It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

To Destroy and Create Ideas

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 09:35 PM
link   

To Destroy and Create Ideas

 


1.

No idea is more powerful than that which creates it. The same being who creates ideas destroys ideas.

2.

Whether for joy, practice, or because of some deep-seeded sadistic desire, I have challenged every idea that I’ve ever enjoyed for too long. I often make a habit to repudiate my own spirituality, my buddhism, my asceticism, my desires, my favorite authors, my fears, my piety, my own atheism, my own agnosticism, my own metaphysics, my own science, my own psychology, my own ideals and vanities, before I ever trouble myself with those of others. In doing so, I have diminished any so-called system of truth that I’ve ever advocated to mere play-things of aesthetics, and this sort of criticism has become of aesthetic use to me as well.

Essentially, every truth has so far been a fictional accounts. This is so obvious to me by the fact that every doctrine is written in books by humans and no one else. We have no truth to compare our truths to, and we are explaining more ourselves, how we think, how we observe and how we express the world more than the world itself. These accounts are either held as valuable or not, but only insofar as they accord with one’s tastes and culture. What is valuable isn’t how “true” they are—for they are likely all false—but how aesthetically pleasing they are, and what they inspire us to create. More-so, that they were created in the first place.

Of course, this judgement is aesthetically pleasing to me only. But by having faith in it, I’ve began to see all forms of human expression—religion, science, music, dance, poetry, literature, history, philosophy, culture—as humans being creative, and thus inherently valuable, despite what those who believe them to be truths or untruths might do in their name.

3.

Red flags. What do we accomplish by absorbing someone else’s thought and deeming it “truth”. Are we not ourselves fundamentally equal in the infinite amount of ways we can express ourselves just as those who proposed these doctrines? As an advocate, we become merely a host of ideas, and not a creator of them. We become but an outlet for someone else’s expression, an advocate, a mouthpiece, a priest, in the hopes of...what?...that we can pretend we are as creative as them instead of being creative as them? Must we learn from Buddha’s advocates rather than act like Buddha himself?

4.

Ideas lie at my feet. I have tasted them and I have spat them out. They are around me but no longer within me—god, pessimism, nihilism, atheism, agnosticism, science, soul, spirituality—some I find use for, some I might return to when I’m lonely, others I will use as tinder in the dark. But what now? Must I now be silent?

I return to the rubble left in the wake of this destruction, pick up a piece here, a piece there, and begin to build something again.




posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Insightful.

Though I have to say all those things you mentioned weren't created by you and weren't destroyed by you.

You might have perused their notions, toyed with their effect on your mind, expanded upon your interpretations of them but they are universal concepts for all to peruse.

Perhaps you touched upon some fundamental essence of these that impressed upon your spirituality like glimpsing an ethereal light that forever you will try to discern and rationalise while it forever is elusive, just out of reach, tempting you to forever search because you know it is of eternal yearning for belonging to that which is eternal.
edit on 4-1-2014 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Aphorism
 


Your system of beliefs is much more than aesthetics. Your system of beliefs is based on your system of values. Both systems govern your behavior. The moral and ethical choices you make are based on what you are now calling "aesthetics".



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Aphorism
This is so obvious to me by the fact that every doctrine is written in books by humans and no one else.


Obviously you have no idea what its like to be a mystic; to have God inside you and around you simultaneously. To be like a symbiont, like a vehicle, like a guesthouse. To have the other seeing through your eyes, talking through your lips, writing through your pen, being through your being as you stand in the immovable spot.


These accounts are either held as valuable or not, but only insofar as they accord with one’s tastes and culture.


Unless you happen to be a comparativist like me.




Of course, this judgement is aesthetically pleasing to me only. But by having faith in it, I’ve began to see all forms of human expression—religion, science, music, dance, poetry, literature, history, philosophy, culture—as humans being creative, and thus inherently valuable, despite what those who believe them to be truths or untruths might do in their name.


