It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Heaven and Hell as Natural Processes

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 21 2017 @ 12:15 AM
I believe in Heaven and Hell, and I do not think there is anything else besides cause and effect, coherency and incoherency.

To put it more simply: there is order and disorder, which can be related to the "ideal" of mind, and the "chaos" of matter. Mind you - even thinking about mind without matter, or matter devoid of mind, sounds senseless and purely academic, and in a important way, this is true.

Everything anyone knows entails Mind in matter, and despite the tall-tales weaved by mystics and occultists, nothing has ever been seen, uttered, or believed, without a Human brain with a dynamical history mediating that knowledge. Everything happens through the brain. You are still very much full-of-fear, and perhaps possess quite a bit of "transitional-object" like dependence on fairy-tales, if you cannot accept this inviolable truth: everything Humans known from the past - such as through "occult societies" - comes through the mediation of brains. This fact has been profoundly under-realized, and indeed, from Shakespeare to Descartes to Rousseau, we have differing degrees of an "arbitrary ethic" which imagines the Human mind as "outside" the natural world.

Spinoza, Goethe, Schiller, and people like this, are the rare few who saw things more clearly, but they have tended to be rejected in favor of Francis Bacon, Descartes, Newton, and the "insane romantics" - who formed the counterpole extreme to the "rational sciences". Polarization - or moving from one extreme, to another, happens through anger, irritation, hatred. We do not assume opposite views to those we oppose by accident: we hate them for believing something we assume to be wrong. The "contra" nature of the position we assume, in reality, is in non-stop conflict/agitation/melodrama with the imaginary opponents inside ones own head. Letting yourself be polarized - into saying things that will piss people off, is not conducive to science, or the acquisition of real knowledge. It is getting caught up in a narrative that forms in us as a function of social-ecological effects. Not recognizing this is the ACME of ignorance - hence the genius of Buddhism to recognize that suffering is ignorance, and knowledge is peace and wellbeing.

To be fair, the liar seeks to find his "mother" - or matter (same etymological root), by committing himself to materialism, falsely believing that the world and its resources are more real and essential to their human pleasure than the love of a mother, or, as happens for many, the love of a wife (or husband). This false option - materialism as a reliable source of emotional satisfaction - suckles from the same teet as the matrix - the mother - who imprints upon the developing nervous system its way-of-being in the world - at the core autonomic level, when deep-brain systems relating bodily metabolism to excitement/fear dynamics in mind become hardwired: this is why early life trauma is never properly recognized, as it is embodied in our feelings, and dealing with the structural elements which mediate how it is you think and value things is not something our cultures conventionalize as relevant to knowledge.

Heaven and Hell

I think Niels Bohr was right, and his most ardent opponent (ala heisenberg) was wrong: all things are based in complementarity.

This truth will probably be extended to life and death, which, contra todays world, may be finally accepted as a part of the way and manner the universe "grows" and develops - with us, internal "avatars" of the world, understood as being ENTIRELY A CREATURE of it.

Mind is not "above", so much as 'within'. If anything is above, it is certainly matter - the world of forms which emerge from symmetry, and generate an entire universe where particles of matter can meet with other particles, and, given the unique physics of a situation, transforms, evolves, accretes, in such a way so that genuinely 'new' properties emerge - such as mind - but that mind never comes without being "stoked" into existence by the ecological context i.e. by MEETINGS between organisms - through play (fun), care (warmth) and awe (transcending the self-world dichotomy).

This means heaven and hell are EMERGENT properties, which means any glib comment on hell from the perspective of "heaven" (or a feeling of strength and invulnerability) is certainly a delusion - and a quintessential function of ABSTRACTING away from feeling, and not taking as a basic fact that bodily feeling underlies belief - convictions about reality.

When You Die...Heaven, or Hell?

