Religious Revival & A Lack of Metaphysics.

reply to post by muzzleflash

How do you turn someone away from Everything?
You keep talking about spirituality like it's a possession that can be traded or stolen, so color me confused.

Explain how spirituality can be stolen or taken away.
I am very curious to find out how this works because it seems impossible.

Exactly. I have no clue how my opinion on spirituality would affect another's spirituality.

I have written a few threads stating that everyone is inherently spiritual. I don't see how it can be any other way.

Aphorism
The question I have for you is: why are my opinions worthy of your concern? Do you perhaps fear that I may turn people away from spirituality? Or that I am being dishonourable towards it? Or that they somehow take away from your truths? I am being sincere here.

None of the above.

If only the universe were composed of numbers and values, the numerologists, the neo-pythagoreans would have something to rationally believe in. There are even those who look at the time and believe they see something called “synchronicity” within the base 60 system, but they only witness how the Babylonians used to count to 60 with their fingers. Notches on bones are their gods.

There are many systems of divination throughout world religion and myth, and they are all based on the principle of synchronicity. As a psychic ability, synchronicity is vulnerable to many variables including your attitude toward it. In parapsychological terms, you sir are a goat.

"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

reply to post by Aphorism


But I didn't see anyone say that except you, twice.
Maybe I missed the others?

The poster you claimed inferred that didn't seem to at all.
So what gives?

Seems unfair to me, it's a straw man fallacy.

A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having denied a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet inequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to deny it, without ever having actually denied the original position.[3][4] This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues. In those cases the false victory is often loudly or conspicuously celebrated.

So instead of actually debating the points, you twisted it into a straw man, then played the victim card immediately afterwards? That's not fair at all.

If I am wrong, explain how what you did is not a straw man tactic?
If the poster you put that on did in fact claim you were 'stealing spirits', than my post obviously is invalid.
I cannot find the post though.

Attention

*Stay on topic*

Accusations and debate rhetoric is not on topic.

Ahhh! yes! Nicely put.

I believe so do you. It is inescapable, humans need to believe in something.

When you have faith in something, it means that you could be wrong. It means that you are placing yourself in a vulnerable position. You are believing before knowing or without proof.

Some people are afraid of making mistakes so they rather believe in nothing just in case.

People who never make mistakes, don't do much.

reply to post by BlueMule

There are many systems of divination throughout world religion and myth, and they are all based on the principle of synchronicity. As a psychic ability, synchronicity is vulnerable to many variables including your attitude toward it. In parapsychological terms, you sir are a goat.

So I give off bad vibes? The argument to end all arguments.

It’s interesting though, and hopefully I can tie it in to the topic. You’ve never met me, nor are you likely near my proximity. How are you even in contact with my vibe? Is it that you feel me through your computer screen? Yet you have me (or at least some version of me floating around in your head) pegged as someone who gives off bad vibes, and have endowed me with the term “goat”, a term apparently quite meaningless outside of the grand field of parapsychology. I am sitting in a chair near a fireplace, sipping tea; if synchronicity is vulnerable to this, then I dare say synchronicity is the weakest force ever invented.

But this is what I’m talking about. Our religiosity and fundamentalism (that is the strict adherence to basic principles ie. synchronicity) leads us to contempt for those who have different basic principles, different labels, different ideals, even though every ideal, every principle, and every label are exactly the same insofar as they are all principles, labels, and ideals expressed by man in the language of his choosing. Ontologically there’s no difference; and however one ascribes value to a certain principle or other is simply a matter of opinion, a matter of taste and fancy, and nothing at all to kill, die or raise one’s blood-pressure over.

The only one vulnerable to my attitude is you. It is your intuition, your intellect, your thought content and your emotions your vibe that you are dealing with, not mine. If words on a screen can breed this sort of delusion (a term used in psychology) and emotion, then something might be severely wrong.

reply to post by muzzleflash

That's not fair at all.

I was speaking figuratively. But if you wish to say I'm being fallacious, maybe look to the ad hominem first and know that my straw man is quite a fair response. Or do fallacies only apply to me?

That's not fair at all.

religion is what you fall back on when you vote for people like bush or obama one two many times. religion is what produces jems of wisdom like the following "if you can't convert it, kill it". religion is what demands people that have no money to spare still give to the church, OR ELSE!. religion and cancer, we'll never be rid of either. i take that back, there is a cure for cancer, it's called death. there is no cure for religion

reply to post by tgidkp

the core of the OP statement can be characterized as an equivalence of all rational judgments according to a pluralistic relativism. in other words: there is a This and there is a That, but neither This nor That can be structured according to some vertical-hierarchical value system. the inevitable result of this type of thinking is a horizontal bland gray homogeneous mush where everything is something is nothing.

we can test this idea via simple observation of the world around us. quite plainly, we can see that reality does indeed appear to be constructed of Things. in order for this to be true, a vertical-hierarchical structure must exist as a fundamental corollary of reality. there is a This and there is a That, and much of the time This is 'higher than' That. the hierarchy of reality is the natural result of the evolution of forms, directionally, from stability to instability to stability.... and so on.

