Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Philosophy of Pattern - The Nature of Cycle and Being: Are Stars/Suns the White-Holes at the Oth

page: 1
5

log in

join

posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 11:37 PM
link   
I've been pondering on these ideas for awhile, and while I do eventually intend on compiling them into something more organized, I am not interested in "copyrighting ideas" and I say that if you can use these ideas, all-the-more power to you. Just keep me in the know and be unrelenting in their development

I'm not interested in preaching anything, and don't consider myself an "authority" on physics, though I do have a hobby-like interest in conceptual physics, Philip K Dick, and Robert Anton Wilson haha. Basically I am attempting to probe into understanding the FUNCTION of the entities I mention, within nature, instead of trying to explain their behavior in terms of math and jargon..

Here we go:

My little set of theories began with my observing the common patterns (or "the aesthetics of nature" as I have come to think of it..) and I know that this has become an almost cliché set of observations to make in this recent world of Pseudoscience, New-Age documentaries and Alex Grey.. but this was only the beginning!
Beginning with recognizing the golden ratio and fractal-nature in everything "dead" such as snail shells, trees, rivers, lightning/arc-electricity, etc etc etc..

Then I began to contemplate the nature of these patterns.. besides noticing that they often occur in that which is "dead" (inanimate/not actively conscious from our point-of-view) their origin is usually that of a chain reaction such as the flow of water forming a river or electrons in a chain of lightning..

Then I began to see how these chains do not only have to operate in one direction but rather have the nature of oscillation or cycle which gives form; they are not stagnant.. This can also be seen in just about every "thing" that can be called a "thing", including an emission of electromagnetism or construct of matter (which are both the same thing, just moving at a different rate from our relative vantage-point)

SO! here's where I get to my observations that have received some raised eyebrows but have yet to stand real counter-arguments:

-WHAT IF everything that follows that fractalic "vine-like" pattern (such as electricity) could be defined as a "fissure" or "crack" in the fabric of space-time? What we know of as an "atom" is supposed to contain 3 component energies; the electron(s) being the on the outer-shell and what is being utilized in an electric system. Since the atom is at least a rough model for a "unit" of space-time, one could consider electricity to be a shallow dent in space-time, whereas a nuclear reaction would be a dent of a deeper sort (dealing with the protons and neutrons instead)

-WHAT IF Suns are the "white-holes" that physicists have been speculating about for decades..? We have observed that it seems that black-holes are at the center of each galaxy but there has been very little said about "where" all of the light/matter goes when it is absorbed.. I thought about where I see other patterns that resemble a black-hole and/or nebulae... in the patterns and grain of wood!
and what does a knot in wood indicate class..? A BRANCH! which, in the context of a tree, acts as both a route for nutrients (Sun/CO^2) to be absorbed into the rest of the tree, and also a means of growth and expansion..
IF a star/sun were the other end of a black-hole, it would stand to reason that we could consider it to be no different than the projector as it appears to a character in a film..
There have been many people who have come to see the universe as resembling a hologram but this model would avoid any vague notions that we are all in a giant computer or that the universe is still somehow a mechanism of hominoid-invention rather than hominoids being the rendition of the "projector". (I want to intentionally avoid saying the projector "invents" anything, as many Christians would describe their God as inventing the world. I believe each entity "invents" themselves, but that aspect of my theory alone would require its own thread..)

-WHAT IF every star in the sky is just another possible configuration/manifestation of OUR sun..
certain interpretations of quantum theory seem to demand "every possible universe" exist simultaneously, and most theorists get around this by saying that there are "alternate timelines" but never get too specific on "where" these near-infinite other possible universes would actually "be"..
It seems to me that it would be a simpler model if they were to actually physically co-exist in a landscape of everything possible (outer-space) and the apparent "distance" of each star system being closer or further depending to its relative probability of being, as compared our system's own probability of being..
If light/matter could be simply considered Information, the information that is going in the black-holes and coming out of the white-holes would be identical EXCEPT for the proximity(distance) of the origin of information and the black-hole. What this says to me is that every black-hole is essentially "seeing" the same universe, just as each star is "projecting" the same universe.. but the vantage point we have at any given time distorts reality into seemingly like a mysterious wasteland of dead matter and hostile environments to life... 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..?

but now THIS is where my theory gets fairly slippery..
because if every star were essentially a slightly distorted mirror-image of our own star, that would also mean that every planet could be considered every possible rendition in the life-span of our earth.. every human could be considered another face of the landscape of possible renditions of what is "human".. every cat is the reflection of one of every possibility of cat.. every rock a rendition of all that is "rock".. every cloud, every river, every leaf, every year, month, week, day, minute... every angle of experience being one of many probabilities being selected (or assumed) from a grid of possibilities and yet the outcome ALWAYS being unique and fleeting..

so now we enter the territory of defining the nature of experience and awareness as something between a "process" and a "cycle" which I have come to think of as a "timecycle" (as opposed to timeline..) and thus can be represented by a spiral.. the interplay of cycles as influenced by the focus and forward motion of Free-Will..

