So... are people oblivious to each other? Also, Atheism, Quantum Physics, network telepathy

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   
When I hang around people, and talk to them, I listen to them and say things like "That's a good idea,' or "Well, what about this?" and we share ideas and talk about them and learn from each other and get to know each other.

But apparently, that is inappropriate socially. I was told the other day that saying things like "That's a good idea" is disrespectful, because, apparently "Of course it was a good idea, that's why I said it!"

... so I got the impression that the way social interactions are supposed to work, is someone is full of themselves, and thinks they know everything and then walks into a store and sees someone else and talks at them, the other person ignores that person, and then talks at them.

And then both walk away, completely oblivious to the other person. It would be the same as having a conversation with a bag of chips. I don't understand this, really? Is that how things are?

There is another possibility involving Yin and Yang, with Yin being the observer and Yang being the actor, that would totally point to quantum physics being involved with psychology and explain the tendency to settle down with a person of the opposite polarity.

However, this kind of thing, even though it is the only way to explain human behavior, is apparently completely unacceptable with the scientific community that originated in the 1930's with social Darwinism and all that, atheism, etc.

I mean, you can be an atheist, which means not believing in God, but there are other traits associated with atheism such as not believing in free will and stuff, that could be scientifically invalid, that have nothing to do with not believing in God, but more to do with the social Darwinism movement and "Modern" science (modern referring to stuff originating from pre-third Reich and third Reich Germany)
edit on 28-8-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)
edit on 28-8-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


Its because we are all becoming more like zombies and not interacting with others anymore like in the past. It will get worse as time goes by with more and more gadgets coming out that will make us less human and more robotic like.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by dreamfox1
 


Yeah, thanks Dreamfox. I think that definitely has an effect - it is sad, but most of my friends, especially as they get older, stop thinking and just come home and sit in front of the television and pass out.

Like, I try starting a conversation with them and they are like "Wow, you talk a lot." Then, there is the internet, which I guess is more interactive, which is interesting,

But that is a pretty big leap. I guess it is kind of like we are all developing telepathy. Think about it, with Google Glass, if you have a friend, you basically are being telepathic with them. It seems like something that isn't normal in the human past.

That's one of the reasons that I thought that culturally, networking definitely seems to have its roots in Grey Alien technology -

If you look at the Grey Aliens, they communicate telepathically. They are networked.

But yeah, I think that the shift to telepathy involving the electronic age is causing a lot of social unrest around the world, and definitely something that would require a reworking of societal rules that are based on not having telepathy -

For example, free access to information, like Wikipedia. It might actually be a better future, but it's not something that can happen without restructuring.
edit on 28-8-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)
edit on 28-8-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   
I was reading an article today by Ram Dass on this very subject.
I find it harder and harder to live out in the world of "people" - I don't know whats going on but it seems almost every and ALL conversations no matter how banal are interpreted as personal attacks or something - it really does confuse me. I wonder have I so lost the compass of human behavior I can no longer even communicate? I can be conversing in type or talk and suddenly the other person will just sort of rudely erupt.
Reading Ram Dass and listening to guys like Alan Watts help me temporarily deal with these things - but I've begun to wonder if the world is a bit mad? Maybe its too much excitation of brain matter by too many cell phone microwaves? I've spent a lot of time alone on metaphysical studies lately - so maybe it is me. But I just rub everyone the wrong way somehow and the discussion can be on something like spiders in the house, ridiculous things really and suddenly the other person is just going off. I don't know but your thread leads me to think maybe I am not that crazy after all - maybe its them . . . out there . . . lol
I want to edit to add that I am a 48 year old woman - I do not look threatening or confrontational - and yet - in the past 6 months or so there have been very odd reactions around me. I've been on this world quite some time as you can see and I have been in vast and varied social situations. Something is different, its like an "excitation" but not in a good way . . .
edit on 28-8-2013 by LittleBirdSaid because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 




- it is sad, but most of my friends, especially as they get older, stop thinking and just come home and sit in front of the television and pass out.


Why is it sad? This is what they choose to do with their lives. This is the habit that they have chosen. We all have different habits and whether one is "superior" to another depends on your *personal* goals. It is all subjective.



But that is a pretty big leap. I guess it is kind of like we are all developing telepathy. Think about it, with Google Glass, if you have a friend, you basically are being telepathic with them.


It isn't telepathy. It's a physical device - technology being used in order to make our natural ability of telepathy forgotten and pointless to develop.



For example, free access to information, like Wikipedia. It might actually be a better future, but it's not something that can happen without restructuring.


Imagine if the "internet" was internal instead of external - spiritual instead of material (computers/devices). It would be "The Akashaic Records". We wouldn't even have to worry about "structuring" it.



