The Death Throes of Authoritarianism? Or True Enlightenment Preparation?

reply to post by NorEaster


I personally believe you're right. We are in a state of shift but not towards oneness, but towards free individuals. Personally I believe that soon we will cast of the shackles of organized government and religion all together. I believe that is why government and religion have been trying to hard to keep us under their thumb lately. People are beginning to awaken to the fact that the nature of man is good. It is innately within us to do the right thing, but those that rule us, lack the ability to empathize and see the good in humanity. The rules they write are not for us the masses, but because they themselves need them to try to keep each other in check because they are in fact the law breakers.

Ultimately I believe that the technology we have created in the last 100 years is part of our natural evolution, not because we are supposed to merge with machine, but because it changes the way we think, to live in a global society. Think of the ant. It goes about it's life working as a individual yet for the betterment of the ant hill. It does this not because there are ant laws and ant police that will take that ant to ant jail if it defies the ant laws. The ant simply does this because it is compelled to naturally. It is woven into the fiber of the ants being.

We humans have naturally been up till now genetically programmed to live in communities of about 150 individuals, but because of populations growth in cities and technology, I can on any day be part of twice that just by entering a large restaraunt, or getting on the highway, or going to a sporting event.

The mental change that I believe we are coming into is very simple, yet will profoundly effect the way we view our world and how we live and make the most individual decisions. It is the power to think EXPONENTIALLY. That may not seem like a big deal, but it really is.

Imagine life as a game of chess. I'm not a very good chess player myself, I can only think a few moves ahead. When I first started playing though I didn't understand the game and could only think of the game in terms of that single move. One at a time. That single moment. Great players think seven, eight, or ten moves ahead. I believe that is the awareness we are coming to.

We are coming to the age that laws no longer apply because they only work in the single moment which is the present. It is wrong to steal the loaf of bread. Stealing the loaf of bread is illegal. But the family is hunger and must eat. To the enlightened they will understand both sides that of the starving family and the toil of the baker. As will the baker understand the needs of the family. And in this new and open society, I believe there exists the ability to communicate and come to solutions to satisfy everyone's needs in the equation. Because we will see not the immediate now of the dollar value of the bread, but the prosperous future that can come if we work together to feed the family.

Ultimately like it or not, this must happen. It has become far too obvious that those in control do not believe the laws apply to them, and all every other person wants to do is live their little lives as happily and freely as we can. There will never be a time we will be able to live without struggle. But when we can as individuals see how our every decision impacts the world as a whole to the Nth degree, we will be compelled by our own survival instincts to do what is right for all as well as ourselves.

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.

First...the Jesus narrative wasn't crafted by fishermen. That suggestion was part of the narrative itself. Christian history isn't as easy to determine nowdays as it was back in the 70s, when I started taking it on as an Evangelical Fundamentalist. Back then, we knew that the narrative was specifically crafted by philosophers (mostly Gnostic philosophers), and that much of it was allegorical and steeped in metaphor. The 21st century Evangelical community reflects the "charismatic" fringe crowd that we were battling against back then, and they ended up winning that battle for the America's rendition of born-again Christianity. We tried to take what was emerging from the early 70s "Jesus freak" movement, and keep it anchored in realism, but it just wasn't as much fun and excitement as looking for miracle and demons under every rock.

The bottom line is that I know better than to believe the Internet claims that the gospels were actually written by the guys whose names their titles feature. Those guys were long dead by the time that the first 3 gospels were edited out from "Q" and that Egyptian "John" eventually wrote his Gnostic overview of what those folks gleaned from the allegorical account of Jesus. Not a fisherman among any of who fashioned the New Testament. Especially within the Council of Nicea, where the many gospels that littered the Roman Empire were gathered and 4 were chosen by vote to be the Word of God.

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.

That awakening began with the Greeks (Jesus is actually a Greek version of the Hebrew name Joshua, which is important to note here) and their experiments with democracy. Not that the political ideology started that level of enlightenment, but that it emerged as a direct result. The Jesus movement was only one result of that centuries-long push for egalitarianism by Greek inspired thinkers.