I'll leave it at that for now, but I would truly be interesting in hearing any and all thoughts. BTW this is my first thread so please excuse the lack of obvious organization, but I did wait to mention this lil' fact until the end, lest anyone mistakenly gets the impression that I want "everyone to go easy on my first thread" because I am looking for exactly the opposite.. let the pondering begin!!




posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 11:57 PM
link   
I also believe that our consciousness is that which is spiraling around the source of our experience. Where we are relative to the source is dependent on how we perceive, which could also tie into "free will". This is a very interesting subject.



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 12:08 AM
link   

chadderson
I also believe that our consciousness is that which is spiraling around the source of our experience.


This makes me think of many metaphors in Hinduism and Buddhism that allude to the universe as being a sort of "song and dance" which takes place on the stage of "life" and the consciousness (which I think has become lazily referred to as "God"..) being both performer and audience..
it almost seems inevitable that if one independently studies the true nature of music and art, throughout every culture, it is actually difficult not to realize how they are almost an extension of what we know of as "language" or could be considered to be the act of "speaking to the universe/God on its own terms, in its own dialect"..

I could say that my own "goal" for life (or "direction" is the term I prefer) is to better learn the syntax of the language of the universe, and it too seems that this is almost a universal human goal, although the terminology and conscious understanding may differ greatly..



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Enjoyec your ideas.

I believe that the universe is an outter cosmic reflection of our mind.

Look to the heavens for guidance.



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 12:30 AM
link   
It's a little easier to digest when you employ an analogy (e.g. egg). What constitutes as matter would be the shell.


System of Truth

FB page



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 


Yes indeed! Thank you that is very true.. The egg analogy could extend very very far in terms of explaining the yoke's(Consciousness') relationship to the shell ("the outside world") and the unknown (all that lies outside for the lucky egg that gets to hatch..?)



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by HyphenSt1
 





I believe each entity "invents" themselves, but that aspect of my theory alone would require its own thread..)


Although you said this would require a thread of its own, you opened a can of worms by mentioning it.

There is more to the world than anything you, I or any theory could imagine.

Why is a tree a tree? Why those colors? Why their shape? The details. It's all in the details.

God - whether it be thought in the Judeo-Christian or Muslim or eastern way, is a necessary concept. At the very least, we can never logically conclude: there is not all-permeating creative spirit which endows individual finite beings with a creative capacity.

To deny - based on "evidence" - is to really reach far further than logic is capable of taking you.



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 01:21 AM
link   


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..?


I think this is a little bit of a reach.

There are stars systems that are intrinsically different from ours. 2 suns instead of one. Massive stars verses smaller stars.

To argue that each sun is a "projection" of a central sun - ours - but that each sun contains its own probabilities - some of which are completely nothing like our own. This is a variation of what we already know. Trillions of suns exist. Each different, each with it's own possibility of life.




every human could be considered another face of the landscape of possible renditions of what is "human".


It's a ridiculous theory, multiverses.

What good is a theory that can't be verified? If, lets say, your theory up till now were true: that each sun were a "projection" of our own, and that black holes were vacuums that beam suns in our dimension of reality. Why should there be an "infinite" number. And why would we bother with hypotheticals like: "I exist in another realm, and I'm a monkey poo creature with wings for teeth". Essentially, infinite enables all types of speculations. And, being infinite, it's also probable that other planets exists with different life's and different people at a different evolutionary stage. But they "aren't" variations of us, anymore than I'm a "variation" or projection of your thoughts.

Your theory is not impossible, but the conclusions should be restrained, and silly obsessions like "there's different mes" seem to have the urge to challenge objective morality (even then, of course, it would still be possible to defend an objective morality: e.g. in this universe - the relevant one in which we live - we must restrain ourselves to the unique conditions it subjects us to. For example, all creatures want to be treated with respect and dignity. To break this law - in "this universe" is to break a primary ontological principle.

Anyways, good thread. Very deep subject matter. I enjoyed reading it.



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by HyphenSt1
 





(which I think has become lazily referred to as "God"..


I completely disagree.

You need to be more consistent. If all things have an equal probability, why should God not be thought of in many different ways? Why should you be eastern-centric?

Take the development of religion on our planet. Is this fortuitous, or does it follow a logical dynamic?

What are the odds that the religions which most emphasizes the non-permanence of being - the east - is conceptually "closer" to the sun. Symbolically, the sun's rise and setting has been traditionally interpreted (which is intuitively convincing) as "closeness" and "distance". The Hebrews, for example, established prayers and sacrifices according to the "energy" of the day; the sun - which extinguishes so much of whats made apparent with the presence of shade, is overwhelming. In the east, where the sun rises first, you have people who feel instinctively drawn to a spirituality which emphasizes the impermanence of self and being.