We humans are co-authoring. You have blinded yourself to the other co-author - the paranormal.


Must we learn from Buddha’s advocates rather than act like Buddha himself?


Only a Buddha can act like a Buddha, because only a Buddha has undergone the psychological transformations that altered states of consciousness produce. In other words, mysticism.


Ideas lie at my feet. I have tasted them and I have spat them out.


Tasting isn't enough. You'll starve to death. You can't adequately absorb and decode the esoterics of a mystical tradition until you have practiced mystical disciplines long enough to become initiated. That means consuming not tasting.

I suggest you "taste" Shakespearean mysticism by reading this book , grok some of the ideas in it, and realize the solution to the tragic equation.

1. The idea of an inclusive system, a grand spiritual synthesis, reconciling religious extremes in an integrated vision of union with the Divine Love.

2. The idea of syncretic mythology, in which all archaic mythological figures and events are available as a thesaurus of glyphs or token symbols - the personal language of the new metaphysical system.

3. The idea of this concordance of mythological (and historical) figures simply as a Memory System, a tabulated chart of all that can be known, of history, of the other world, and of the inner worlds, and in particular of spiritual conditions and moral types.

4. The idea of this system as a theatre.

5. The idea of these images as internally structured poetic images - the idea of the single image as a package of precisely folded multiple meanings, consistent with the meanings of a unified system.

6. The idea of as-if-actual visualization as the first practical essential for effective meditation (as in St Ignatius Loyola's Spiritual Disciplines, as well as in Cabbala)

7. The idea of meditation as a conjuring, by ritual magic, of hallucinatory figures - with whom conversations can be held, and who communicate intuitive, imaginative visions and clairvoyance.

8. The idea of drama as a ritual for the manipulation of the soul.


edit on 5-1-2014 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueMule
 


Obviously you have no idea what its like to be a mystic; to have God inside you and around you simultaneously. To be like a symbiont, like a vehicle, like a guesthouse. To have the other seeing through your eyes, talking through your lips, writing through your pen as you stand in the immovable spot.


And obviously, all you have is an idea, nothing more. What is important is what you make of it. I personally don’t wish for a God to speak for me. Hence, I do not require mysticism.


Unless you happen to be a comparativist like me.


Something you seem mighty proud of. There’s nothing wrong with pride in one’s label I suppose. Maybe one day you’ll lose interest in it, or find a chink in it’s armour that you do not wish to become a martyr for it any longer. Or perhaps that label is what you strive to become.



We humans are co-authoring. You have blinded yourself to the other co-author - the paranormal.


What? You have blinded yourself by imagining a co-author, and in turn, limit your own faculties. At least you’ve devised a way to stop taking responsibilty for yourself.


Only a Buddha can act like a Buddha, because only a Buddha has undergone the psychological transformations that altered states of consciousness produce. In other words, mysticism.


Yes, but only according to mystics. Anyone else will tell you he was just a man. I am not a mystic and see things differently and speak about things differently than a mystic does.


Tasting isn't enough. You'll starve to death. You can't adequately absorb and decode the esoterics of a mystical tradition until you have practiced mystical disciplines long enough to become initiated. That means consuming not tasting.


That’s because I don’t want to. It’s boring to me. It’s tasteless. It’s without substance. I’ve been there and done that. It has become lesser in my eyes.


I suggest you "taste" Shakespearean mysticism by reading this book , grok some of the ideas in it, and realize the solution to the tragic equation.

1. The idea of an inclusive system, a grand spiritual synthesis, reconciling religious extremes in an integrated vision of union with the Divine Love.

2. The idea of syncretic mythology, in which all archaic mythological figures and events are available as a thesaurus of glyphs or token symbols - the personal language of the new metaphysical system.

3. The idea of this concordance of mythological (and historical) figures simply as a Memory System, a tabulated chart of all that can be known, of history, of the other world, and of the inner worlds, and in particular of spiritual conditions and moral types.