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.

If I were a serial killer, I could say the exact same thing about watching the "light go out in someone's eyes" as I kill them. That's a pretty thrilling experience for someone with that intense a need to win ultimate control over another person, and while you and I would cringe at the thought of it, for that person, the dying light in that victim's eyes is integral to a truly transcendent experience, and literally addicting.

Experience is not illumination. Experience is not clarification. It's just experience. You believe that you experienced something that makes everything else pale in comparison, and I believe you when you say that you did. I also believe that Jeffery Dahmer experienced the true and authentic integration of his victims into his own physical self as a direct result of having eaten their flesh. I have no reason to doubt either one of you. Especially him, since he went so far out of is way to kill and eat his victims. Then again, his experience, for him - just like your experience for you - is something I can't deny him. It's his and his alone. Just like yours is yours alone. That's the nature of experience.

I also have no problem with psychonauts and their claims that their drugs give them that same "K-hole" sensation that you feel that you achieved in your own non-drug state of transcendence. I understand how powerful a full immersion into sensation can be. I don't need to take their drugs to understand that it's their minds - and not external reality itself - that are being solely affected as they blast off into "oneness". I don't need to take the dope to understand what's actually involved there.

I haven't written this thread from a perspective of not knowing the immediate thrill of honestly believing that I've transcended the corporeal. I was a born-again Christian, and that's exactly how it felt. That said, my life continued, and I researched and learned and became capable of placing my experiences into a larger perspective. I understand the nature of intellect and human perception. I know exactly how pervasive and holistic it can be, as well as how wonderful (or horrific) it can become. I'm not ignorant.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

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.

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 their have been a few in history who have left the collective and went off in to the forest and knew how to survive. But even the homeless man who wanders on his own, or the Monk who has renounced worldly life, they depend on other humans still as well. I would say humans war with each other because of the urge towards individuality. Individuality is intrinsic, there is no way to become "more individual". But the same goes for collectivism, it cannot be contrived. 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.

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.

Everything that science knows flies in the face of this statement. We are part of nature. Species going extinct is the ebb and flow of evolution, it comes with the territory of an ever changing universe. Maybe the world would be a better place without humans, in fact I am sure it would be. But I also believe humans are confused about their true nature and that is why we are such a chaotic species. 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.

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?

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. Yet they collectivize to create wholes, such as organs and bones and hair. Scalp cells and toenail cells are not "connected" in the way you are thinking, as in some direct connection. But they are connected through an interdependent system called the organism (human body). If a change happens to the one aspect of the body, it is reflected in every other aspect of the body. The same goes for humans. This is why Morphic Field Theory is so interesting to me.

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.

And, of course, you have independent verification of these assertions as being factual. Maybe even a logical inference chain to share with us. I can actually produce a logical inference chain that debunks your assertions, and have actually accomplished this and published it, but I'm not shopping any of that for direct challenges here anymore. That effort was successfully completed, and the project has progressed into its next stage of concern - which doesn't involve this community.

My knowledge is extremely specific. The scholarship has been done. I know what the traditional wisdoms have been based on, and I know where those wisdoms have succeeded and where they've failed - and why. If you live to learn, then you should take an afternoon and do a full post search on me - with a notepad and plenty of ink in your pen. If you're careful, you'll be able to piece together my own understanding of reality, and what makes me very confident in what I assert here and elsewhere. You want scholarship? Do a post search on me, and see where things are headed from this point in our view of what reality consists of. There's enough from me already on this board to give you your own breakthrough epiphany,and where you take it from there is up to you.

I'm no mahatma, or prophet, and I sure as hell am not enlightened. I'm here to kill that foolishness off for good, and I have all the information it'll take to do so. Now, it's just the mechanics of rolling it all out through the professional channels that exist for that sort of thing. It's out of my hands in that sense, and now I can just relax and enjoy the show.

reply to post by NorEaster


I think anyone who lumps critics together with the statement, "none of you have studied these things like I have", is not to be taken seriously. In reality, no one knows what anyone has or hasn't studied. So just because a different deduction is made, doesn't automatically mean insincerity of not studying what you are critiquing or ignorance of not understanding it. Just wanted to say that.