In contrast, in the west, in ancient Greece, or the Hebrews, slightly east of them, you have secularism, an instinct to emphasize logic and reason - limiting faculties - as well as the Hebrews, who deified the individual person, with a God with anthropomorphic tendencies.

Even farther west, to the other end of the world, you find the native Americans, most of which had a very strong feminine nature religion, where the "earth" is recognized as a living principle. In the east, conversely, although all things are spiritualized, there's a stronger instinct to emphasize abstract concepts.

To me, this is a logical progression, where the formation of human instinct parallels the place on the planet where it developed.

Back to the anthroporphism. Abraham Joshua Heschl, the American theologian of Judaism, really influenced my understanding of God. All things being equal, why should impersonal concepts like quantum mechanics and whatnot, take priority over personal constructs, like love, faith, trust, compassion? Why should these anthropic concepts be excluded. Why shouldn't God also have a voice? Albeit, it is one we can never know. But why should that stop anyone from praying, in a very personal way, to God?

I pray before bed. I feel this part of my experience, my being a unique individual, living, pondering the nature of my existence, is existentially meaningful. And thought: should I express thanks? doesn't bother me. Yes, I should express thanks. I intuitively feel the existence of God; and I believe my words, uttered from my most inner self, contain spiritual meaning.



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by HyphenSt1
 


Interesting ideas - good reading. Thanks, and thanks to Astrocyte especially for thoughtful responses. The pattern thing is seductive and I get lost in it with some regularity. Also, 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). Use it if it's helpful to you.



edit on 11/11/13 by soficrow because: sp



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Astrocyte
 


hmmm.. i'm not sure where to start..

I do appreciate you in-depth response, I will say that first! However, I think perhaps most of your objections come from my lack of explanation of that first point about how each being creates themselves.

Think about evolution: We have evidence of the past in the form of bones, impressions, and other means of getting an idea of what used live, but all the data really says is "it seems that creatures once existed which resemble other creatures who exist now.. in certain ways.. when they felt like it.."
but we really don't know WHAT it is to "evolve" or why some species continue to evolve for millions of years, and then ants have remained the same for billions..

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..

and that then brings me to clarifying my comment about the lazy use of the WORD "God" AND the concept of "infinity"..
I do not mean to say that the concept of God is not necessary (as it obviously is, as it pops up in every culture, and even in a secular society, I feel that I could make the case that the concept is hinted at in most secular-paradigms) BUUUT this does not mean that the understanding of this concept (or "entity" if you prefer to think of it outside of yourself) is universal, and obviously comes with different results..

[can of worms being opened]

I have come to consider the "true" name of God (the most evident and simple) as being: I

What if everything that has awareness; a concept of 'I' inside which is filtered through the body (brain) and results in the appearance of VASTLY different forms, but the consciousness inside is standardized..
I don't believe many people know what they are describing when they say "infinity" or "zero" because both of these concepts exist in the realm of imagination along with other concepts such as math, physics, history, sociology, music theory, Nature, God etc etc... These are all conceptualizations that have a purpose that is useful but they don't "exist" in a state that is experienced by the senses.. it's only seen by the "mind's eye"..

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)

here's an example: If you were exploring unknown territory with only a map and compass and happened to be dissatisfied with the detail of your map, you would of course start by attempting to collaborate with the locals and attempt to have the most detailed but clear map possible.. your compass would still give you an idea of orientation and what intuitively seems right, but it seems irresponsible to only rely on the compass..

this is similar to how I felt during childhood. I had a philosophically minded father, but no religious upbringing, so I would go to many different churches with different friends' families.. attempting to get oriented in the territory but ultimately making so many "edits" to my map, that the lay of the land gets distorted..

though this, one becomes obsessed with "perfecting" the map instead of the exploring. one finds themselves attempting the make a map which involves EVERY detail in search of accuracy, and hence attempts to recreate the world..

this is similar to the philosophical hardships of teenagers and the frustration that comes with trying to distinguish between the pretentious gurus, and the quiet sages who know they can only help you find your own "conclusions".

but then you get to the point where it becomes evident that no matter the layout of the map, there is no way that one can simultaneously watch the map, and observe the surroundings and explore.. in fact, every time the map is given priority, the surroundings pass by unnoticed and the map seems to be more of a nuisance than a tool..

Then you look at the compass and realize that, while it can also be a helpful tool, there is only ONE "correct" direction and this is where even intuition has faults when relied upon exclusively..

My current position is: Bury the map and compass along the path for someone else who might be able to use it, and just explore to your heart's content knowing that you are giving the universe your undivided attention, there is never any reason to second-guess one's direction.

I have to get back to work, but I'll be back later.



posted on Nov, 11 2013 @ 11:22 PM
link   

soficrow
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



Exactly. and not only would suns/stars be the result of this re-distribution of energy/matter/information, but everyTHING in existence..

stars are the most obvious example of a HUGE release of energy, but think about the center of the Earth.. that too is a reaction which seems to pass the "boiling-point" which produces a reaction of heat/visible-light and could be seen as "projecting" or giving solidity to the less-energetic matter surrounding it..