Therefore, inasmuch as we are members of reality, our thought-forms must also be structured according to some definite hierarchy.... one which is not subject to the demands of any individual in particular, but rather, one which may give proper context to all individuals in general.

It is a structure that can be known... but only after we move beyond egalitarianism, which is an unstable phase, back into a stable phase. we will expect this structure to be somewhat similar in nature to the current conventional (religious) paradigm, but different in that it will contain all previous phases on the interior of its new boundary.

and upon this 'new boundary' can be given a 'new name'. this is the proper revival.

This was beautiful by the way. I love the idea of a new boundary. This is true metaphysics in the classic sense.

reply to post by tencap77

religion is what you fall back on when you vote for people like bush or obama one two many times. religion is what produces jems of wisdom like the following "if you can't convert it, kill it". religion is what demands people that have no money to spare still give to the church, OR ELSE!. religion and cancer, we'll never be rid of either. i take that back, there is a cure for cancer, it's called death. there is no cure for religion

There have been plenty of attempts to eradicate religion in some societies. It led to nothing but massacre and genocide. It is no different than any other type of fundamentalism. To practice religion is a natural right, a result of the creative impulse.

And apologies to the mods. I didn't realize the religion forums were going through turmoil. I would've named it more carefully.

tgidkp
Therefore, inasmuch as we are members of reality, our thought-forms must also be structured according to some definite hierarchy.... one which is not subject to the demands of any individual in particular, but rather, one which may give proper context to all individuals in general.

Aphorism
This was beautiful by the way. I love the idea of a new boundary. This is true metaphysics in the classic sense.

I guess the first question is how is knowledge itself structured.
(always loved those recursive meta devices)
In my estimation of the history of civil, religious, state, and corporate cultures I find the structure is in a simple linear descending order from Astronomy at the top, then Law, Medicine, and finally architecture which late comes to include engineering and splinters into a million specialties. In the post information age, that splintering into a million specialties has started to creep into law, and now medicine. I guess if I had to make a jpg of it or something in would look like..

Astronomy
Law
Medicine
Architecture/Engineering

That is pretty much the long and the short of grecco-european-western history. In the East, the hierarchy is more land based than concept based. Remember for a long period in history all sea travel hugged the coast. The Greeks made Astronomy the number one priority and crossed all over the Mediterranean through the privilege of navigation. In the East privilege is beholden to heir of the most land. This influence on western culture is known as Monarchy, where everything is structured around some individuals rather than around some studied field of knowledge, let alone a structure of knowledge itself. The philosophy books of Lao Tse, Musashi, and tea are all, at best, trying to correct the behavior of the reader with little admonitions about the potentials for excessive exuberance and lessons about not enough diligence in study. But knowledge could hardly be called the modus operandi.

The reason that Astronomy comes before law,
is because without a civil calendar... well ...
have you ever noticed that a ticket always has
a date on it. The correct date. Yeah, law
pretty much can't exist without dates, and
recording dates. Usually a log book is admissi-
ble in court. One that records the date and
time of peoples movements.

Medicine follows law, because with restitution
society can begin to detect the trouble from
the product. And, if someone is actually sick
and not just annoying, it can be cured. usually
the High Priest is basically a Doctor. It is at
this point that the healing, initiation of the young,
and honoring the deceased comes into society.

And it works in the spaces between the effects
of the existing date/legal system.

Eventually civilizations grow ancient. The Great
architect existed in India as well, and the longest
legacy of the Pax Romana were her roads. The
perfect feat of engineering. For in Engineering
the fewer moving parts the better. And a Roman
road has zero moving parts. In addition it is
even stronger than a wall, as it is supported by
the earth itself.

A highly specialized expression of specific know-
ledge with a legacy of coming from the stars
across the oceans. Understanding one's own
place in this larger structure of knowledge is
called the way.

Mike Grouchy

Aphorism
reply to post by BlueMule

 

There are many systems of divination throughout world religion and myth, and they are all based on the principle of synchronicity. As a psychic ability, synchronicity is vulnerable to many variables including your attitude toward it. In parapsychological terms, you sir are a goat.

So I give off bad vibes? The argument to end all arguments.

Bad vibes, yes. In a manner of speaking. The argument to end all arguments and to begin something else - hopefully good vibes. You have it within yourself to open up to the song of the universe.

