|
Post by Atrahasis on Jul 5, 2008 3:52:12 GMT -5
THe thing that gets me is why haven't any of those "psychic" prizes ever been won, like that $1 million one offered by James Randi (I think that's the one).
I believe that human beings are better off when they have something to believe in, however a flight of fancy it may seem, but when it comes down to qualifying any of those beliefs it always seems to come down to being potential bunk. Excuse me for sounding pessimistic there, but the "realists" do have a point in my eyes.
But the question of which path will be better for our evolution is quite interesting. For some it may be a no-brainer, as the machine/technology path will make us end up like V'Ger, incapable of traversing to the "next dimension", but at least physical perfection will be attained in a very short period of time. The spiritual path may take longer, but it may better preserve who we are, despite how what we are may change.
Maybe some intermediary form is even possible, like Trelaine in "Squire of Gothos" who could do anything by just wishing it, but he needed the help of that machine behind the mirror.
|
|
arjuna
Extra in Red Shirt
Posts: 4
|
Post by arjuna on Aug 13, 2008 1:45:24 GMT -5
Hello. You wrote: Human beings may need a lot of character development overall, but isn't it presumptuous to think that all spacefaring races in this galaxy have Honesty and Integrity and are not "animal-like"? I realize those are important traits of value for us humans, but ever consider that animals take only what they need and barring (human) intervention or natural cataclysm they tend to maintain a stable environment/ecosystem? In that regard, being "animal-like" may not be so bad. One could even be a mean beast and that would be OK because even he has a role to play. The problem that these aliens are keeping their eye on is how we manage our own ecosystem, because if we continue to defecate where we eat, we aren't even up to par with animals, many of whom do care where they eat, defecate, and live. We could even be a beast-like war-like race who enjoys bloody sporting events, and that would actually be OK as long as we respect "galactic law" and not go and bash other civilizations. Inifinite diversity in infinite combinations, I like to say, and so it apparently turns out that our greatest challenge as a species is to clean up our own room before we can think of going into the greater hall of the galactic community, because it is probably our ability in that area that will determine whether we are perceived as trailer trash or as a viable species. There are many efficient parallels within your hypothesis to actual occurrence. It may be a (understandable) mistake to look for "other species", however, as any focus upon "us" or "them" (assuming, of course, there is a "them") leads one away from the Individual. Rather than a quest to ascertain if there are indeed other species observing humans it might be more apropos to discover what, if anything, is observing Self and why Self is observed and, potentially, interacted with. What characteristics of Self (and Self Only - Not of any abstract "us") are present, even if obscured by reflexion and program within Self, that would both initiate the initial "projections" towards such exploration To that which may be observing Self and are present within that which observes and potentially interacts? What is it that, assuming such interaction can (and Does) exist, prevents, obscures and obfuscates, within Self, further less limited interaction and understanding? Your statement, applied not to a species or a culture but, rather, to an Individual, Is The key to understanding and indicates potential progress towards identification and elimination of such impediment/parasite: "and so it apparently turns out that our greatest challenge as a species is to clean up our own room before we can think of going into the greater hall of the galactic community, because it is probably our ability in that area that will determine whether we are perceived as trailer trash or as a viable species." Peace, Arjuna
|
|
|
Post by Atrahasis on Aug 13, 2008 6:43:37 GMT -5
Hey it's my old friend Arjuna! Welcome. After reading through your complexly-worded answer several times, knowing oneself is important, because I think for most of us we have to start changing ourselves, hopefully for the better. In our lives we have to learn how to master at least two realms, the private and the social, and we can't afford to be pigs or parasites in either. For some, organized religion does help, especially with the "born-agains" who were formerly alcoholics, druggies, promiscuous, enraged, whatever. But others seem to be maximized individuals without organized religion, so I can only conlude that the set of beliefs that they go by are entirely their own, so in effect they are the head of their own religion (and they probably have followers of it in real life because people want to emulate success). Examples are Tony Robbins and Donald Trump. One may think that maxmization like this is genetic, but then how do you explain all those stories of people like Robbins who were broke before they achieved their success, and what they experienced was a shift in consciousness rather than a gift of their genes? And then of course there are the aforementioned cases of born-again conversions. People CAN be trained to do good, you just need to shift their thinking. We're all basically complicated machines after all, hopefully with souls, who just require some re-programming...which is why the evolution in consciousness in the human race that is possible is what I say the "watchers" are looking for and expecting. A great example is China who is beginning to realize that they really have to do something about all the crap they create.
|
|
arjuna
Extra in Red Shirt
Posts: 4
|
Post by arjuna on Aug 13, 2008 21:44:20 GMT -5
Hello.