I feel limited to some extent in trying to outline the breadth of this theory because I know that if don't watch my language closely, this will become a discussion of semantics instead of reality's nature, BUT I would like to further explore the notion that every "unit" of energy is like a hole which leaks out the raw potential of being from beyond space-time and can be looked at as "projecting" its own being and integrating the projections around it to give the illusion of roundness and depth.

again, I think the word "hologram" can be used to demonstrate this idea (as Philip K Dick attempted to do in his book VALIS) but I do think it is limiting to a certain extent in that it implies that we are living inside of a machine, when in fact i'd like to portray it moreso as an organism which thinks/speaks in the language of "holographics" and is essentially playing a game with itself in an attempt at better understanding and entertaining itself..

but I dunno



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Interesting thoughts, OP.

I don't know enough astronomically to directly address your theories.

But I have a note about something kind of offbeat that, metaphysically, might.

In my personal practices, which kind of evolve seemingly on their own, one of the primary repeat/context elements is that everything is just a matter of scale, and that "I" am "cosmology." From ancient cultural myths to cellular biology. It's not that the stars guide us but that they ARE us (or 'we are the universe.... literally').

Bear with me 'cause I have to explain a lot of background to get there...

I work with what most people call chakras, except for me they are identities, not just dinner-plate spinning vortexes or however most people think of them. For me they are kind of like cross-sectional identities. Like if you imagine a tapestry that is my 'larger self' and then you imagine me-with-this-name as a single vertical thread in that, and all the other me's as the other vertical threads, the chakras would be the horizontal threads. Each of them goes 'through' every-me-there-is. So they are very powerful, spanning and connecting all-the-me's, but only at that one 'level' they operate on. Whereas I'm vastly smaller since I'm only one identity, but I'm also the full 'spectrum' (all the chakra 'levels') so I'm bigger in that other way. Since the chakras are identities to me, it means that I have a relationship with them, so they function a little bit like resident 'guides' whose nature is literally the composite-energy of my body. (I'm leaving out details that would make this only more confusing.)

Over the last 25 years a lot of offbeat stuff has occurred which I had no idea what to make of it, and once in awhile it was horribly traumatic-beyond-words, not to mention confusing as hell, not to mention I resisted the "multiple nested identities" concept like a direct assault on my sense-of-self for years. So I'm like the short-bus-shaman or something, it's taken me eons to work through what might be a lot faster and easier for others for all I know. And I don't always know what is going on at any given time, but I find that going into it like a well-intention'd idiot seems to work a lot better than most intellectual study for me, so I let it work that way. I mention this because if what follows is known in some system, I am unaware of it and am not getting it from there, as I am stumbling through it without reference to anything else at the moment.

At one point a few years ago the gradually-changing 'inner guide' of me changed to a female and halfway through her term became apparent as angelic, literally. I was/am not religious. This is simply a state of the-nature-of-something that when you have the capacity to perceive it and you run into it, is self-evident. When she changed out to the next IG, a male again, he was 'the sun, the son, the christ' he said -- literally what the occultists call the holy guardian angel, or people call the higher self or the atman or whatever. It turns out I have a 'gradually increasing-in-intensity version' of this that I am able to handle, and that's what the 'inner guide' was all along, I just didn't realize it. The one I have now is not the last one in terms of density-of-luminosity, but he's the last major identity I think, and he's something no amount of words could begin to describe, ranging from holy to holy-crap you might say LOL, divine with all the extremes that invokes. But he's also a larger-me I can talk to, and read things from. How good I am at communicating depends on me, and varies. The more I pay attention the better I do. I kinda suck at it 'cause I don't want to live in a cave and I have some cognitive dissonance I'm working through as usual, but the times when I get my act together, the communication works fine. I had over 20 years of my I.G. never talking at all -- a rare single-word was a miracle -- so having conversation and reading (nobody ever mentioned reading!) now is still pretty mindblowing for me.

So not long ago I was loosely meditating, or that thing I do where I just happen to be communing with the identities around me, much like you would talk to people around you, but for me they are my Aeons and chakras... and I'm talking to the heart chakra, and he shows up in 3rd-eye vision as if he's about 8 inches tall and standing on my chest as I'm lying back, which is amusing, and not normal. Symbolic... as if anything in our experience isn't. Then he suddenly has a pickax and he slams it into my chest right between his area and the throat area -- let's just say this was "a very surprising dynamic symbology" for me ha! -- and he basically "digs out" what turns out to be a sort of thick 'covering' in a loosely circular region, as if you were to open up the bone in a way. But when I look at it that area, it's empty inside. It's more like he just took off a covering. He then takes the same off through my back, and I realize the whole thing is like an open tube that goes through me.