It’s interesting though, and hopefully I can tie it in to the topic. You’ve never met me, nor are you likely near my proximity. How are you even in contact with my vibe? Is it that you feel me through your computer screen?

It's simple really. It's that I can read your posts. You are very dismissive of parapsychological phenomena such as synchronicity, despite the ample evidence that they are real. That puts you squarely on the goat side of the sheep-goat effect. Which means, you aren't likely to experience those phenomena. You're repressing them, and so you can't hear the song of the universe. You don't have 'ears to hear and eyes to see', hence your cynicism.

reply to post by BlueMule

It's simple really. It's that I can read your posts. You are very dismissive of parapsychological phenomena such as synchronicity, despite the ample evidence that they are real. That puts you squarely on the goat side of the sheep-goat effect. Which means, you aren't likely to experience those phenomena. You're repressing them, and so you can't hear the song of the universe. You don't have 'ears to hear and eyes to see', hence your cynicism.

Sorry sir but this is the sort of invoking of spirits that is all too common among this religious revival. You know nothing of my vibe. That is the only facts we have here. You don't have the ears and eyes for it, for they're too fixated on the version you have of me in your imagination, leading you further away from reality.

If you recall, I looked at all your evidence for psi phenomena. There was nothing convincing about it. There's nothing to repress. My cynicism is but a choice, a method for expression, a costume, shown only to the folks at ATS. I am not my avatar. You'll see what you want to see.

Thanks for the conversation.

TheDualityExperience

AfterInfinity

Imagine if everyone was completely and perfectly honest, all the time. Ever seen the movie The Invention of Lying? Yeah. But that just brings us back to the point I made. What values do we hold dear? The values that make us a better person today, or keep us alive long enough to be a better person tomorrow?

edit on 16-1-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

I think as far as values go they really cant be specified for anyone by anyone else. I do think there has to be some universal values, not many, that everyone must accept. There has to be some common ground that every single person on the planet can agree on sort of like the ten commandments or something that makes 'perfect' sense to everyones interpretations on how we can all "play together" without conflict escalating.
Look the only reason i believe people are dishonest is because they build an personal image that is placed on some pedestal and compared to something else.

edit on 16-1-2014 by TheDualityExperience because: (no reason given)

I was trying to make a point.

1. Be a better person today.

2. Live long enough to be a better person tomorrow.

These two options are not the same thing. For instance, if you and another person were fighting over a piece of bread, you could have compassion and give them the bread, hoping that you find another piece later and believing you've done a kind thing. That's option one. Option two would be that you pick up a handy rock and bash them over the head, taking the bread and any other resources they might be carrying on them. Do this long enough and well enough and you've put yourself in a position of power, where you can make lives hell or heaven on a whim. Unfortunately, this also makes you the first target in an attack, because you are worth destroying for your amassed resources.

On the other hand, if you decided to live and give selflessly, you will be marked as an easy target for the taking, a stepping stone on the path to survival. You are not the predator, you are the prey. You continue to be drained dry over and over again until you die with less than you started out with. Because you never wanted anything more than you already had, and they knew it, and they exploited it. You didn't have a right to live because you never FOUGHT for it.

These two scenarios are representative of the spiritual dispositions we observe in today's world. Please bear in mind, these representations are determined by subjectivity, the perspectives of yourself and those around you, people you know and don't know. Which is why it's critical to note that the efficacy of either approach is wholly dependent upon society's ratio. If you are an Option 1 in a predominantly Option 2 world, you will suffer for it. If you are an Option 2 in a predominantly Option 1 world, you will suffer for it. And this is the context that shapes our values. That's the point I was trying to make. You see the tree, but you don't see the water or the soil or the weather or the animals that influenced that tree and its life. You don't see the thousands of organisms that call it home and share an intimate relationship with it. All you see is the effect, and not the cause. ....Well, maybe some of you see the cause. But if you follow it back far enough, you will see a subcause, a trend, a theme, a pattern. And that is the pattern which gives rise to our social dynamic, our spiritual standard.

I thought this was worth bringing to the table.

Aphorism
You know nothing of my vibe.

Your own words tell me everything I need to know. Unless you would care to open up a bit more, I'll have to go by what you've said.

If you recall, I looked at all your evidence for psi phenomena.

Oh? Then you've read the textbook? Because there's over a century of evidence. I doubt you've looked at it all.

If you were to really try, you could do some independent learning and let the evidence persuade you a little bit. Then you could be on the sheep side of the sheep-goat effect for a change, and then you would be in a psychological position to experience veridical psychic experiences of your own. Then you would be able to open up to the collective unconscious. Without an open psychic link to the collective unconscious, you won't be able to come over and have tea and hookah with me in the afterlife. I would very much like that.