4. The idea of this system as a theatre.

5. The idea of these images as internally structured poetic images - the idea of the single image as a package of precisely folded multiple meanings, consistent with the meanings of a unified system.

6. The idea of as-if-actual visualization as the first practical essential for effective meditation (as in St Ignatius Loyola's Spiritual Disciplines, as well as in Cabbala)

7. The idea of meditation as a conjuring, by ritual magic, of hallucinatory figures - with whom conversations can be held, and who communicate intuitive, imaginative visions and clairvoyance.

8. The idea of drama as a ritual for the manipulation of the soul.


We speak different languages. It’s all meaningless to me with your mystical jargon. That is your language, not mine.

Every doctrine is conceived in language. That is the simple answer to your tragic question.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by fractal2
 



Your system of beliefs is much more than aesthetics. Your system of beliefs is based on your system of values. Both systems govern your behavior. The moral and ethical choices you make are based on what you are now calling "aesthetics".


That sounds more like your system of beliefs, not mine.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Aphorism
reply to post by BlueMule
 


Obviously you have no idea what its like to be a mystic; to have God inside you and around you simultaneously. To be like a symbiont, like a vehicle, like a guesthouse. To have the other seeing through your eyes, talking through your lips, writing through your pen as you stand in the immovable spot.


And obviously, all you have is an idea, nothing more.


Obviously you can't be sure of that. All you have is the idea that all I have is an idea. Nothing more. :p


What is important is what you make of it. I personally don’t wish for a God to speak for me. Hence, I do not require mysticism.


Do you really think the goal of mysticism is to have God speak for you? No. As I said its a co-authorship, a unity. Deus Factus Sum. Before you decide whether you require mysticism or not, you might want to learn what it is and what it isn't.


Something you seem mighty proud of. There’s nothing wrong with pride in one’s label I suppose. Maybe one day you’ll lose interest in it, or find a chink in it’s armour that you do not wish to become a martyr for it any longer. Or perhaps that label is what you strive to become.


When you've watched the vid, maybe you could make a thread about it?


What? You have blinded yourself by imagining a co-author, and in turn, limit your own faculties. At least you’ve devised a way to stop taking responsibilty for yourself.


I'm sorry, but the evidence is against you. The paranormal is quite real. When you have the time, I suggest you check out a sample of the evidence.

I suggest you pay close attention to the sheep-goat effect. You sir are definitely a "goat". What do the scoring patterns of psi experiments say about goats? Put two and two together.


We speak different languages. It’s all meaningless to me with your mystical jargon. That is your language, not mine.

Every doctrine is conceived in language. That is the simple answer to your tragic question.


It's not my tragic equation, its the Bards.

If you speak the language of scholarship and science, then you can learn to speak comparativism and parapsychology, unless strong biases stand in the way. From there, its a simple matter to bring a kind of "earthing" to the paranormal.

"I have always seen parapsychology as the "earthing" of the spiritual. In our experiments we explore the psychic in a very logical, rational, exoteric manner. We assign clearly demonstrable proof ratings to the different variables. In such a manner we have inadvertently confirmed many spiritual teachings, for example that one's attitude or belief about something may actually affect the occurrence of that particular matter. Faith, it used to be called, although now it is "the sheep-goat effect," was said to be able to move mountains. Jesus spoke quite extensively on the incredible effect of faith, which has now become transmuted into attitude, and the Hindus have a spiritual path centered around faith called Bhakti Yoga. Our modern terms are more applicable to our present society, but underneath the change in terminology the concept lives on.

Another example of the "earthing of a religious concept" occurs when doing a ganzfeld or other free-response experiment. The first thing the participant is taught to do is to become aware of the content of their mind. This action is what the Christians call contemplation and the Buddhists call mindfulness, and it is the first step in meditation, the first step in learning how to develop one's mind. The state of consciousness that the ganzfeld induces is to be found in quite a number of different religions as well, albeit induced in radically different methods, such as getting up and chanting at 3 a.m. the point in common with all these methods is the aim to create a state of consciousness whereby the conscious mind is stopped, thus allowing one to access material from the collective unconscious." -Serena Roney-Dougal


edit on 5-1-2014 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueMule
 



Obviously you can't be sure of that. All you have is the idea that all I have is an idea. Nothing more. :p


Surety is a fools game.