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


That is a good point, I didn't think about our natural telepathy being lessened due to technology, but those could be called "social skills"



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


So you had a bad interaction with one person and suddenly the world is a death trap?

What the hell?



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 


On a personal level? It would be more than one bad social interaction, but basically? There seems to be a communication issue with some kind of cultural or technological tie.
edit on 29-8-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 08:44 PM
link   
My personal opinion is that fewer and fewer people have what I describe as an "intake" valve.....it's all "output."

How it got this way, I don't really know. I don't think the "we are one" thing helps the situation a lot, cause the fact is we are not.....and awake and aware, well it doesn't really work if you can't listen anymore.....

but some can't listen bc there's too much either they are trying to prove, or going on in their heads. As to the latter, I try to be sympathetic, for I know what that's like. I see terms like "narcissistic" being bandied about a lot, with few really understanding what that actually means. So while they are accusing you of it, they are, in fact, an embodiment of that term.....

I've had your experience, for years now. At times, it becomes downright depressing to consider trying to talk to someone, if that's all you get back. It's not just "energy sucking," it's energy thwarted.....like a boxer who throws a missed punch, and how much energy that costs him during the fight. Poor analogy, in that, this is not descriptive of boxing or fighting, and too many may regard it that way, and that's how we got there. It's as if it costs someone something to get along, agree, or coalesce in any way........



posted on Aug, 30 2013 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


Atheism is, by its very definition, nothing more than lacking belief in deity. No matter what else you, or others', may wish to tack on (like "not believing in free will") those ideas, philosophies, or ethical stances stem from something other than a person's atheism. Consequently, this is why the Atheism+ movement is utter rubbish.

While I also tend to disagree that people settle down with their opposites, I do agree that in social situations we, as a species, tend to be extremely closed off from any type of input outside of our own. Which is why careers need to have team building sessions, business meetings, and other "learn to get along and pay attention to each other" type events.

I don't think I necessarily believe that Taoism, and the Tao, are the correct way (having no belief in a single, defining Truth), I do think that if people were able to get in touch with people of the opposite mind, and learn to at least listen to their position (not necessarily accept it), then our world might be less disastrous for all involved.

~ Wandering Scribe



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by tetra50
My personal opinion is that fewer and fewer people have what I describe as an "intake" valve.....it's all "output."


I have noticed the same thing, although it might also have always been there it's just there was nothing else so nobody imagined anything else and couldn't see any differences. The intake valve would be the interpretation and the output the expression after a response has been formed based on the interpretation. So why don't people appear to interpret for themselves or less so than before, do they just copy someone else and don't change their minds about it ever? Or is it because people share their interpretation less, because more and more people know of manipulations and exposing your interpretation might allow another to influence it to their own interests while in the past people exposed themselves knowing a reverent or preacher might set them right again if they ever met people who could manipulate them so they couldn't set themselves right.



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dragonfly79

Originally posted by tetra50
My personal opinion is that fewer and fewer people have what I describe as an "intake" valve.....it's all "output."


I have noticed the same thing, although it might also have always been there it's just there was nothing else so nobody imagined anything else and couldn't see any differences. The intake valve would be the interpretation and the output the expression after a response has been formed based on the interpretation. So why don't people appear to interpret for themselves or less so than before, do they just copy someone else and don't change their minds about it ever? Or is it because people share their interpretation less, because more and more people know of manipulations and exposing your interpretation might allow another to influence it to their own interests while in the past people exposed themselves knowing a reverent or preacher might set them right again if they ever met people who could manipulate them so they couldn't set themselves right.


Hi, Dragonfly:

I think it may be combinations of what you suggest, not wanting to accept any influence on their "stance," as to things such as their pov, bc we are all surrrounded by so much conditioning and attempts to manipulate us, just as consumers, for instance.

I remember before 24 hr. news stations, and the www, before the falll of the Berlin wall, and widespread access, so to speak, internationally, to information, there was a school of thought that these informational accesses being provided internationally would be a uniting force, if you will, amongst people. Instead, it's been found research wise, that it's done the opposite. It's more solidified, instead, divisions on political, religious and moral belief structures. So, it's reinforced polarities. Now, who knows, for instance, if we all get the same information via those sources. A great way to divide is to telll one culture one thing, and another, something quite different.

Regardless of that possibility, the inculcation obvious in advertising, the ever present use of symbols, bombarding people in signs, news, television, and the internet, just to name a few places, I think, means people are naturallly more reticent in accepting information (intake valve), and even bothering to process it and respond, having done so.
I'm sure there are other factors, as well, but those are a few of my thoughts. It's done nothing for interpersonal communication, however. JMHO





new topics
top topics
 
2

log in

join