GENIUS FORUMS

brokenhead wrote:If you are saying that I cannot possibly know there is a god, I am saying that in that exact same way, you cannot possibly know there is not.

The difference is that I am perfectly open in saying that I do not know whether there is an alien-creator being, whereas you are not open about saying that you don't know either.

I haven't seen any evidence for the existence of such a being, whereas you believe that you have some evidence. Either way, neither of us knows whether such an alien-creator being exists. Therefore such a thing remains a proposed and postulated thing.

Kevin Solway wrote:

brokenhead wrote:If you are saying that I cannot possibly know there is a god, I am saying that in that exact same way, you cannot possibly know there is not.

The difference is that I am perfectly open in saying that I do not know whether there is an alien-creator being, whereas you are not open about saying that you don't know either.

I haven't seen any evidence for the existence of such a being, whereas you believe that you have some evidence. Either way, neither of us knows whether such an alien-creator being exists. Therefore such a thing remains a proposed and postulated thing.

Here we disagree, my friend. I cannot in good conscience say that I do not know for certain there is a god. I have openly said that I cannot prove it, because I can't. When you say that I have some evidence, I must stress it is not mine but there for everyone to see. Perhaps it takes a lifetime to see it. Perhaps that is, after all, the meaning of life, to decide this for oneself. But having decided, it has been like having my eyes opened. I do in fact know there is a Creator; within the arena of open discourse, I call this knowledge "faith" to distinguish it from other types of knowledge which I could prove to you, provided, of course, you have the mental capacity to grasp such proofs. If your anahata chakra were not blocked or closed, we would not be having this discussion; you would automatically understand me. I am not trying to deceive you, but sincerely attempting to impart knowledge that I have to you.

Brokenhead,

What evidence has led you to believe in this "Creator"?

Do you think it's possible for someone to observe data, and wrongly interpret it as evidence of a "Creator", when in fact it is nothing of the kind?

If not, is it because everything is evidence of this "Creator"? And if that's the case, would it matter if they came to this conclusion, but for the wrong reason? That is to say, if their interpretation is wrong, wouldn't their understanding of the "true Creator" also be wrong?

Or if so, regardless of whether or not such a "Creator" exists, how have you convinced yourself you're not one of these convinced (but miskaken) people?

Finally, in all my life, whether an event seems easily explained or not, I've never been able to relate it back to a "Creator" any more than a random flock of seagulls, or a white picket fence. What am I doing wrong?

Alex Jacob wrote:

Cory wrote: Cory: "I meant a conscious powerful/magical something. Is that what you mean? (I should have been more clear)".

Frankly, I may mean a number of things

Well, never mind what you may mean. Let's determine what it is you do mean.

I meet other beings, other physical beings who are 'conscious and powerful' in my day to day life.

But such beings do not love you unconditionally, nor do they grant you immortality. A Christian such as brokenhead believes in God precisely because he's motivated by the desire to have a loving intelligence guide his life toward immortality.

I might also encounter 'beings' of a similar nature and effect in dreams. How do we describe what is happening in that instance? There is a communion, an exchange, how do we define that? The farther we move into the area of so-called epiphenomena, such as consciousness, it seems to me that we move into unknown, maybe undefinable territory. The blunt and rather archaic superstition of conventional religiosity is flat and predictable, but there are many other possible avenues of understanding and interpretation. On what basis cold you or would you strip consciousness of magical properties?

What does it mean, according to you, for something to have magical properties.

The standard God-idea is outdated, archaic, regressive, literally outmoded. But the God-idea does not at all have to be like that

What in your opinion is a reasonable idea of God?

alex wrote:

cory wrote: "I agree that we likely have a hard wired tendency to invent Gods, spirits and other worlds. But I also think that for some people this tendency can be overcome."

The way you have phrased this is an answer to your own 'question'. Your prejudice is revealed. We are biologically hardwired to 'invent' Gods and spooks and spirits. I think rather that it is when we (or humankind) begins to come into consciousness, that we in fact come into an area where other consciousnesses also exist. You might say that if I dream of some intelligent being it is 'merely' myself relating to myself, merely a feeling of relatedness. I don't know if that is a fair answer, though it is an answer that fits into a specific paradigm. What if in coming into consciousness we may begin to have contact (somehow) with other levels of consciousness? Why is that an impossibility?

It's definitely not impossible. What do you make of Terrence Mckenna? Surely you've heard of his DMT and mushroom experiences. There was a time when I took Shamanism very seriously, you know. I'm open minded about that sort of thing - to a mild degree.

Maybe those consciousnesses, as Jung said, are of a 'psychoid' nature? (he speculated this but knew, as a scientist, it was not provable).

Language in a sense is the problem---the graveyard of old words and meanings. You said 'spirits', and what you mean is an amorphous 'spirit' that floats around like in a cartoon.