At Hey it's my old friend Arjuna! Welcome.
Ar Thank you, Atrahasis - good to See you. Excellent models... seem to be better than the industry standard.
At After reading through your complexly-worded answer several times,
Ar Partially intended as the information therein is not casual and does require some effort to integrate. Partially because it is a very complex topic attempted to be discussed in a short time frame and in limited format.
At knowing oneself is important, because I think for most of us we have to start changing ourselves, hopefully for the better.
Ar More than "change" it might be suggested "accept" with the caveate that most of what one thinks is one's Self actually is not but, rather, is a twisted conglomeration of reflexes, protections and programs that have been introduced, by force, in many cases, when very young.
At In our lives we have to learn how to master at least two realms, the private and the social, and we can't afford to be pigs or parasites in either.
Ar Agreed, strongly. In both, discernment and evaluation is required as to efficacy and "equal exchange of energy". Yet, both are also simply "realms" to navigate - obstacles to overcome, routes to run, tests to be explored. The real test is discovery of Self using these arenas - discovery of strengths and elimination of weaknesses.
At For some, organized religion does help, especially with the "born-agains" who were formerly alcoholics, druggies, promiscuous, enraged, whatever.
Ar Sure. For some, organized religion is simply a framwork, much like a bowling league or joining an astronomy group - an easily managed framework that provides some stability while navigating life. To assume, as many do, however, that the framework Is Life (whatever that might mean) is a shallow attempt at protection and control over something that is considerably (as understatement) more vast than Any attempt to "manage".
At But others seem to be maximized individuals without organized religion,
Ar Krishnamurti comes to mind.
At so I can only conlude that the set of beliefs that they go by are entirely their own,
Ar I would add "their own perception of".
At so in effect they are the head of their own religion (and they probably have followers of it in real life because people want to emulate success). Examples are Tony Robbins and Donald Trump.
Ar Agreed, completely, and efficient providing the "message" is maximization of self-esteem and not toward any limiting dogma. That can create some difficulties, however, in navigation as any efficient "message" (actually only the individual Seeing him/herself in reflection) would, as example, indicate eliminating or ameliorating indulgence and that statement could also be seen as dogma.
At One may think that maxmization like this is genetic, but then how do you explain all those stories of people like Robbins who were broke before they achieved their success, and what they experienced was a shift in consciousness rather than a gift of their genes?
Ar Actually, they tend to be the same thing. And "maximization" is possibility, only, and requires considerable Self-Intent. Without the existing genetic framework to even allow for the possibility of self-willed evolution, the process cannot even have the possibility to begin. To use Yesu bin Youself ("Christ") as a metaphorical example, the genetics existed but he still had to do the work himself.
At And then of course there are the aforementioned cases of born-again conversions.
Ar Most of those experiences are what DJM, "through" Casteneda, termed "The Spirit Knocking on the Door" and "The Manifestation of the Spirit". Early Christians called it the decent of the Holy Spirit. They are simply examples of the "universe" returning projection in potential to an individual that has projected to it. In other words, ask and ye shall be answered...
At People CAN be trained to do good,
Ar Or, at the very least, Not to do bad. Much like teaching a puppy not to shit on the floor or not to bite the other children. I am not at all convinced that those that are genetically limited can do "good".
At you just need to shift their thinking.
Ar Well, in the first case, many individuals tend to "do good" when freed from immediate fears, whether internal or external. In the second, they can be taught that there are serious and personal consequences to parasitism.
At We're all basically complicated machines after all, hopefully with souls,
Ar We Are the "souls" - Life simply "complicates" that.
At who just require some re-programming...
Ar De-programming.
At which is why the evolution in consciousness in the human race that is possible is what I say the "watchers" are looking for and expecting.
Ar "Watchers" look for individuals - not cultures or species.
At A great example is China who is beginning to realize that they really have to do something about all the crap they create.
Ar Good example - and they may find that their own "decent of the spirit" (in metaphor), re the Olympics, may be far more dynamic than they expected.