Well this was weird, and I spend a week or two feeling like I have this giant tunneling hole that goes through my upper chest. I spend more time doing cleansing than usual, like to protect it. Once I go into it, and I go 'through' the tunnel wall, at which point I should be inside my body, right. But I'm not -- I'm on my way into the stars. I follow what seems a curving path of universe and find myself back at the same place sort of. The tunnel 'twists' like being wrung-out for a moment, and (another symbol) a ton of super tiny gemstones shower into it, like representative gifts of the stars. Then I realize it's like a torus. Like the open inside of that tunnel through my upper chest is its horizontal center. This seems weird to me, since the crown chakra showed me in detail how my body is a torus, but that one goes vertically through my center, and the 'turning point' of that torus is above crown/below feet. This one is diff, and the other direction. I don't know how big the upper-chest torus-of-the-stars is. I can't feel enough of the detail yet. I think it may be a whole lot bigger than the one that I perceive as my chakraic body. Gradually the tunnel has gotten much thinner, though still clearly present. Feels less vulnerable. That's good. For now I've been calling it the "un-chakra." As if it is "the opposite" of my chakras somehow.

When I met my solar plexus chakra, I was talking to Sun (an 'aspect/version' of HGA or vice-versa) and commented on how he was clearly so present there (in the giant yellow cube, as the temple of that chakra appears in a landscape-of-me symbolically -- they come across as giant glowing gems in platonic solids there, for some reason) but I thought he was with heart. He reminded me that his energy is present in all my chakras. Heart is just where he feels most 'local.'

It occurred to me that maybe, in this cosmology model, my chakras are suns. Each are the central divine-light in their own "sphere of influence." And maybe that would make the toroidal-tunnel going through my upper chest a black hole, sort of the polar opposite.

I liked your idea because it wrapped into what I've been thinking about a lot lately, although I hadn't thought of it in quite the way you are doing. I don't know if there is such thing as white-holes since "stars/suns" seems a pretty good concept/name as-is to me. But if my body reflects the universe, there does seem to be an 'opposite' thing now. So maybe the cosmos has that as well.



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by RedCairo
 


wow that was a very interesting read! though I have very limited experience with direct contact or awareness of my "chakras", I definitely have glimpsed their presence and can follow what you are saying. Its interesting because although my ego (the filter that is my brain) has a different set of symbols it uses to relay information, the archetypes seem consistent and this is where this gets intriguing.

First off: the centers of energy/vibration that most call "chakras" have appeared to me as being like the strings on a guitar. If each string is only plucked by itself, there is really know way to know if it's in-tune.. this is how I think most people are attempting to "tune themselves" but most are unaware of it.
however, once I started seeing these energy centers as almost being like "points of reference", I was able to more accurately "tune" those energy centers to maintain a consistent cycle and use energy when INTENDING to instead of only when it is DEMANDED of me..
Then I began to realize that these centers were not un-intelligent cogs in a machine (my most recent stage) and have begun "communicating" with them, but only in the way that musicians can communicate with each other through certain "cues" when improvising and not really physical experiences or "hallucinations" (though don't worry, I don't really believe in the common use of that word
)

Secondly: the HGA. I definitely do NOT consider myself a Christian (nor Buddhist or Hindu, though my wording may share some of their views) but I too have experienced an entity like this (in an *altered state of consciousness*) where it was a woman who very much resembled someone I knew and had been close to (an ex-girlfriend you could say, but the situation is mostly irrelevant to explain) and she seemed very vivid when I closed my eyes. She resembled this girl I knew but seemed more like it was just a convenient and relevant form for her to take so she could communicate with me. Words seem to truly fail in attempting to share this experience because it seems the more I attempt to describe, the more it sounds (to me) like i'm describing some dream/vision from a fairy-tale, but the experience itself, seemed like anything but..
she had a crown on her head and it seemed like an ocean spray of light was coming from behind her (just like in many generic representations of the virgin-mary..)
The communication itself was more in the realm of expressing the "nature of things" rather than "explaining" it, so besides making these threads, i'm left still trying to "understand" it myself (i.e. putting it into thought patterns that can be made into words haha)
the most humorous aspect of this experience was that I had the intuitive notion that "she" was the "goddess" in the pseudo-religion of Discordianism named "Eris" (which is worth a search on Wikipedia if you're unfamiliar)
This too was relevant to the overall "message" though it wasn't entirely obvious at the time.
I did get the impression that she was essentially telling me that "Chaos is nothing to be afraid of. Order is the only true Death" and not only is Eris the Goddess of Chaos (and the number of chaos being 5), but the girl she had assumed the form of, had been 5 years younger than me, we had gotten together on the 5th of January, split-up on the fifth of May.. the 5th month. haha.
this is when I started to not fear pain or death, because if you can learn from everything, there is no such thing as "loss" and in this sense, things can't help but keep getting better



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by HyphenSt1
 





I do appreciate you in-depth response, I will say that first!


I appreciate your appreciation!




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..


I disagree. I've been spending a bit of time studying ethology lately, so bear with me.

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).