There are so many liars online, it astonishes me. These people sometimes have the "eye of horus" symbolism (or other such signs) to show-off their beliefs to Others, which no doubt functions as their personal little idol (to their own prowess) This brutish/asinine child-like teddy-bear fantasy (transitional object in the Winnoctian sense) embodies the same sorts of wishes cultivated by the ancient Egyptians which evolved such talismans: an idea of being "beyond good and evil", and so, filled with a truly shameful sense of invulnerability to the same sorts of affects - suffering inducing - that the less ecologically afforded go through. The facts are, these are just myths - lies - that serve to justify motivational/affective desires to which ancient Egyptians were too ignorant to properly understand. Yet, amazingly, 21st century minds still naively take in ancient myths as if the primitive past offered greater insight into ourselves than the knowledge-factory that is 21st century science.

What Is Hell?

Symmetry and Asymmetry. If love builds our forebrain - literally "enthusing" our brain-mind into a feeling of realness, then certainly the opposite of love is shame - or a feeling of being "disconnected" from others.

This is what most of the mystical traditions describe hell as being, yet there remains a naïve hope-conviction that there is something "above" heaven/hell - the "true god" of the gnostics - which of course smacks of incoherency, as without either there is "meh" - nothingness. Nothingness - hence, nihilism, is taken as a god, yet in the process these nihilist steal good/positivity from others, naively imagining that a tit-for-tat type dynamic isn't to be worried about; indeed, it might be resented as a "punishing" mechanism of some external God (externalizing is an old problem) that their whole gnostic spiel is woven from; the possibility that this is just physics/metaphysics (symmetry), now grown to the level of the golden rule, is hardly appreciated, and how could it be? In any case, a violation of symmetry - i.e. the generation of asymmetry - has a corresponding "shadow side" (encoded entropy) - a world of 'knowledge' which has been occluded from perception during life, but is "released" at death...
edit on 21-5-2017 by Astrocyte because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 21 2017 @ 12:25 AM
You can pretend all you like - and for many people, their guilt and despair is already too high, and the addiction to unruly rebellion too great, to stop being an idiot. As a student of history, it is astonishing and overwhelming to behold, and like them, the allure to dissociate and disconnect can entice us towards indolence - but this would be to walk away and disown any relationship to this universe of ours.

What will happen to such a person? A believer in good an evil instinctively inclines to demonize, but this is a deeply problematic position - because it provokes people into their identifications. In a world ruled by reflexive minds like ours - reflexive high-energy emotional expressions that encode emotions like disgust do not help - but simply stimulate a polarized opposition to you in the Other. Does our society recognize this, or, rather, do we find two forms of the same old problem: externalizing, polarizing, extremism. A subtle, psychologically and ecologically sensitive knowledge is always lost in the midst of insecurity, shame phobia, and the unarticulated need to have others recognize you in some desired capacity.

Good is right and good, yet the ultimate (for me, and likely for others as well) "sell", is that it is sane. By being evil, I essentially consign myself to a future state of suffering - and I've had enough of that. I am good because I believe I understand reality far too coherently (i.e. repeating patterns i.e. realities inherent fracticality) to play games with my being anmore, and not wanting to suffer, I accept what it is I understand, and make an effort to stay within the rules of what is, as it expresses itself in my Human form.

Indeed - living in the now, and not letting yourself get trapped in dysregulated rumination, is key to being resilient. But this approach - importantly - comes with and is intricated with a complex moral sensitivity to Others. You could, of course, choose not to care about another person -as Jim Carrey did when he fed his girlfriend with a drug past and a tendency towards suicide, drugs - but sometime in the far off future, you will find yourself unable to be loving/compassionate to yourself, and this is simply a function of your relational habits. This is also the basis of the idea of karma. This is cause/effect in the brain showing its lack of discrimination between self and other. By not being kind to others - but instead cultivating/energizing a particular feeling-relation to the world which rewards a particular 'desire' you have, you make yourself weak with yourself, which means, when a thought occurs within you which you do not particularly like, how will you control your impulse if you are in the habit of defying the 'rightness' of external relations with others? Not having control on the flow of your feelings in your mind in one context feeds into the other. Being an A$$hole who develops an unflagging egotism promises as its aftermath suicide. Suicides are simply people who are too self-absorbed in their mental habits to gain control of their experience. The narcissist, in other words, is a person primed-to-kill-themselves when things get tough for them. The force of the context in mediating feeling - and so, a sense of capacity, may perhaps finally become real to them, but of course, they will feel nothing but despair and self-pitty. Living "hard", cannot only means a short life, but also a bit of hell as well.