Peace, Arjuna
|
|
|
Post by Atrahasis on Aug 14, 2008 8:12:19 GMT -5
Hello. At Hey it's my old friend Arjuna! Welcome. Ar Thank you, Atrahasis - good to See you. Excellent models... seem to be better than the industry standard. Thank you! Sounds like the scientology idea of engrams that are imprinted on us even while in the mother's womb, except without the ghostly alien "Thetans" interfering. But isn't it better to be taught or conditioned to do no evil over being geneticaly capable of doing good but never maximizing oneself to reach that potential? As you seemed to imply, "self-willed evolution" is not always a given even for people who are capable of it. Isn't the mark of a good individual one who helps his species? If you ever form your own group of followers, can I be your General? We can split the babes between us. ;D
|
|
arjuna
Extra in Red Shirt
Posts: 4
|
Post by arjuna on Aug 17, 2008 4:25:47 GMT -5
Morning. Continuing:
arjuna wrote:Hello.
At Hey it's my old friend Arjuna! Welcome.
Ar Thank you, Atrahasis - good to See you. Excellent models... seem to be better than the industry standard.
At Thank you!
Ar You're welcome - simply observation.
Quote:At After reading through your complexly-worded answer several times,
Ar Partially intended as the information therein is not casual and does require some effort to integrate. Partially because it is a very complex topic attempted to be discussed in a short time frame and in limited format.
At knowing oneself is important, because I think for most of us we have to start changing ourselves, hopefully for the better.
Ar More than "change" it might be suggested "accept" with the caveate that most of what one thinks is one's Self actually is not but, rather, is a twisted conglomeration of reflexes, protections and programs that have been introduced, by force, in many cases, when very young.
At Sounds like the scientology idea of engrams that are imprinted on us even while in the mother's womb, except without the ghostly alien "Thetans" interfering.
Ar Actually, it is very similar. Humans (or any advanced neurological species, for that matter) are essentially a "blank slate" when born and remain that way for 3 to 4 years. The first thought, in language, is actually quite significant and does not occur without relentless (and often brutal) programming. Unfortunately, of course, Hubbard was a nutbag that belonged locked in a microwave over until it was time for movie popcorn but many of "his" ideas (gleaned from advanced psychologists of the time) were apt - the most notable of which was "meems" or, as you noted, the even more influential "engrams". These are reflexes programmed at moments of crisis and, quite literally, are stored within the body until, at a later date, any similar crisis or event triggers them - thus irrational action at significant moments that may to a rational mind seem to be insignificant events. This is coupled with parasitic energy drains (also generally encountered when young) that, essentially, "feed" off the energy of the individual. Both act to literally lessen the individual until identified and eliminated.
Quote: At In our lives we have to learn how to master at least two realms, the private and the social, and we can't afford to be pigs or parasites in either.
Ar Agreed, strongly. In both, discernment and evaluation is required as to efficacy and "equal exchange of energy". Yet, both are also simply "realms" to navigate - obstacles to overcome, routes to run, tests to be explored. The real test is discovery of Self using these arenas - discovery of strengths and elimination of weaknesses.
At For some, organized religion does help, especially with the "born-agains" who were formerly alcoholics, druggies, promiscuous, enraged, whatever.
Ar Sure. For some, organized religion is simply a framework, much like a bowling league or joining an astronomy group - an easily managed framework that provides some stability while navigating life. To assume, as many do, however, that the framework Is Life (whatever that might mean) is a shallow attempt at protection and control over something that is considerably (as understatement) more vast than Any attempt to "manage".
At But others seem to be maximized individuals without organized religion,
Ar Krishnamurti comes to mind.
At so I can only conlude that the set of beliefs that they go by are entirely their own,
Ar I would add "their own perception of".
At so in effect they are the head of their own religion (and they probably have followers of it in real life because people want to emulate success). Examples are Tony Robbins and Donald Trump.
Ar Agreed, completely, and efficient providing the "message" is maximization of self-esteem and not toward any limiting dogma. That can create some difficulties, however, in navigation as any efficient "message" (actually only the individual Seeing him/herself in reflection) would, as example, indicate eliminating or ameliorating indulgence and that statement could also be seen as dogma.
At One may think that maxmization like this is genetic, but then how do you explain all those stories of people like Robbins who were broke before they achieved their success, and what they experienced was a shift in consciousness rather than a gift of their genes?
Ar Actually, they tend to be the same thing. And "maximization" is possibility, only, and requires considerable Self-Intent. Without the existing genetic framework to even allow for the possibility of self-willed evolution, the process cannot even have the possibility to begin. To use Yesu bin Youself ("Christ") as a metaphorical example, the genetics existed but he still had to do the work himself.