Everyones probably been asked this question once, and most people answer the same way: If you had a choice to be an animal or a human, which would you pick? Most say human. And we say that because, despite the "downs" of being conscious of pains, manifest in worrying about the future, and other uniquely human ills, we realize that human consciousness is special; it allows us to understand the world, and otherness; it allows to imagine in ways that no animal possibly could.

As for the creativity of animals, what sort of creativity are you referring to? All I can muster to mind are the games animals can engage in with each other. This ability to "play" - particularly poignant in dogs - does have a creativity about it, but it is woefully and patently inept compared to the intrinsic creativity of humans.




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)


I disagree. 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. This paradox, at root, is the paradox between the brain and heart; the "affective" emotional states, and thinking cognitive states. They were represented by the gods Apollo and Dionysous.

Wherever you go in the world (this was before globalization) you find a culture with a uniquely different way of conceptualizing divinity. In my opinion, this is fortunate because conceptualizing divinity is NOT an easy thing to do; in fact, it seems to necessitate contradiction and paradox.

When I think about the differences between Judaism and Buddhism, I revel at how both serve a particular human niche. Imagine a world where people no longer think of God in a personal way; where they have arrogantly institutionalized a dogma that strips "God" of any personal qualias. People no longer pray because praying would be a "form of attachment". I wouldn't like living in such a self-assured world.

Likewise, I wouldn't want the opposite; I wouldn't like people assuming beyond dispute that the God the bible speaks of can only be cognized in the way described by the sacred scriptures and dogmatic writings of Christianity or Judaism. Buddhism has logical arguments; but so does Judaism (I'm using these two as paradigmatic opposites, which the are) and each serve an emotional need for different types of people.

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.

Me myself, I practice yoga, integrate buddhist/eastern ideas, and am continuously be influenced by the latest research and theories coming out of neuroscience and psychology. But yet, I have my own theories about God, mostly influenced by Judaism. I pray before my meals because I consider the act and fact of eating to be existentially meaningful. I pray for those I love; I give praise when I look around and experience the awesomeness of life.

Maybe this is something unique to my personality and energy levels. Maybe my hyperness primes me for gratitude? And maybe this need to reflect and give thanks draws me towards a particular theology? I don't know. All I know is, I only live once, and I want to live in this way.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Astrocyte
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.


I didn't say that they are "better off" than we are, but I am suggesting that we can learn something from their example. I don't believe they are "privileged" (from my human point-of-view) because they do not seem to have access to some of the same experiences that humans are able to explore.. 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.

when I mentioned that "evolution was the oldest form of art/expression" this is what I am implying: Art, at it's basic definition (when encompassing everything we known as art/creative effort - extending to architecture and other paradigms that are usually thought of as strictly "practical") 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..

or as you phrased it:

The behavior and cognition of animals cannot be separated from the evolutionary causes for these changes.


I know that you were arguing "against" what i'm saying, but I absolutely agree with this sentence, and my reasons for this are described above it. I don't believe I "do" art or music nor do I "build" a house; these things are an extension of what is called "me" and left in my wake.


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).


This is true, but do ALL of these things (including survival..) really necessitate that we see ourselves as more "wise" than the dog..? It seems to me that this neo-cortex leads to nagging tendency to sacrifice the QUALITY of life, for QUANTITY of time being alive, and this extends to being imposed on the animal and plant worlds..

they don't share this ideology being imposed on them, and I don't appreciate that humans have perfected the "art" of war (mostly on nature) before all others. Yes, we go to war with each other and that is what is most talked about (glorified.. and hence perpetuated) but the "war on nature" is something that isn't usually discussed outside of the circles most easily described as "Greenpeace/PETA" types, and as most of us know, become caricatures and great scapegoats for anyone wanting to ignore "the war on nature"... this may be another thread haha.


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


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..

Infinity, by its definition, is ongoing, cyclic, circular, and All-encompassing. While the individual does have a VAST well of potential in creativity, most of it is ignored or procrastinated until the reasoning can catch up and justify it. The only was to apply the concept of infinity is if we take the potential of ALL beings AND things, into account.

I'm not saying the eastern view is TRUE but they also have never really had doctrines any more than the genre of Science-Fiction has ever had "doctrines" that require "belief" or "faith" or whatever. Sure, there are books and stories that are passed on, just as you might tell a friend "you've GOT to read this book.." but it is done in good humor and with a curious mindset; not a judgmental and fearful one.