Care for Self, and control of self-experience, is thus a corollary of the exact same approach towards Others. It is spiritual hygiene, of the exact same order and type as washing your hands after you wipe your ass, less the bacteria infested feces somehow gain access to your mouth and so cause disease.

Evil people do not exist. The myth of evil exists, as to with good; but only ignorant, deeply unstable minds engage evil - and they one day will have to 'shed the evil' which they have worn through their lives, and encounter the truths - the many truths which underlie each of their acts of evil. Its hard to imagine the consequence for a person like the chief doctor at Auschwitz, and I don't claim to have knowledge of this persons fate - being a scientist, first and foremost, I can only speculate about things which are only suggested by the facts of natural reality. A faith animates me - in the sense that, in love being a truly generative force within material reality (i.e. your forebrain i.e. a relational act of kindness stimulate neurogenic processes), I believe it is also controls the dynamics of the afterlife experience, or, conversely, in the way and manner a 'soul' reincarnates back into social reality.

Reincarnation, also, is not as problematic as is typically thought, as the facts of the preceding generation are intimately related via cause/effect to the facts of the subsequent generation. People have their places - each of them, within the structuring of society, and enough suffering exists in this world to more than offset the evils of the past.

These issues are deeply complicated, and, being such a speculative subject-matter, I can only surmise and suggest through a logical process suggested by Murray Gell-Mann in his book "The Quark and the Jaguar", to explain my approach.

“I suggest that science A is more fundamental than science B when

1. The laws of science A encompass in principle the phenomena and the laws of science B
2. The laws of science A are more general than those of science B (that is, those of science B are valid under more special conditions than are those of science A

Complementarity and symmetry would be a "science A" that encompasses the facts of natural reality, Science B. Much still awaits explanation in physics - such as dark energy and dark matter, and this may relate to the potentiality (information) of reality as opposed to that which is realized and actuated i.e. matter.

Everyone has desires - and the desires we have place us in places. Every context accommodates a desire, yet the consequences of the desire/context are not known until the effects are lived. Absent a coherent knowledge-system which encapsulates the facts of reality (something I am diligently working towards) people won't change without a lived experience that changes their desires - and ergo - their relationship to reality at large.

Reincarnation may be an a "pegging" process where a long-dead persons desires become reconsolidated within a particular ecology (i.e. couple) who accommodates the relational dynamics of a previous life-world. The information/self associated with those desires "reincarnate", and, since some desires are pure, and others, impure (said differently, coherent or incoherent), like moves to like, which of course harbors certain future consequences for the persons/people who live through the force of a particular context.
edit on 21-5-2017 by Astrocyte because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 21 2017 @ 01:41 AM
First –

“I believe in Heaven and Hell, and I do not think there is anything else besides cause and effect, coherency and incoherency.”

As a general rule it’s best to edit what you have written. Read it out loud to yourself (or another if possible) for coherency.

In this sentence you reference two spectrums – the heaven/hell spectrum of states of existence/mind and a coherent/incoherent spectrum. Cause and Effect is not a spectrum of opposites – they are components of existence each with their own possible spectrum of relevance. Both could have near/far, proximal/distal, even, possibility past, present and future spectrums.

I want to stick to the “I believe in Heaven and Hell” lead of your essay.

We have the explosion of all absolute knowledge is mediated by the mind which I’m assuming only has a physical aspect, but many believe there is a non-material aspect (look up Akasic Record, morphogenic field, etc). More later. You next speak of “transitional objects like dependence on fairy-tales”. Personally, as physical locals, Heaven and Hell are fairy tales.

Then paragraph four which is an incoherent take, I assume, on Thesis, Antithesis but you forgot the third leg of the research triad Synthesis. The Buddhists speak of three basic types of suffering: look them up. Ignorance is one of the THREE POISONS: Greed or craving, aversion or ill-will, and then ignorance/delusion/confusion. These are the basis for all troublesome emotions. The opposite of ignorance is not peace and wellbeing it is clarity. So this paragraph needs some work.