At And then of course there are the aforementioned cases of born-again conversions.
Ar Most of those experiences are what DJM, "through" Casteneda, termed "The Spirit Knocking on the Door" and "The Manifestation of the Spirit". Early Christians called it the decent of the Holy Spirit. They are simply examples of the "universe" returning projection in potential to an individual that has projected to it. In other words, ask and ye shall be answered...
At People CAN be trained to do good,
Ar Or, at the very least, Not to do bad. Much like teaching a puppy not to shit on the floor or not to bite the other children. I am not at all convinced that those that are genetically limited can do "good".
At But isn't it better to be taught or conditioned to do no evil over being geneticaly capable of doing good but never maximizing oneself to reach that potential?
Ar No. That is implying an "either/or" position (to bolster a personal ongoing thought process) when none, if fact, exists. Both are simultaneously possible (if considering the second posit in the "positive"). Those that are not capable can be "conditioned" to "do no evil" (or, rather, simply Not allowed) and those that are can remove from Self any limiting factors. Actually, this is one of the fundamental mistakes that "good people" make and it is so very common - it is the assumption that all men are "good at heart" - that all men are "created equal" - this is not true. The human race is a bell curve, on any quality measured. Some are fast, some are slow, some are tall, some are short, some are artistic, some are literalists, some are creative, some are parasitic. Include in that actual birth defects, ect, and there is, of course, no equality. Furthermore, many "good people" think that all men are "good at heart" because some "bad people" are better around them - actually, from observation, this Only says exactly what happens: when a "bad person" is "fed" energy from a "good person" (one with higher level of available energy) the "bad person" for a limited time becomes better thus creating a dependency/drain occilation from "good" to "bad". Really quite fascinating.
At As you seemed to imply, "self-willed evolution" is not always a given even for people who are capable of it.
Ar Quite true - requires an extremely high level of Self-Commit. Some approximations suggest that as few as 2% of the population ever makes the movement succesfully. And even those two percent are, of course, on their own geometric "bell curve".
Quote: At you just need to shift their thinking.
Ar Well, in the first case, many individuals tend to "do good" when freed from immediate fears, whether internal or external. In the second, they can be taught that there are serious and personal consequences to parasitism.
At We're all basically complicated machines after all, hopefully with souls,
Ar We Are the "souls" - Life simply "complicates" that.
At who just require some re-programming...
Ar De-programming.
At which is why the evolution in consciousness in the human race that is possible is what I say the "watchers" are looking for and expecting.
Ar "Watchers" look for individuals - not cultures or species.
At Isn't the mark of a good individual one who helps his species?
Ar Absolutely Not. The "mark of a good individual" is One that helps Himself and refuses to hurt another to accomplish that.
"I swear, by My Life and My Love of it, that I Will Never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for Mine." Ayn Rand
Quote: At A great example is China who is beginning to realize that they really have to do something about all the crap they create.
Ar Good example - and they may find that their own "decent of the spirit" (in metaphor), re the Olympics, may be far more dynamic than they expected.
At If you ever form your own group of followers, can I be your General?
Ar You, of course, would be waiting a Very long time - am not interested in either leading or following. Simply in being Myself.
At We can split the babes between us. ;D
Ar While tempting, would of course have to ask them if they desired to be split. <smile>
Peace, Arjuna
|
|
|
Post by Atrahasis on Aug 17, 2008 10:47:08 GMT -5
Morning. Continuing:At Isn't the mark of a good individual one who helps his species?
Ar Absolutely Not. The "mark of a good individual" is One that helps Himself and refuses to hurt another to accomplish that.
"I swear, by My Life and My Love of it, that I Will Never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for Mine." Ayn Rand
So what happens after he helps himself? If he's become so perfect and all, wouldn't he be like Jesus or Buddha and start spouting wisdom and advice to help others along their path? In which case the ultimate goal of being good is to attain as close to species-level consciousness evolution as possible, which is what I originally claimed. In fact, a perfected human in that case would be "living for others" in that regard, something which you said was a no-no. Consider Obama for example. Is he not someone who has come to know and help himself and is probably further along the path than either you or I?
|
|
arjuna
Extra in Red Shirt
Posts: 4
|
Post by arjuna on Aug 17, 2008 12:29:10 GMT -5
Morning.