Do you really think the goal of mysticism is to have God speak for you? No. As I said its a co-authorship, a unity. Deus Factus Sum. Before you decide whether you require mysticism or not, you might want to learn what it is and what it isn't.


A co-authorship with who? I don’t require a co-author. Because so far it seems your co-authors are but videos and quotes of people beside yourself doing the authorship.


I’m sorry, but the evidence is against you. The paranormal is quite real. When you have the time, I suggest you check out a sample of the evidence.

I suggest you pay close attention to the sheep-goat effect. You sir are definitely a "goat". What do the scoring patterns of psi experiments say about goats? Put two and two together.


I do not require the paranormal. That is your game, you play it.


”I have always seen parapsychology as the "earthing" of the spiritual. In our experiments we explore the psychic in a very logical, rational, exoteric manner. We assign clearly demonstrable proof ratings to the different variables. In such a manner we have inadvertently confirmed many spiritual teachings, for example that one's attitude or belief about something may actually affect the occurrence of that particular matter. Faith, it used to be called, although now it is "the sheep-goat effect," was said to be able to move mountains. Jesus spoke quite extensively on the incredible effect of faith, which has now become transmuted into attitude, and the Hindus have a spiritual path centered around faith called Bhakti Yoga. Our modern terms are more applicable to our present society, but underneath the change in terminology the concept lives on.

Another example of the "earthing of a religious concept" occurs when doing a ganzfeld or other free-response experiment. The first thing the participant is taught to do is to become aware of the content of their mind. This action is what the Christians call contemplation and the Buddhists call mindfulness, and it is the first step in meditation, the first step in learning how to develop one's mind. The state of consciousness that the ganzfeld induces is to be found in quite a number of different religions as well, albeit induced in radically different methods, such as getting up and chanting at 3 a.m. the point in common with all these methods is the aim to create a state of consciousness whereby the conscious mind is stopped, thus allowing one to access material from the collective unconscious." -Serena Roney-Dougal


It seems you’re quite capable of reciting another’s opinions. Are you capable of the same creativity they are? Or do you require authorities to be your co-authors?



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Aphorism

I do not require the paranormal.


You ARE paranormal.

It looks to me like you are unwilling to allow evidence to challenge your beliefs.

You asked me to teach you, and yet you are unwilling to take the posture of a student. You are unwilling to look at data outside your comfort zone. You are unwilling to take my suggestions. You are unwilling to think in new ways. You just want to hoist your cynicism up the flagpole and see who salutes.


edit on 5-1-2014 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueMule
 





You ARE paranormal.

It looks to me like you are unwilling to allow evidence to challenge your beliefs.

You asked me to teach you, and yet you are unwilling to take the posture of a student. You are unwilling to look at data outside your comfort zone. You are unwilling to take my suggestions. You are unwilling to think in new ways. You just want to hoist your cynicism up the flagpole and see who salutes.


You seems just as unwilling to think in new ways. Who cares?

And since when was this thread about psi? It is something that has over 100 years of research, but without making a single advance. All that comes of it are charlatans and pseudoscience. There are numerous anecdotes of bad science. Positives are analyzed while nulls are thrown in the trash.

I did look at some of the evidence you posted. Sure I would agree it warrants more study. Did you read all of them? I came across some negative and inconclusive answers.

Here's one I find particularly interesting:



The results support the null hypothesis that psi does not
exist. The brains of our participants—as a group and
individually—reacted to psi and non-psi stimuli in a
statistically indistinguishable manner.


Would you agree with this evidence that you yourself linked to?



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 12:29 AM
link   
We, ultimately, reject all that we cannot accept. The things we accept are exactly what we are comprised of. Yet how many facets of our spirit's stone were actually cut by us?