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.

reply to post by NorEaster


My position is simple. Put up or shut up!

You talk and talk and talk. When you quit talking and take the plunge into transpersonal consciousness, then I will be interested in what you have to say about it after. When you start studying comparative mysticism, comparative mythology, comparative religion then I'll be interested in your opinions.

Until then, you are making the same mistakes about religion and mysticism that practically everyone else makes. I can see it in your questions and your assertions and your assumptions. But hey, I'm not judging. Believe what you want.

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.

This is a good overview, and while I've come to interpret the nature of the "spiritual realm" very differently, for very concrete reason, I fully embrace the belief that there is much more that exists than the material realm. I also believe that the human being literally straddles both realms while manifesting as corporeal within the material realm. Yes, I can imagine that this does get extremely complicated for those people whose senses are naturally altered to the extent that they receive perception glimpses of what exists beyond the world of matter, and I understand that this is why theologies, spiritualisms and religions exist and why they've thrived.

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)

I appreciate your thoughts on this, and we've begun putting a team together with this sort of thing in mind. We expect it to be a long slow process, and that's okay. This transition will take a long time, and the earliest steps forward will be those that go relatively unnoticed. I'm pretty content with knowing that to be the case. There are plenty of other folks on both sides of the divide that are busy making enormous strides forward of their own. This shift will seem to emerge from all quarters at once. Me, I'm just a writer. I have the ability to explain in detail what is important and to not digress into what's not important as I gather the salient points into a progressive rollout. On here, I've been pretty good at learning what I've needed to learn and vetting what I've needed to vet without much of a net reveal. I guess we all have our gifts.

Hey Noreaster,

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.

One day we may be only 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.

en.wikipedia.org...

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?

Sorry, I've been in other threads and totally hooked on the ideas of matter. Haha! Sorry, don't mean to go down another rabbit hole.

Originally posted by BlueMule
reply to post by NorEaster

 

My position is simple. Put up or shut up!

The invitation to read what I've left right here on this site's archive stands. You don't have to tell me or anyone else that you checked it out. I just wanted you to know that it's there if you want to verify what I do already know about your own scholarship and about what I've established for myself. No big deal. Just letting you know that it exists at your fingertips.

Originally posted by MamaJ
Hey Noreaster,

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.

I'm sorry. Let me see what you have here....

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.

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.

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.

en.wikipedia.org...

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).

I would LOVE TO SEE YOU create a thread stemming from this notion and philosophical understanding in regards to " we are one".

This thread is serving that function. Isn't it?

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?

Matter isn't really what you might believe it to be. I did start a thread explaining material existence a while ago, and if you do a thread search on me, you'll find it pretty quickly (I don't start a lot of threads). 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 quantum level.

Light is photons. Photons are created by quantum leaps. 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.

Nothing is as primordial as Being State for that which does, in fact, exist. State of Being is the initial level of existential identity. From there it factors out according to how whatever-it-is came into existence, then rate of emergence, and on and on from there. Only the human intellect (consciousness) exists with the capacity to imagine a primordial intelligence as the author of all that exists. It's the ultimate in personification.

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.

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?

Namasalute

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?

Namasalute

Individual identity is impossible for any human being to ever lose. This is due to the default impact of a very stable logic structure that simply exists, so it's not a gift of any sort or any indication of the inherent superiority of the human being. The truth is that raw existence is predicated on the survival of unique identity, and loss of that unique identity is the literal loss of existence itself by the once identified existential whole. In other words, true "melting into oneness" is impossible unless that oneness that is being melting into is the "oneness" shared by all that existed at one time, but now no longer exists.

Delineation IS existence, even if a larger commonality exists that unites everything under an umbrella of conceptual oneness. This is due to the fact that physical reality exists in a relative being state - meaning that each is relative to everything else that exists. This is very basic logic, and not really challenged by serious academics. Only the YouTube metaphysicians. But that bunch often refuses to believe that they themselves actually exist, so what can you add to that...?

