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.
I also believe that our consciousness is that which is spiraling around the source of our experience.
I believe each entity "invents" themselves, but that aspect of my theory alone would require its own thread..)
Think of wandering around a hall of mirrors where the only source of light is coming from a headlamp on your forehead.. it would be a little confusing yeah..?
every human could be considered another face of the landscape of possible renditions of what is "human".
(which I think has become lazily referred to as "God"..
reply to post by HyphenSt1
I've played with the notion that black holes are involved with star-seeding or insemination and "gestation" - this idea of course presupposes (an) alternative 'mother' universe(s).
edit on 11/11/13 by soficrow because: sp
I do appreciate you in-depth response, I will say that first!
I have (in *certain* states of consciousness) had the notion that "evolution" is actually the oldest art form/form of expression.. notice that animals don't have a pantry or fridge but don't lay around "worrying" where their next meal is going to come from.. They will protect their children when possible, but they don't coddle them and over-think parenting strategies.. all-in-all, it seems to me like animals have a much more playful and creative outlook on the world, rather than a fearful one based around survival-of-the-fittest..
With this model, you can still call it God just as you can still utilize these paradigms of conceptualization, but there is no division between "him" and "us" or "this" and "that" because (as you know) the definition of God would the ONLY thing that is "infinite" (and hence all-encompassing)
reply to post by HyphenSt1
Take a dog - a good example for non-human mammalian behavior. You said that animals are privileged because they don't "coddle" their young or worry about their futures; and because of this and other things, they are more playful and creative than us.
The behavior and cognition of animals cannot be separated from the evolutionary causes for these changes.
A dog, for example, doesn't worry about his future. Is this due to some intrinsic wisdom in the dog, or the dogs rather simple neurobiology? Humans worry because we have a highly developed neo-cortex; the same part which allows us to plan for the future, to prepare against dangers, and essentially optimizes our ability to survive, also enables complex disorganizations in feeling, thinking and behavior (psychiatric disorders).
The infinity of potential conceptualizations include those which emphasize separateness and difference between living creatures, physical things, and an abstract, hypothetical source. This is what I'm trying to get at: in the east, duality is considered illusory; in the west, the philosophical trappings of the east are seen as impediments to material progress. In ancient Greece, a civilization which gave priority to the practical and logical, for example, you nevertheless find traditions which try to explain the "root paradox" which defines life
conceptualizing divinity is NOT an easy thing to do; in fact, it seems to necessitate contradiction and paradox
To put this in another way. Buddhism and spiritual secularism seem to focus on a practical way to live a good life. It fulfills a human emotional need. Theological religions, like Christianity, Judaism and Islam, on the other hand, are enraptured by the meaning behind being; why the shapes? Why these dynamics? These religions are drawn to "think" and establish cognitive theories about the world which require an essential cause.
Both sides make logical arguments from their respective frameworks. Both sides utilize thinking and theorizing to make sense of the world; but one side disposes of the interactive-God concept, while the other sees it as intrinsic to the phenomena of existence.
but our ability to perceive as human isn't necessary "privileged" either..
when I use the word "creative" I mean in the sense that they are able to mold their environment and make it adapt to THEM, as well as the well-known notion that evolution aids in the animal to adapt to its surroundings.
is the act of manipulating the environment in accordance with Will/Intent (whatever word you like to use) and allowing it to change YOU in return; a symbiotic exchange that only functions optimally when it is NOT being acknowledged..
become caricatures and great scapegoats for anyone wanting to ignore "the war on nature"... this may be another thread haha.
I am never really trying to make value-judgments on what is THE "better" or "right" way to see things, but I also think that we need to get the idea of "infinity" in focus..
The Buddha emphasized that All is illusion to balance the tendency to see all is REAL and factual. This is how we find the middle-path."
A logic-dependent person feels they MUST resolve paradox and contradiction or "they aren't truly seeing the truth of the situation" whereas a purely intuition-dependent person feels they MUST keep their mind blank and "go with the flow" but this too is a stagnant way of progressing through life (progressing though life being the common goal of everyone who isn't suicidal)
Wouldn't that make nature creative? Without an "I" that can "work upon" it's environment, how can you ascribe creativity to an animal?
Evolutionary processes are certainly ingenious. But evolution, mind you, merely describes natural mechanisms. You can't turn it into a primal cause.
Good thing about us is, we seem to have a stronger will to do good than to do bad. Even our historical blights - world wars, genocides, indifference to famines - we still try to make amends.
my view about religion is: they're all justified.
At a moral level, though, I believe that the golden rule has ontological merit in constructively organizing all human behavior. For anyone to tell me that the golden rule is merely a convention - even though every civilized society has established it as an organizing principle - or can be superseded by some other principle (as some eastern or gnostic thinkers would think), I believe such a person is bored and to remedy this boredom they use metaphysics to justify immoral behavior.