Not necessarily. I can imagine there might be a 'hyperspace' where there are entities who peer into our world much like us humans peer into a pool of water. The fish living in that pool of water can't understand the more multi dimensioned human experience. Likewise, humans living on earth can't understand the more multi dimensioned experience of those entities who reside in hyperspace.

Structure of Life is the whole place where we are, the physical platform, the physical scene where all this is happening.

I can imagine the structure of life extends far beyond the limited place where we are. Like I mentioned above, our world might extend, connecting to other worlds of entities which peer into our world much like we peer into an ant colony.

It is literally the space, the opportunity, where all this is going on. That in itself seems pretty peculiar, pretty far out (what could be more far-out?) I think it is a sort of modified 'vedic' idea because in some old time these 'seers' who wrote down their thoughts and speculations were seemingly amazed that this place could come into existence, that this place, this sphere, this 'loka' was here, and within that we all are taking place. It was a never-ending source of wonderment for them.

I'll be the first to tell you that wonderment and perplexity are important - but the act of believing and having faith in God or what-not actually dulls wonderment.

"There is only eternity, which doesn't happen. It only is."

Yes, and why? How? To what end?

That's not answerable. By realizing that it's not answerable means that we must cease wondering about what the answer is. That doesn't mean we abolish wonderment altogether though - there are plenty of solvable problems, and wonderment can lead to solutions for those problems.

If life (consciousness) has been going on...eternally...there is likely no limit to what consciousness has become.

True, as I mentioned before, humanity could be the seed of a consciousness which spans the entire universe.

Can we have a relationship to that, to 'them'? In what way? Can we find that internally, in our own meditation? In our prayer? Can you definitively say? I think we have to allow our language to shift, to be fluid, and allow it to move toward new definitions, definitions that are useful to us. In so many senses religion as we know it is dead, but what is the new modus that we are discovering?

You tell me.

It is obvious that even within 'theology' there is a massive shift. This was all presaged in the late 1800s. But in many ways, in the way you speak, you don't seem aware of that. (My perception of your view of things).

Are you referring to the birth of theosophy? I know a bit about Blatvatsky, Bessant, Leadbeater that whole movement. But maybe you're referring to something else. Please clarify.

My interest is in seeing how far we can go into a totally new paradigm, a totally new explanation that is completely open to modernity and 'scientific outlook'.

Ok, so can you give me some hints about what you're thinking this explanation might look like? Can you refer me to certain thinkers or leaders you are in agreement with? Maybe you are so radical that your idea is unprecedented!

"What in your opinion is a reasonable idea of God?"

The platform of what we call life and universe---cosmos. Not so much the place where we are, but the 'space' where such things happen. But you and I might imagine any number of different planets or spaces (your 'hyperspace') but our only real reference is this place, this stage, where we and all this are happening. If I were to begin a definition of God I would start in this platform. It seems to me crucial to bring down all definitions to this sphere, to this experience. God and God's potencies then become very real. No part of it can be separate or abstract. I am not at all attracted to personifications, and yet the way I experience (what I think I know) as 'God' is always very personal.

But wait, I don't know if such things can be 'reasonable' as you might want them. Reason is one thing, and there are experiences that seem to cut through 'reason'. (Such as 'nine grams of dried cubensis...')

"But such beings do not love you unconditionally, nor do they grant you immortality. A Christian such as brokenhead believes in God precisely because he's motivated by the desire to have a loving intelligence guide his life toward immortality."

The platform of being, the place where we are, the possibility of place as an eternal factor, and the fact of consciousness as a part of that eternal, seems to me to fulfil love and immortality. You cannot say exactly what Brokienegaard precisely believes, or how he interprets what he knows or experiences. I am not sure he ever said what you just said. The vedic idea of sat-chit-ananda as an eternal part-and-parcel of this created space is sufficient for me personally to understand both love and immortality. That is more or less what I feel (sorry to use that word *blush*) when I look out at things. I suppose I think, too, that we find exactly what is in our own 'soul', at the core of our own consciosness. Is it possible that at that core, there is the quintessence of Redeemer, Savior? Meaning, what you are is eternal and was created in love. Does that turn you off?

"What does it mean, according to you, for something to have magical properties."

I don't think things have magical properties, I think consciousness has magical properties and our consciousness alludes to even greater consciousness that is the quintessence of the magical. The real focus is always in consciousness. It does seem to me though possible that magical people, people with peculiar or amplified consciousness, can affect objects. I don't know how though. Conscious people and peculiar people can and do have strong effects on others around them---sometimes dramatic. I've even known people who have sworn to me that lesser beings, like dogs, have peculiar traits and even 'powers'. I knew a Swedish lady who had a dog she swore was an advanced being! (She was not the most grounded person in the three words so go figure...)