As you said, the west focuses on material complexity and progress, which does have merit WHEN SEEN AS ART or as a creative effort and by no means am I preaching a "pastoral lifestyle".. (I love old German clocks, Arabic inventions of the 1200s, Nikolae Tesla, Circuit Bending Synthesizers, anything that produces sound electronically etc etc etc)
but it seems that the West tends to take itself too seriously to maintain any semblance of "happiness" in a private way, and happiness can only be justified when shared (and hence when that artistic aesthetic turns to war, we share all-too-much without asking..) and Utilitarianism is the only way to guarantee that "the team is only as strong as the weakest player" whereas The Eastern mindset seems to focus on inner-happiness/enjoyment of life first, and then they may be a Bodhi Sava who doesn't forcefully spread that same mindset to others unwillingly, but instead is just AVAILABLE for those he cares about, to inquire and learn at will..
I remember hearing about a Buddhist that said "The Buddha emphasized impermanence to balance the tendency to assume permanence. 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."


conceptualizing divinity is NOT an easy thing to do; in fact, it seems to necessitate contradiction and paradox


Exactly.. This is why a reliance on logic to justify everything isn't so useful when unbalanced. 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)


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.


(response continued in next post.. sorry this is a long one!
edit on 13-11-2013 by HyphenSt1 because: typosss



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Astrocyte
 


I was with you for the first part of that quote, but then the second part got me lost.. First off, while I know the Buddhists use words and hence "logical sequence" to communicate their views, I think their aim is to DEMONSTRATE or help the "listener" to experience their observations (empirically like science..) instead of "preach the gospel" (though even Buddhists could be accused of seeing a certain lifestyle and mindset as being "the good news" but whatever)

Also, both systems of thought have a sense of "interactive-God" and "God as intrinsic to the phenomena of existence" (and I wasn't sure which were supposed to apply to which system) but the way I see it: The Western religions draw a distinction between the two, The East doesn't.

The West has been "pursuing God" for millennia and SWEAR that "if we can manage to be 'good' enough, we might just catch up with him.. but until then, if we yell really loud, maybe he'll hear us.."

The East has been "becoming God" for millennia upon millennia and sees God as self while it is simultaneously everything in the environment of the moment. "You (the God behind the brain) is what the whole universe is doing from the point in time called Now" ~Alan Watts



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by HyphenSt1
 





but our ability to perceive as human isn't necessary "privileged" either..


This is how I quantify "privilege". Am I superior to animals, in terms of my conscious experience? Does my ability to imaginatively explore an animals behavior, and infer its "umwelt" make my experience a gift, relative to theirs? I say that it does.

Of course, when you relativize differences by assigning philosophical priority to the "now" - allowing you to ignore the many cognitive gifts which make humans qualitatively superior to animals - then I can see how you would not pay much thought to the specialness of human beings.



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.


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.



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..


I would say only humans meet that criteria. Maybe an argument could be made for chimps.



become caricatures and great scapegoats for anyone wanting to ignore "the war on nature"... this may be another thread haha.


Yes, us humans are vortices of potential. We have profound abilities to create, and correspondingly, to destroy.

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.

Right now, great efforts are being made to reverse global warming. Yes, we exploited our environments. We weren't thoughtful enough about the consequences to ecosystems and our atmosphere. But now that we know better, efficient technologies are being introduced yearly to reduce the damage we've caused; LEDs; more efficient combustion engines; hybrids; carbon capture technologies, etc etc, to me represent the goodness of the human spirit.

Steven Pinkers book "the better angels of our nature" - if you haven't read it, I suggest you do.

We are becoming more spiritually wise as a species. We are making better decisions, and we do this, and we feel compelled to do this, because growth, prosperity and happiness are primal human urges.




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..


Everyday we make such decisions. Whether or not their approximations of what is "right" should not obscure from focus the fact that we NEED to make these decisions, daily, in order to live.

Perhaps nothing annoys me more than extremism. Whether it be the dogmatic extremism of the right, in fundamentalist conservatives, whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or what not, as well as the radical extremism of the left, with it's moral relativism and inept questioning of everything.

Both positions make the world a worse place to live. The former makes no concessions - either intellectually, or practically - to it's inherent limitations. And the other is fanatical in it's philosophical brooding. It'll sacrifice the good which can be sought and fostered, for the sake of some imagined philosophical good - which does not always correlate with good ends.

As a psychologist, I am not afraid to direct clients in positive directions. For instance, if I have a client who binge drinks and sleeps around, I have no compunctions about telling her she needs to reflect on her life; she needs to stop the drinking, join a support group, and she should also take stock of her emotional life: why do you feel this need to sleep around?

Fact is, the values enthroned in traditional patriarchal cultural system have universal value. Whether it be Judaism, or Confucianism, common sense is common sense. People need to take stock of left and right (conflicting realities) and make the appropriate adjustments.

I really do believe living is about finding a balance that will promote peace of mind and happiness.



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."


There's actually quite a bit of dogmatic thought in Buddhism/Hinduism/Taosim. Just as there is dogmatism in western religions. Really, to live, and to formulate a sense of self and meaning, seems to require foundational beliefs (assumptions).

As I've tried to explain throughout this thread (it's a good thread btw; and you're a very interesting thinker) 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.




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)


That's more or less my attitude. My theological beliefs satisfy a cognitive impulse to project meaning onto this enigmatic world we inhabit. Philosophically, and psychologically, though, you have to give priority to feeling and emotion. All of the thinking we do is organized by primary emotions. We may not notice it, because, well, to be aware of it requires dissociation. But when you are aware of it, you can see and use emotions in a constructive way.