You wrote:
At So what happens after he helps himself?
Ar Not to seem to deliberately obfuscate but the Only way to answer that for Self is to Do it.
At If he's become so perfect and all, wouldn't he be like Jesus or Buddha
Ar Care with the stereotypes... no one here Knows whether or not those individuals actually accomplished anything and, if so, what they then did. To use Christ as one example, we know virtually nothing about his words and life and what little is "known" was obfuscated both by the length of time between his death and when the gospels were written and by the Council at Nicea. Much better to use Self as the example and extrapolate (if absolutely necessary) their journey and actions from such as one continues to evolve.
At and start spouting wisdom and advice to help others along their path?
Ar A man is walking down a path. A young man joins him and, out of the blue (as people are wont to do), asks the man a question. The man answers. Was he "helping" the young man or just walking and talking, taking no responsibility for the actions of the young man after but just wishing him well?
At In which case the ultimate goal of being good is to attain as close to species-level consciousness evolution as possible,
Ar Again, what is being termed "species-level consciousness" is irrelevant - what the "species" does is Immaterial to the outcome for the individual. You are going to die. That is an immutable Fact. And you and you Alone will encounter that Immensity. What others do, what others have done, is Immaterial to that inevitable encounter - Nothing Else is important.
At which is what I originally claimed. In fact, a perfected human in that case would be "living for others" in that regard, something which you said was a no-no.
Ar The ancient Toltecs went through that experiment - at one point during their evolution, some decided to explore healing as a "conduit for the Spirit" - essentially, altruism. What they discovered was that, regardless of how much they "helped", they still Each had to go through the same life, the same hardships, pain and experiences as those that did not and, in the End, still had to experience Death each Alone. They discovered (those that observed and evaluated After - most that participated did not survive and, of those that did, at a lower level secondary to energy loss) that experience - not "helping" or "not-helping" - and response to that experience, in identifying and removing parasites from each individually, was the Only relevant factor to survival.
At Consider Obama for example.
Ar Do I have to?
At Is he not someone who has come to know and help himself
Ar Not even remotely close. At best he is a used-car salesman and a huckster of other people's time, energy and money. And that doesn't even begin to address his level (or not) of "Self-Knowledge" at the level we are alluding to.
At and is probably further along the path than either you or I?
Ar Difficult to answer, in the sense that any honest answer could be interpreted, if sans Knowledge, as "hubris". If answered honestly (if without further explanation), however, it could be said that Obama (or Bush, for that matter) is a complete fool and that his "Self-Knowledge" isn't a pimple on the ass of a Man of Knowledge and would not even be noticed if passed casually in a mall by what you term "watchers".
Did that help?
Peace, Arjuna
|
|
|
Post by Atrahasis on Aug 18, 2008 8:02:26 GMT -5
Self-improvement is great, but if you don't bring up at least one other along with you, you've only got half the job done. Consider what happens at the gate of the Egyptian afterlife: The Gods will ask you two questions. 1) Did you find something that brought joy to you? 2) Did you bring joy to others?
I don't know if they sent you back if you could only answer affirmative to just one of the two, but it does emphasize the point that no man is or should be an island.
I got that from a movie called "The Bucket List" where Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman are two men who are dying of cancer, and while Nicholson is filthy rich he has no family save an estranged daughter, while Freeman is not rich but he has a wife and large family. They travel the world together and do things that are on their list, but the one thing that Nicholson can't bring himself to do is to reconcile with his daughter, because he knows he had been unjust to her. Back from their trip, all Nicholson has is his whores, but Freeman has his wife and family who love him. This brings Nicholson to tears, and you had to feel sorry for him. Might seem like a cliche, but if it took Nicholson his entire lifetime to learn about the value of family, that means it's not an easy lesson to learn until perhaps it's too late.
The Toltecs as "sorcerers" or spiritual healers doesn't seem to be a historically accepted fact, rather just a fable (if even that) based on the stories of one of an infinite number of soothsayers. For something more real-world and verifiable regarding the topic of helping others and the usefulness of it, Mother Theresa'a life story comes to mind:
Quite surprising that this saint who helped all of those others felt this way not only until at the end but for that entire time she was doing it.
Also quite the contrast with her and the "good average joe" that Freeman portrays in the movie. Helping others may not be the key to salvation, but being a bearable and uplifting soul to your spouse and progeny is.
Also, have you not yet gazed upon Obama's spritual glow?
|
|