Only experience provides instantly acceptable components we then build ourselves with. We are, in truth, our experience. Otherwise, we are projections of others' experiences.

To this day, based on science, I don't know if eggs are good or bad for you. But they are, in my experience, good for me. My experience is my science and my religion. Everything else seems like counterarguments or CONTROLS.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Aphorism
reply to post by fractal2
 



Your system of beliefs is much more than aesthetics. Your system of beliefs is based on your system of values. Both systems govern your behavior. The moral and ethical choices you make are based on what you are now calling "aesthetics".


That sounds more like your system of beliefs, not mine.

I'm not following. What sounds like my system of beliefs? That my beliefs govern my behavior? So you don't behave based on your beliefs? Your beliefs not based on your values?

What is a belief? What is a value? Do either of them govern your behavior?



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Aphorism
Did you read all of them? I came across some negative and inconclusive answers.


Negative and inconclusive answers are a big part of science. Science is clumsy and limited. Parapsychologists don't try to hide negative and inconclusive answers from you, because it is a fair-minded science and it expects you to be fair-minded too. It has nothing to hide.

There are a lot more positive and conclusive answers than negative out there. Debunkers aren't going to be fair-minded about those, though. They are going to be dogmatic.

In short there is no excuse for your cynicism.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueMule
 


Cynicism about what, BlueMule? I am not cynical towards people. I am cynical towards ideas. I wouldn't take it personally.

I'm curious about all of the experts on psi who have been found to be charlatans and liars. It seems that parapsychology is the only field with such high amounts of dishonesty. Parapsychologist Susan Blackmore's stories about negative result suppression is particularly alarming. Again I must add: 100 years of research in parapsychology...and what advances have been made?



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Aphorism
I'm curious about all of the experts on psi who have been found to be charlatans and liars.


Charlatans and liars are hardly confined to parapsychology. They are an equal problem for science as a whole, and for religion too.


It seems that parapsychology is the only field with such high amounts of dishonesty.


If that's what you think, then you are seeing only what you want to see.


Parapsychologist Susan Blackmore's stories about negative result suppression is particularly alarming.


There are two sides to every story.

A Critical Examination of the Blackmore Psi Experiments Susan Blackmore - A critique of the Blackmore psi (ESP) experiments


ABSTRACT: A critical examination of Susan Blackmore’s psi experiment database was undertaken to assess the claims of consistent “no ESP” across these studies. Many inconsistencies in the experimental reports were found, and their serious consequences are discussed. Discrepancies were found between the unpublished experimental reports and their published counterparts. “Flaws” were invoked to dismiss significant results while other flaws were ignored when studies produced nonsignificant results.

Experiments that were admittedly flawed in the unpublished reports were mixed with supposedly unflawed studies and published without segregation, creating the impression of methodological soundness. Two instances in which study chronology was reordered were found. Overall, it is concluded that Blackmore’s claims that her database shows no evidence of psi are unfounded, because the vast majority of her studies were carelessly designed, executed, and reported, and, in Blackmore’s own assessment, individually flawed. As such, no conclusions should be drawn from this database.



Again I must add: 100 years of research in parapsychology...and what advances have been made?


A lot of progress has been made, given the lack of funding and given the fact that parapsychology has organized opposition - which is an unusual thing for a science to endure.

Despite the opposition of pseudo-skeptic activists, more than enough evidence has been accumulated to settle the question of whether psi is real or not. One can lead a horse to that evidence but can't make it drink.

The "lets gather evidence to try to satisfy the skeptics" stage of parapsychology is ending. There's more than enough evidence to satisfy a fair-minded skeptic. The "lets use the evidence to try to understand psi" stage is beginning.

"The magnitude of psychic functioning exhibited appears to be in the range between what social scientists call a small and medium effect. That means that it is reliable enough to be replicated in properly conducted experiments, with sufficient trials to achieve the long-run statistical results needed for replicability.