The fact that the brain is plastic means that we are the architects of our personality. If we want to be more sociable, we should emphasize positive feeling states that encourage inter-subjective relations. Throughout this process, following an eastern-centric precept, people need to avoid identifications; whether it be with some old sense of self, an insecurity which brings to mind an image, etc. All cognitions do is derail us from our experiences.

So, opposite ideas can be integrated, but they need to be hierarchically organized in an intelligent way. For instance, I give priority to my psychological understanding over my theological beliefs; no rabbi or priest is gonna tell me what is right or wrong when my own sound research suggests otherwise.
edit on 13-11-2013 by Astrocyte because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Astrocyte
 


You say that our ability to analyze is a "gift" and I can't argue with that because the idea of a "gift" is in how you see it and use it. if you see your ability to analyze as a gift and become an engineer or architect, I can agree. (MOST) humans have a brain that has the potential to be methodical and think in abstract terms, and this can be good for solving puzzles over time, or working on long-terms goals..

HOWEVER..

if you are this same engineer and you are walking in the forest, thinking your many abstract engineering thoughts, and SUDDENLY THERE'S A TEN FOOT TALL BEAR RIGHT NEXT TO YOU, MAKING EYE CONTACT, REARING UP ON ITS HINDLEGS, *BAM!*

see what I mean..? We have focused on evolving our ability to "reason things out" in a way that requires TIME (and we never seem to have enough of it, do we..?) instead of being able to evaluate, process, and ACT.. all in the same movement.

It seems that modern-man has sacrificed its "immediate response" instincts (such as sizing up danger and USING emotional reactions such as Fear, instead of being paralyzed by it) and in THIS way, I see many animals as having the advantage (or being "superior" to us..)


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.


can you demonstrate how each animal does NOT have an 'I' which intentionally works on its environment? What gives humans the impression that animals aren't doing EXACTLY as they mean to, instead of "just making due for lack of a better alternative"..?
Also, I think it is one of the most obvious qualities of nature to be creative.. hence even secular society is familiar with "mother earth" because this notion seems TOO obvious to ignore..

However, as you say, Evolution is seen as a natural mechanism and hence "involuntary" which seems to be something we can only wave our arms about, because until someone learns to intelligently tap into their DNA within an INDIVIDUAL'S lifetime, we can only theorize, but I have the intuitive notion that evolution is actually VERY much directed by the consciousness, perhaps at the moment of conception, and directs its "suggestions" to the next generation through the intentions and Will that are stored and updated as the being progresses through life..

remember, i'm aware of being in the realm of uncertain, speculative, uninformed, and THEORETICAL thought, but.. think about the mindset of two people conceiving a child who are in Love and sincerely care for each other, contrasted against two people conceiving a child while drunk or in a really awful part of their lives (when the motive behind "the act" is less-than-sincere..) it seems that the mentality of the parents DOES play a part, though I cannot claim to what degree or in what ways..

it just seems connected.


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.


I think I agree with you, but I also have a major beef with the words "good" and "bad" because they are not even subjective to an individual, but also to that individual in that MOMENT. As you said, even after the worst of happenings in history, there are always those who acquire empathy and can LEARN from the past, instead of see it as a guide to repeat.
However, I don't think people can actually LEARN this trait of empathy and understanding, and indeed must have FAITH in their own sense of "right" and "wrong", for it to truly be infallible.

I could put it this way: for one to perform "good actions" in the utilitarian sense, I must first "take care of myself" in the satanic sense, haha. Again, I don't consider myself to be committed to ANY system of thought, so NO I am not a Satanist OR a Utilitarian, but it does seem to me that one must begin with tending to one's own psychology and philosophy (as in your example of being a psychologist and advising a promiscuous person..) as in Satanism, and then move on to selflessness (in the sense of Utilitarianism), all-the-while coming to realize that both fall on opposite sides of the same spectrum and it is really of process of oscillating between the two!


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.


I definitely agree, but I also see morality is something that can't be taught; only learned. The Golden Rule seems to almost be the basic rule of our nervous-system itself.. it is always urging us to test out different environments and experiences, but only seeks to repeatedly seek, or collaborate openly with an environment, if the nervous system receives the treatment that it puts-forth..

This then gets into the theory of "imprinting" and how certain situations and people ATTRACT others with what they offer, because a positive imprint is being reflected, whereas that same offering may seem entirely bizarre or unnecessary by others who have a different imprint related to it.

all-in-all, I think that each religion is based on SOME truth, otherwise no one would be interested.. but the problem is that MOST religions purposefully mislead and misunderstand their own doctrines and do all they must to steer away from realizing the most taboo of realizations:

You are God.

Not your body or your brain (though these are aspects of it..), but the YOU who is reading these words..
the YOU who is behind the brain and outside of space-time..

The YOU who literally decides what is true and what isn't.





new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join