“The liar seeks to find his ‘mother or matter’ by committing himself to materialism” is really awkward. The basic problem of your whole piece is that you are talking about two very different ‘kinds of reality’ if you will. The relative nature of reality (which is the only reality we deal with as non-realized beings) and the absolute reality. We can, as you say theorize about the ABSOLUTE and discuss it in REALITIVE reality but they are two very different things. We can have glimpses of the ABSOLUTE but, as you point out, it’s difficult to convey in human RELATIVE language to others or ourselves. The Buddhists are very good on this difficult distinction (See Joseph Goldstein’s “Mindfulness” for a simple and clear exposition).

Neils Bohr and Werner Heisenberg are both talking about RELATIVE reality and I refer you to thesis, antithesis, synthesis. It takes time and experimentation – both may be right – both may be wrong (Schrodinger’s Cat anyone). Superstring – Multverse – both or neither. There is a wonderful documentary called “Particle Fever” that you might want to watch about how ‘big’ science works.

Again – you speak of liars. Maybe just people with difference experiences then you.

I’ll point you back to Buddhism. Heaven and Hell, which they portray as physical locations, are merely states of mind, manifestations in the RELATIVE of the Three Poisons.

Life isn’t black or white in the RELATIVE world physical, mental, emotional or spiritual but many shades of grey. In the ABSOLUTE it’s all the same or so I like to think and wiser minds then mind have said the like in many languages and in many ways.


posted on May, 21 2017 @ 02:35 AM

originally posted by: Astrocyte
I believe in Heaven and Hell, and I do not think there is anything else besides cause and effect, coherency and incoherency.

That is quite the doxology, catechism.
What religion are you stumping for?

I do not 'believe' in Heaven and Hell, I have Knowledge aka experience!

Unconditional Love (aka Enlightenment) = Health (all forms; mental, physical, spiritual... are judged by the ability to Love) = Heaven (Nirvana).
Anything other than unconditional Love = insinity = Hell!

All your 'duality' exists in/as ego; thought.
'Cause' and 'effect' exists as two opposite Perspectives of the exact same One Reality!
'Cause' and 'effect' is a crude and sloppy way to say; 'two mutually arising opposite Perspectives of the same One Reality!
Both unable to see the other.
Scientifically and philosophically, 'cause' and 'effect' as 'known on the street', is impossible.
And 'coherency/incoherency is all in the eye of the beholder, also;
What to one is 'coherent' is guaranteed to another 'incoherent'!
Hell, one person can see coherent and six months later see incoherency, and vice versa.

"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - First Law of Soul Dynamics

Sometimes the 'obvious' is a mirage. *__-

Yes, there is existence beyond thought/the ego.
Any Zen meditator can attest.

posted on May, 21 2017 @ 05:31 AM
Are you trying to assert that any one person's subjective experience (of karma) is going to be objectively observable , and therefore able to be scientifically proven ? In which case it would become a known reality that morality in human behaviours is essential to tolerable personal and societal existence in the future ? That morals lead to morale , and the opposite is also true , because of (insert clear logical reasoning aka proofs here) ?

Yes? Then 1, you could read a thread of mine called "You're about to become very very rich" which includes Kant's Categorical Imperative . My lne of attack was that "realised wealth exists in the absence of the negation of that wealth"
And 2. Beware there are beings which have committed grave errors in life who do not wish you to continue this line of reasoning towards proofs, rather may insidiously attack you . Was the buddha attacked? Do not doubt however that you are onto something of manifest importance to the future , something which will be proved and on that proof will change this world into a much improved environment .

Shall have to read your words again

posted on May, 21 2017 @ 07:57 AM

originally posted by: Astrocyte
Absent a coherent knowledge-system which encapsulates the facts of reality (something I am diligently working towards) people won't change without a lived experience that changes their desires - and ergo - their relationship to reality at large.

The simple understanding that one thing can be another thing is at the root of all things of our doing. From using colored pebbles for the trading of goats to art and language and on to using symbolic marks to represent pieces of the world too small to see.

Because the paper in our system becomes more valuable than the wealth. It represents power, potentiality, whereas the wealth, you think oh well, that's just necessary; you've got to eat. That's to be really mixed up.