"It's definitely not impossible. What do you make of Terrence Mckenna? Surely you've heard of his DMT and mushroom experiences. There was a time when I took Shamanism very seriously, you know. I'm open minded about that sort of thing - to a mild degree."

You evidently took it seriously enough for it to be capitalized! I have had remarkable and valuable experiences with certain plants that have caused me to deeply consider many things. I suppose at the bottom, in an ultimate sense, I am informed by those beliefs (?) experiences (?) metaphors (?) It is all very, very peculiar! At the same time I think that all visionary experience needs to be carefully sorted through, and there are tremendous dangers there too. One can too easily go 'round the bend' and down the river...

"Not necessarily. I can imagine there might be a 'hyperspace' where there are entities who peer into our world much like us humans peer into a pool of water."

Well, there you have an evolution of an astral reality or some sort of 'heaven'. The perceptions change (the story) but the underlying structure is still there...

"That's not answerable. By realizing that it's not answerable means that we must cease wondering about what the answer is."

I would rather say that it is imperative to keep focusing on that point, on that puzzle. If one keeps pushing on that point, I think, we really do begin to get answers. That 'problem' really exists as a tantalizing question.

"Ok, so can you give me some hints about what you're thinking this explanation might look like? Can you refer me to certain thinkers or leaders you are in agreement with? Maybe you are so radical that your idea is unprecedented!"

I think it is what we are doing here, actually. There are different levels to it. In very simple terms (say in Judaism) the idea of God constantly shifts from generation to generation. What was this 'Yahweh' that came out of the desert on weird winds thousands of years ago is not at all what 'God' is now. I am reading a book written in 1888 called Dissolving Views in Judaism that speaks about this constant metamorphosis. It is not at all mono-dimensional (what the definition of God can be) and is vastly interesting. It is our challenge to define what we mean, based on what we experience in this strange world. I completely agree that many people use an Idea of God as a buttress against their perception, but it doesn't have to be that way.

Finally, I will say that the idea of Christ (a redeemer, a savior, an ultimate guide, as love and eternity) is not at all a powerless idea or 'psychic fact', and it does not have to be a pathology as you seem to insist.

I suppose I think that there are 2 Gods. One is the God of all that is created, all that we see before us and all there. The 'laws' of that God are all that we could know and say about nature, but also include some of what indigenous people know about the natural world. Another God is a God that presides specifically (or so it seems) over our consciousness. It is a human God and a social God. Two very different 'Gods'. I suppose I think that we need to be aware of that.

Alex Jacob wrote: I suppose I think that there are 2 Gods. One is the God of all that is created, all that we see before us and all there. The 'laws' of that God are all that we could know and say about nature, but also include some of what indigenous people know about the natural world. Another God is a God that presides specifically (or so it seems) over our consciousness. It is a human God and a social God. Two very different 'Gods'. I suppose I think that we need to be aware of that.

Any particular reason you leave out the obvious 3rd one?

This is of course why the trinity always rises its 'ugly heads' in almost every mature religious philosophy over the millennia. It's impossible to conceive of a God, or even time, without realizing at least three vastly different aspects.

Which probably says a lot about how our cognition works.

skipair wrote:Finally, in all my life, whether an event seems easily explained or not, I've never been able to relate it back to a "Creator" any more than a random flock of seagulls, or a white picket fence. What am I doing wrong?

You are lacking comprehension. Begin with three things: the notion of a Creator; the notion of a random flock of seagulls; and the notion of a white picket fence. Now think forward from these three things. You are saying that the effects each of these can cause are indistinguishable to you. How am I to answer any of your questions, in that case? When you can distinguish between these three things, ask me again.

Alex Jacob wrote:"What in your opinion is a reasonable idea of God?"

The platform of what we call life and universe---cosmos.

Platform of the universe? What is that? Very vague.

Not so much the place where we are, but the 'space' where such things happen.

I don't understand the distinction you make between a space and a place. I don't make such a distinction. To me, a place is a always a space, and vice versa.

But you and I might imagine any number of different planets or spaces (your 'hyperspace') but our only real reference is this place, this stage, where we and all this are happening.

To me, all things (mountains, trees, cities, water, etc) are the face of God - but the entire body of God is unfathomable to the senses - it is beyond consciousness. What's wrong with that conception of God?

If I were to begin a definition of God I would start in this platform. It seems to me crucial to bring down all definitions to this sphere, to this experience.

So is God the things we experience? If not, why not?

God and God's potencies then become very real.

Why should God be any less real for a guy like me who experiences all things as the face of God?

No part of it can be separate or abstract. I am not at all attracted to personifications, and yet the way I experience (what I think I know) as 'God' is always very personal.

But wait, I don't know if such things can be 'reasonable' as you might want them. Reason is one thing, and there are experiences that seem to cut through 'reason'. (Such as 'nine grams of dried cubensis...')

So is experiencing God more real on psychedelics? If so, why?