Thank you for the great thread fun - all of you. I'm off to the Smokey Mountains for the week and some serious downtime. This was a real treat for me and I appreciate the input from each of you. See you after Labor Day.

Namaste (or Have Some Fun Before The Summer Is Gone)

reply to post by openlocks

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.

Great arguments and elegantly put. Although I am a layman in biology, 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. Therefore my lone wolf analogy, which isn't a romantic idea, but a known fact. I have one of their heads on my wall.

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.

I would agree with you that humans may not be as capable as the wolf in this aspect, and that humans follow a more herd-like nature, but my analogy at least shows that an organism isn't dependent on the rest of his species for its entire existence; and that there is a teleological reason for individuality as much as there is for collectivity—which I think you pointed out.

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.

Yes you are right; I understand what you're getting at now. That we are necessarily dependant on each other to persist the species. 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 misunderstood. I think we're in agreement here. Although I would question why man would contrive collectivism or individuality if there was no need? Maybe there is a need, but, as you point out, no necessity.

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 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?

In my eyes, every herd, lone animal, pack, school, flock is composed of individuals seeking individual interests. These individual interests are sometimes more easily found by being part of a collective.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

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 am not saying collectives are tantamount to organisms. I am saying organisms collectivize naturally in pods, packs, schools, herds, family's, friends, neighborhoods, communities... and so on. Maybe the organism will leave the collective at some point (whatever the collective is), as you have stated, but its natural instinct is to collectivize again with someone/something else. Even your lone wolf scenario describes this perfectly. They leave the pack looking for a new pack, and the ones that remain "lone wolves" sooner or later realize this puts their survival at a severe disadvantage and so they search for another wolf or group of wolves to create a pack with. Great analogy though, very interesting species. I'd love to study more about them. Any book suggestions?

But take even an extreme case of what we will call "Lone Wolf Syndrome", for instance, Tarzan. Tarzan was in no way shape or form collectivized with his species, he was completely removed. But he still collectivized with other animals. So to collectivize does not demand you do so with your own species, although in most cases it does. This may necessitate the redefinition of "to collectivize" but nonetheless it is possible, as you stated, to not only leave ones inherent collective and find another, but to leave ones inherent species and collectivize in some other way with the larger collective, being the ecosystem. That seems exceedingly rare though, and even more rare would be to be an absolute lone wolf where you never again collectivize. As your quote pointed out, it is not really a move someone would make if they are at all concerned about their survival. Although I do admit it is potentially possible.

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.

Correct, that would be contrived. The ecosystem already is. Man feels the need to contrive collectivism because, imo, he/she has lost or never found their place in the world. Both their sense of individuality and collectivism has been distorted somehow, and so now they try to contrive a solution to the perceived problem which just results in systematic and institutionalized forms of this distortion. From there things spiral out of control to what we have now. I think humans differ in this way because of our increased cognitive ability to abstract, coupled with very sensitive sensory demands. We can far more easily create an illusory reality for ourselves than any other species, so it seems. Mix that in with a body that isn't really the most suitable for the environment it lives in, and you have fear and anxiety induced abstractions. This has lead to what we consider to be great advancements, in fact it is what most people consider to be what makes us 'special', but it also obviously leads to insane totalitarian thinking patterns.

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?

Humans are reflections of cells. Cells have nearly every function, besides abstract thought, that a human has. Again though, I am not saying a collective is an organism. I am saying organisms collectivize naturally. The comparison I put forth may have been a miss, and I will concede that much is true. Anyways, I've enjoyed this conversation much so far!

Thanks!

For NorEast and LesMisanthrope:

Because Alan Watts and spoken word can perhaps communicate this more effectively. Please look beyond the music choice if it affects you and seek the deeper meaning and understanding.

This is directly related to the concept that there is an individual "Morgan Freeman" which can be individually "defined" and all the other aspects of this discussion about the true relationship between "individual" "things" and "the one" (aka Tao/The Universe/Infinity/God/Brahma/Holon/etc. depending on which language culture you operate within).

Namasalute! Hopefully you are going to the "actual" Smokey Mountains, NorEaster, and won't simply try to climb and explore the map, hehe.

