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.
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.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?
Aphorism
This is so obvious to me by the fact that every doctrine is written in books by humans and no one else.
These accounts are either held as valuable or not, but only insofar as they accord with one’s tastes and culture.
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.
Must we learn from Buddha’s advocates rather than act like Buddha himself?
Ideas lie at my feet. I have tasted them and I have spat them out.
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.
Unless you happen to be a comparativist like me.
We humans are co-authoring. You have blinded yourself to the other co-author - the paranormal.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Obviously you can't be sure of that. All you have is the idea that all I have is an idea. Nothing more. :p
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.
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 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
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.
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.
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.
Aphorism
Did you read all of them? I came across some negative and inconclusive answers.
Aphorism
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.