AfterInfinity

I was trying to make a point.

1. Be a better person today.

2. Live long enough to be a better person tomorrow.


These two options are not the same thing. For instance, if you and another person were fighting over a piece of bread, you could have compassion and give them the bread, hoping that you find another piece later and believing you've done a kind thing. That's option one. Option two would be that you pick up a handy rock and bash them over the head, taking the bread and any other resources they might be carrying on them. Do this long enough and well enough and you've put yourself in a position of power, where you can make lives hell or heaven on a whim. Unfortunately, this also makes you the first target in an attack, because you are worth destroying for your amassed resources.

What about the third option where I share the bread? Why does everything seem to have to be the extreme when there is a perfectly good middle ground where everyone can be satisfied? I understand about striving for "perfection" but never achieving it and always moving forward in the pursuit.

On the other hand, if you decided to live and give selflessly, you will be marked as an easy target for the taking, a stepping stone on the path to survival. You are not the predator, you are the prey. You continue to be drained dry over and over again until you die with less than you started out with. Because you never wanted anything more than you already had, and they knew it, and they exploited it. You didn't have a right to live because you never FOUGHT for it.

I do agree that people can be exploited because of there accepting attitudes. I have experienced this myself which was a wake up call to the "new age" philosophy. As far as predator and prey goes, what do you think is in the middle? Something invisible/unidentifiable to both perhaps? Just a thought as I believe that there are three paths not just the two commonly perpetuated that can be pursued.

These two scenarios are representative of the spiritual dispositions we observe in today's world. Please bear in mind, these representations are determined by subjectivity, the perspectives of yourself and those around you, people you know and don't know. Which is why it's critical to note that the efficacy of either approach is wholly dependent upon society's ratio. If you are an Option 1 in a predominantly Option 2 world, you will suffer for it. If you are an Option 2 in a predominantly Option 1 world, you will suffer for it. And this is the context that shapes our values. That's the point I was trying to make. You see the tree, but you don't see the water or the soil or the weather or the animals that influenced that tree and its life. You don't see the thousands of organisms that call it home and share an intimate relationship with it. All you see is the effect, and not the cause. ....Well, maybe some of you see the cause. But if you follow it back far enough, you will see a subcause, a trend, a theme, a pattern. And that is the pattern which gives rise to our social dynamic, our spiritual standard.

What you say makes sense to me if I only had two options...but I have more than two, at least as far as my experience has led me to observe. You really know nothing about me nor I you except what we each have expressed (incredibly small data sample). Just to clarify I am not of a group consciousness, not in the sense that I can be labeled as a "some of you".
The problem that I have with any "standard" is that it implies that there is a "norm" and if there is a normal there must be an abnormal. Who exactly decides the abnormal? Society is dust that builds up, nothing more in my opinion.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, they are always appreciated.

Once again, the debate has turned away from the topic and veered into observations on a member. This needs to stop or the thread will either be closed and/or moved to an Off Topic forum.

reply to post by TheDualityExperience

What about the third option where I share the bread? Why does everything seem to have to be the extreme when there is a perfectly good middle ground where everyone can be satisfied? I understand about striving for "perfection" but never achieving it and always moving forward in the pursuit.

Because when you're in the middle, you're not winning. You're not safe. You're still in danger of being put on the bottom. We're still animals and that's how animals think. If you're not winning, you're losing. And just because you have enough brains to lie about it, doesn't make it any less true. You feel the impulse to mate, to feed, to fight, and to generally exhibit a higher order of the same behavior you see in animals. And if you're not winning, you're losing. Because even if you're in a generally stable position, others are passing you by. Others are demanding more, reaching for more. And that puts you closer and closer to the bottom just by standing still. And then the person you're sharing with decides it isn't enough. And then you've left yourself open for the most critical failure of all.

I do agree that people can be exploited because of there accepting attitudes. I have experienced this myself which was a wake up call to the "new age" philosophy. As far as predator and prey goes, what do you think is in the middle? Something invisible/unidentifiable to both perhaps? Just a thought as I believe that there are three paths not just the two commonly perpetuated that can be pursued.

Refer to my above response.

What you say makes sense to me if I only had two options...but I have more than two, at least as far as my experience has led me to observe. You really know nothing about me nor I you except what we each have expressed (incredibly small data sample). Just to clarify I am not of a group consciousness, not in the sense that I can be labeled as a "some of you".
The problem that I have with any "standard" is that it implies that there is a "norm" and if there is a normal there must be an abnormal. Who exactly decides the abnormal? Society is dust that builds up, nothing more in my opinion.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, they are always appreciated.

Normal is a relativistic term.