Taken from another thread. They emphasized to make it all the way through part 2, though he starts hitting the point of the limitation of our attempt to define right from the start.

reply to post by NorEaster


Thanks for the reply!

This thread is serving that function. Isn't it?

In a way I guess so, an understanding through the intellect from the basics, and from each perception can be had.

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.

Yes we are, I agree. The activity and resulting information, I call expression. It's derived from the senses as you say and it can become physically manifested. This comes from Nous, which I linked you too. :-)

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).

The intellect serves a purpose. Thoughts are serving a purpose just as is the nature of all things. It is a mere reflection of creation that is ongoing and has not stopped " going". It's a constant flow. Finding anything constant in the Cosmos is an undertaking. The flow is what is constant though and this flow causes changes from the effect of said flow. It's an expression.

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

I have already learned that in the past, but thank you. :-)

Also, I have done my research on light/photons as well and believe you are describing Quantum Leap when you described jumping in and out of existence which I believe to be true as well. It's evident. No argument there.

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.

The above is where I disagree. Absolute being cannot really describe the Mind in which thought aroused the slumber or void. Within our senses we have an intellect that allows us to reason and analyze the nature of all things and this is where I find your Absolute Being expressing in an outwardly fashion. The flow of all things. The human being is more than consciousness.

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.

There is a major shift taking place, I definitely agree! We have seen the new age movement that isn't so new on the front and center, hence this thread. The oneness people feel is the connection to the cause and reason.

It's exciting to be alive in this day and age, for sure. Whether I agree or not with the all is one, I still love hearing other people pov becuase it is not my own. Stepping outside myself allows me to see other parts of the intellect.

reply to post by openlocks


Great points. Thanks for the insight.

Originally posted by openlocks
Great analogy though, very interesting species. I'd love to study more about them. Any book suggestions?

There's many documentaries out there on wolves. I didn't do much reading on them, but I am no stranger; they were a part of my environment growing up. The excerpt I got was from wikipedia.

But if you don't mind entertaining the idea of a wolf-like nature in the individual, I suggest Steppenwolf by Herman Hesse. It's a spiritual book written by a spiritual man. I suggest anyone interested in individuality or oneness give it a chance.

reply to post by NorEaster


Well, dude, set me to work swabbing the deck, because we appear to be on the same boat here. I can't go near those threads anymore, it just bums me out. While I don't share your sense of being creeped out by our friends who believe that a superior state of consciousness can be achieved through abandonment of self, I do think they might be kind of a throwback to a simpler time.

I bet you've got a hold of this one already, but I'ma throw it out for other peeps.

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.

www.julianjaynes.org...

Now, I don't buy the whole shebang he lays out, but I do think it plausible that our immediate forbears possessed brains that were physically very different from ours. When Herodotus speaks of travelers running into Mercury and shooting the breeze with an avatar of a cultural function, it may be an accurate account. People may have actually seen gods back in the day, and their capacity to do that was directly related to social cohesion.

Jaynes takes it to a groovy place, and this is where it actually starts to bear on the topic of your thread. He posits that individual consciousness, our sense of "I", is a very recent development. That prior to the shift in our neural architecture, we were more, well, "we"-ish.

Those who argue for the abandonment of the Ego should note here that we may have had precisely the kind of oneness that they advocate, and evolved into something else. Maybe we developed consciousness because the old arrangement served us poorly in a bottleneck sitch, and so It seems to me that our freshly fledged capacity for individuation is a boon.

Great read, man.

Originally posted by Eidolon23

Those who argue for the abandonment of the Ego should note...

I'm not arguing for the abandonment of the ego-self. I am relishing the experience of identifying with the ego 'Clark Kent' aspect of myself while knowing my 'Superman' aspect underneath! It gives my ego remarkable liberation. It's a miracle.

I am arguing for the 'death & rebirth' of the ego-self. Ego-death is inevitably followed by ego-rebirth. Ego-death is a temporary altered state of consciousness. Your center of awareness shifts identity from you to not-you. Then back again. Only different. Liberated.