A number of other patterns have been found, suggestive of how to conduct more productive experiments and applied psychic functioning. For instance, it doesn't appear that a sender is needed. Precognition, in which the answer is known to no one until a future time, appears to work quite well. Recent experiments suggest that if there is a psychic sense then it works much like our other five senses, by detecting change. Given that physicists are currently grappling with an understanding of time, it may be that a psychic sense exists that scans the future for major change, much as our eyes scan the environment for visual change or our ears allow us to respond to sudden changes in sound.

It is recommended that future experiments focus on understanding how this phenomenon works, and on how to make it as useful as possible. There is little benefit to continuing experiments designed to offer proof, since there is little more to be offered to anyone who does not accept the current collection of data." -Jessica Utts

To be cynical toward the idea of psi is to be accepting of the scientistic dogma that motivated "skeptics" regurgitate. Why don't you try being cynical toward "skeptics" and their scientistic dogma for a change. Or would that be too much for you to handle?


edit on 7-1-2014 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueMule
 


You're a master at Google-fu I'll give you that. Your knowledge about parapsychology far outweighs mine.

I look at things philosophically before I do scientifically. And I have nothing but questions when I look at the idea of psi.

How do they expect to find immaterial causes to material effects using material means?

How do they expect to observe something that is non-observable?

How do they know what they're looking for if they don't know what it is?

It really seems that they've resorted to meta-analysis, and combing through so much data until they find anomalies. It seems they don't even know what they're looking for and are hoping to find it like a needle in a haystack. In all of Dean Radin's "evidence", I see not a single conclusive result for or against psi. Now I don't wish to go through 100 years of results, but I expect that the rest are not that different.



To be cynical toward the idea of psi is to be accepting of the scientistic dogma that motivated "skeptics" regurgitate. Why don't you try being cynical toward scientistic dogma for a change.


You yourself are speaking a dogma. Why don't you try being cynical towards psi for a change?

I am critical about "science" all the time. I think science invokes more gods than religion does. You have me confused with someone else.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Aphorism
reply to post by BlueMule
 


You're a master at Google-fu I'll give you that. Your knowledge about parapsychology far outweighs mine.

I look at things philosophically before I do scientifically. And I have nothing but questions when I look at the idea of psi.

How do they expect to find immaterial causes to material effects using material means?

How do they expect to observe something that is non-observable?

How do they know what they're looking for if they don't know what it is?


These are all good questions and there are good answers for them out there. No doubt you are willing and able to consider the answers from the perspectives of many philosophical schools of thought. Not just materialism.


It really seems that they've resorted to meta-analysis, and combing through so much data until they find anomalies. It seems they don't even know what they're looking for and are hoping to find it like a needle in a haystack. In all of Dean Radin's "evidence", I see not a single conclusive result for or against psi. Now I don't wish to go through 100 years of results, but I expect that the rest are not that different.


Well, I don't blame you. I won't ask you to go through all that. What I'm asking you to do is use mindfulness to consider your expectations. A "conclusive result" might seem like a reasonable expectation, but it isn't. Science just doesn't work that way so why should parapsychology?

I think you do need a bird's eye view though. An overview of the history and of the large body of evidence that has accumulated over the last century so you can understand the rationale and get answers to your questions. Approach it as you would any science and start with the college textbook and become aware of the peer-reviewed parapsychology journals.


You yourself are speaking a dogma. Why don't you try being cynical towards psi for a change?

I am critical about "science" all the time. I think science invokes more gods than religion does. You have me confused with someone else.


Well that's great news. I'm sure that you'll enjoy giving the college textbook a fair trial.

I have spontaneous veridical psychic experiences all the time, so I can't be as skeptical toward the subject as you can. Plus, the more you know about the evidence the harder it is to let materialistic presuppositions interfere with critical thinking. I think that's happening to you. There are hidden philosophical premises in your questions about parapsychology and in your expectations of the evidence.


edit on 7-1-2014 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join