels (editors of journals, dept. heads at Uni's, book publishers...) Maybe attend a conference or two and ask other philosophers a moment to present your theories to them. Practice a 2 or 3 minute abstract of the theory. Presentation is just as important as the ideas you are presenting. Ummm.... just a few pieces of advice I can think of right now.
Peace.edit on 27-8-2012 by openlocks because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by BlueMule
reply to post by NorEaster
My position is simple. Put up or shut up!
Originally posted by MamaJ
I contributed to the thread here www.abovetopsecret.com... and didn't receive feedback from you. Not sure if I was looked over for a reason or if you may have felt the contribution didn't pertain but I do think it does.
Being one is hard for me to understand when we clearly are not one. We may have been one before energy divided into matter but we are clearly not one.
I believe we are In a way.... " connected" like an umbilical chord is connected to the mother and infant ( not necessarily a physical thing), but we are not one.
I think in terms.. more on a philosophical level.
I would rather have a consensus of understanding in a group whereas the basic knowledge is agreed upon and then as a group see where we can go from the basics.
Here is the way my mind sees it... Whereas we are connected to a Universal Mind.
I would LOVE TO SEE YOU create a thread stemming from this notion and philosophical understanding in regards to " we are one".
In the Bible or creation stories where God is said to divide the light from the dark. What IF that is true? Before that he " thought" then, moved OUTSIDE of himself and creation began and is still going.
If this is the case, then all matter can be seen divided into light and darkness. Matter could even appear to blink in and out of existence, wouldn't you say?
Originally posted by ErgoTheConclusion
When an individual finally truly grasps oneness, they become so assured and confident of the value of their individuality that they no longer fear it being taken from them.
This is the stunningly wonderful paradox that frees the individual from the tyranny of the separate self.
A waterfall is a magnificent individual. What happens when the water is turned off? What happens when it's turned back on?
Originally posted by openlocks
Humans do collective in a dependent and cohesive manner like cells, and no amount of philosophical inquiry can change that reality. A child depends of their parents, later the parents will depend on their children, a farmer depends on a blacksmith, the blacksmith depends on the farmer... on and on. The "lone wolf" scenario is a romanticized idea, but it is not found in humanity. Maybe [there] have been a few in history who have left the collective and went off in to the forest and knew how to survive....A cell would would die if it tried to separate itself from the collective, or collective beyond its individual capabilities. It would put stress on the other cells and create dis-ease. In fact, that is called cancer.
In the animal kingdom, lone wolves are typically older wolves driven from the pack, perhaps by the breeding male, or young adults in search of new territory. Many young wolves between the ages of 1 and 4 years leave their family to search for a pack of their own in order to prevent inbreeding, as in typical wolf packs there is only one breeding pair. Some wolves will simply remain lone wolves; as such, these lone wolves may be stronger, more aggressive and far more dangerous than the average wolf that is a member of a pack. However, lone wolves have difficulty hunting, as wolves' favorite prey, large ungulates, are nearly impossible for a single wolf to bring down alone. Instead, lone wolves will generally hunt smaller animals and scavenge carrion. Occasionally, a lone wolf will encounter another lone wolf of the opposite sex, and the two may start a new pack.
It is our attempts to become more individual, which is impossible, which creates all the conflicts. Maybe this is sometimes done in reaction to contrived methods of collectivism. If that is so, then it is actually healthy to re-establish individuality. But individuality and collectivism are intrinsic aspects of every species, and humans are no different. There is no need to build upon these through contrived collectivism like govts. and religion, or contrived individualism like the philosophy you are calling for. They are good as they are.
Your ideas of collectivism are weird, friend. You are talking about contrived methods that people can either accept or reject. I am talking about natural realities that no one can existentially accept or reject, it is who they are. People have differences, so what? So do cells! Each cell expresses itself differently, that is how you have growth and decay. ... The same goes for humans.
I am not convinced humans are like cells in any way whatsoever, or that humanity is a multi-cellular organism. It's simply not the case—at least through my ignorant eyes. I think a better analogy would be to say that a human—not humanity—is an organism. Organisms form pods, packs, schools and herds, not quite organisms.
I thought you were arguing that "If species didn't collectivize in a dependent and cohesive manner there would be no ecosystem." It isn't the species that collectivizes, nature does, as you pointed out.
I don't think you've quite shown that humans are like cells and are part of some super-organism. Comparing an individual human to a scalp cell or a toenail cell seems an inadequate analogy. You mentioned that humans are confused about their true nature, which we are indeed discussing, but does the nature of humans more closely resemble that of a cell or of an animal?
This thread is serving that function. Isn't it?
We are all contextually associated within a common reality confine that is based on the quantization of emerging activity and resulting information. In this sense, we are all unified in contextual commonality. Then again, everything that exists as physical is unified in this manner. This is the definition of reality as the existential whole that it is.
My issue with the notion of a Universal Mind has to do with the uncompromising contextual exclusivity of intellect (consciousness itself), and the fact that it is an epitome accomplishment and not a primordial existential basis. Human beings are brilliant at personification, and our greatest example of that is the granting of consciousness to the logical structure of progressive development via ramification's impact on reality through contextual precedence (the creation and establishment of natural law) and the eternal nature of all forms of physical information (enforcing those natural laws).
What you'll learn is how it is that matter can "blink in and out of existence" - or appear as though it does at the qua
God never actually divided light from dark, even if it's a wonderfully poetic notion. The infinite God of the bible doesn't actually exist. Even if such a being could exist, its absolute being state would make it literally impossible for Him to even realize our finite existence, since ours is a relative being state, which can't interact dynamically with that which exists as absolute. It's simply not possible. Such an absolute being can't "become" relative either. That's just imagination on behalf of the sentient human mind, which is the only thing capable of such conceptual violations of reality's substructure. And only as informational musings. Certainly not as authentic breaches of anything as primordial as State of Being.
Like I said, there's a very significant shift that has already begun, and who knows, maybe we'll get to see the initial effects of it during our own lifetimes. I don't really expect it to suddenly burst onto the open market of serviceable ideas anytime soon, but I've been wrong about things before.
Originally posted by openlocks
Great analogy though, very interesting species. I'd love to study more about them. Any book suggestions?
Julian Jaynes asserts that consciousness did not arise far back in human evolution but is a learned process based on metaphorical language. Prior to the development of consciousness, Jaynes argues humans operated under a previous mentality he called the bicameral ('two-chambered') mind. In the place of an internal dialogue, bicameral people experienced auditory hallucinations directing their actions, similar to the command hallucinations experienced by people with schizophrenia today. These hallucinations were interpreted as the voices of chiefs, rulers, or the gods.
To support his theory, Jaynes draws evidence from a wide range of fields, including neuroscience, psychology, archeology, ancient history, and the analysis of ancient texts. Jaynes's theory has profound implications for human history as well as a variety of aspects of modern society such as mental health, religious belief, susceptiblity to persuasion, psychological anomalies such as hypnosis and possession, and our ongoing conscious evolution.
Originally posted by Eidolon23
Those who argue for the abandonment of the Ego should note...