One hundred thousand years is pretty much an eyeblink. But two million years is not. This is, rather loosely, the length of time in which our unconscious has been organizing and directing our lives. And without language you will note. At least for all but that recent blink. How does it tell us where and when to scratch? We don't know. We just know that it’s good at it. But the fact that the unconscious prefers avoiding verbal instructions pretty much altogether—even where they would appear to be quite useful—suggests rather strongly that it doesn't much like language and even that it doesn't trust it. And why is that? How about for the good and sufficient reason that it has been getting along quite well without it for a couple of million years?

"[t]he words of the language, as they are written or spoken, do not seem to play any role in my mechanism of thought. The psychical entities which seem to serve as elements in thought are certain signs and more or less clear images which can be 'voluntarily' reproduced and combined.... The above mentioned elements are, in my case of visual and some of a muscular type.... Conventional words or other signs [presumably mathematical ones] have to be sought for laboriously only in a secondary stage, when the associative play already referred to is sufficiently established and can be reproduced at will"

The picture-story lends itself to parable. To the tale whose meaning gives one pause. The unconscious is concerned with rules but these rules will require your cooperation. The unconscious wants to give guidance to your life in general but it doesn't care what toothpaste you use. And while the path which it suggests for you may be broad it doesn't include going over a cliff. We can see this in dreams. Those disturbing dreams which wake us from sleep are purely graphic. No one speaks. These are very old dreams and often troubling. Sometimes a friend can see their meaning where we cannot. The unconscious intends that they be difficult to unravel because it wants us to think about them. To remember them. It doesn't say that you cant ask for help. Parables of course often want to resolve themselves into the pictorial. When you first heard of Plato’s cave you set about reconstructing it.

[e]pitomizing events bring certain forces together in dramatic combination: they condense various subtle changes into a single transformative act

Seeing God in the other even as the other acts in an evil manner requires divine imagination, the ability to create an image not present to the sensory system. By observing a supposed objective truth out there, we become passive victims relieved of responsibility. Instead, we can use our eyes in active vision, to see with, not through. Rather than compounding our neighbor's error through intellectual condemnation of him, we can enter actively into that relationship through our heart. Freeing him from error in our mind's eye, we open him to deliverance in his own. There is only one heart, and it can take on any form.

posted on May, 21 2017 @ 08:51 AM
"...all things are based in complementarity."

That complementarity is Heaven & Earth, just like we see in Genesis 1:1 and many times after in the Bible: heaven and earth paired together, without Hell. The creation is a hierarchy, not a dichotomy of heaven & hell with us as a prey between them.

I spent two years digging in the KJV, debunking Hell as I went along, writing a long essay which became a 200+ page book. My biggest "Aha!" moment came when I found where Hell really comes from: Norse mythology and their goddess Hell, ruler of Helheim (House of Hel) where they believed you went to if you did not rate Valhalla. It is worth noting that Hell appears as "Hel" twice in the 1611 KJV.

Again, the pairing is Heaven & Earth, not Heaven & Hell.

posted on May, 21 2017 @ 12:30 PM

originally posted by: Lazarus Short
* * * The creation is a hierarchy, not a dichotomy of heaven & hell with us as a prey between them.


Sounds like something the rulers of Hell would say "oh this isnt hell "

You didn't study hard enough. Most of what's in the bible already happened to you. Reincarnation is hell!

posted on May, 27 2017 @ 08:42 PM

originally posted by: BigBangWasAnEcho

originally posted by: Lazarus Short
* * * The creation is a hierarchy, not a dichotomy of heaven & hell with us as a prey between them.


Sounds like something the rulers of Hell would say "oh this isnt hell "

You didn't study hard enough. Most of what's in the bible already happened to you. Reincarnation is hell!

I DID "study hard enough" - hard enough to find who the real ruler of Hell is. That personage is found, not in the Bible, but in Norse mythology. If you didn't rate going to Valhalla, you were thought to be sent to Helheim (House of Hel) which was ruled over by the goddess Hel. "Hel" is found twice in the 1611 KJV, and I can only ask this:

How is it that "Hel" is pagan, but that "Hell" is Christian?

As for reincarnation, Jesus said that if such-and-such were not true, He would say so. Given that, His failure to pick up on Nicodemus' question speaks volumes. No, you don't get born from a womb twice.

new topics

top topics


log in