"But such beings do not love you unconditionally, nor do they grant you immortality. A Christian such as brokenhead believes in God precisely because he's motivated by the desire to have a loving intelligence guide his life toward immortality."

The platform of being, the place where we are, the possibility of place as an eternal factor, and the fact of consciousness as a part of that eternal, seems to me to fulfil love and immortality.

What do you mean by "place as an eternal factor?"

The vedic idea of sat-chit-ananda as an eternal part-and-parcel of this created space is sufficient for me personally to understand both love and immortality.

Could you elaborate on that idea? I don't know what you are referring to.

My understanding of love is born out of my understanding of hatred. Hatred arises when we our addicted to the emotions that certain phenomena trigger. When we overcome our addiction to certain phenomena, the we can finally love (accept what is).

My understanding of immortality is born out of my understanding of cause and effect. All things are the face of God, and God is beyond time, birth and death - and therefore all things have an immortal spirit.

I suppose I think, too, that we find exactly what is in our own 'soul', at the core of our own consciousness. Is it possible that at that core, there is the quintessence of Redeemer, Savior? Meaning, what you are is eternal and was created in love. Does that turn you off?

Well, when you consider all of the suffering in this world, how can you believe that it was created out of love?

"What does it mean, according to you, for something to have magical properties."

I don't think things have magical properties, I think consciousness has magical properties and our consciousness alludes to even greater consciousness that is the quintessence of the magical. The real focus is always in consciousness. It does seem to me though possible that magical people, people with peculiar or amplified consciousness, can affect objects. I don't know how though.

Why do you think that? Do you have an anecdotes you'd be willing to share? Any stories about encounters with the magical?

Conscious people and peculiar people can and do have strong effects on others around them---sometimes dramatic.

Sure, there is such a thing as Charisma, which is born out of confidence, beauty and intelligence.

I've even known people who have sworn to me that lesser beings, like dogs, have peculiar traits and even 'powers'. I knew a Swedish lady who had a dog she swore was an advanced being! (She was not the most grounded person in the three words so go figure...)

Well, yeah - one of the reasons I'm not very interested in the supernatural anymore is because of how flaky, mentally unstable and insubstantial those types tend to be.

"That's not answerable. By realizing that it's not answerable means that we must cease wondering about what the answer is."

I would rather say that it is imperative to keep focusing on that point, on that puzzle. If one keeps pushing on that point, I think, we really do begin to get answers.

What would happen to our wonderment if we attained answers?

"Ok, so can you give me some hints about what you're thinking this explanation might look like? Can you refer me to certain thinkers or leaders you are in agreement with? Maybe you are so radical that your idea is unprecedented!"

I think it is what we are doing here, actually. There are different levels to it. In very simple terms (say in Judaism) the idea of God constantly shifts from generation to generation. What was this 'Yahweh' that came out of the desert on weird winds thousands of years ago is not at all what 'God' is now. I am reading a book written in 1888 called Dissolving Views in Judaism that speaks about this constant metamorphosis. It is not at all mono-dimensional (what the definition of God can be) and is vastly interesting. It is our challenge to define what we mean, based on what we experience in this strange world. I completely agree that many people use an Idea of God as a buttress against their perception, but it doesn't have to be that way.

Finally, I will say that the idea of Christ (a redeemer, a savior, an ultimate guide, as love and eternity) is not at all a powerless idea or 'psychic fact',

It's evidently a very powerful idea. I'm not sure what you mean by psychic fact.

I suppose I think that there are 2 Gods. One is the God of all that is created, all that we see before us and all there. The 'laws' of that God are all that we could know and say about nature, but also include some of what indigenous people know about the natural world.

Another God is a God that presides specifically (or so it seems) over our consciousness. It is a human God and a social God. Two very different 'Gods'. I suppose I think that we need to be aware of that.

So what about my God? To our senses, he only reveals his face, and his face (the appearance of things) is all the senses can grasp.

edited formatting issues

Oh, Cory. You're in for a metaphysical tushie whacking from Alex, now, for being so literal about everything. It's going to be 9 paragraphs with a wet noodle for you.

Carl G wrote:Oh, Cory. You're in for a metaphysical tushie whacking from Alex, now, for being so literal about everything. It's going to be 9 paragraphs with a wet noodle for you.

Yup. Seems Alex gets "whacked out" on his drug preferences of the week ... shows up here all psychedillied-up on whatever, then proceeds to type away on whatever karmic consciousness (visions) he "sees".

Dang hippies....


.

There was an idea that came to me through vedic literature, having to do with the way these ancient poets and existentialists saw and interpreted this 'space' (translation of the word 'loka' that means 'sphere' or 'reality' or sometimes 'planet'). They talk about 'lokas' as if they suppose there are differing ones. And in each loka there is a peculiar kind of consciousness that is going on there, shared by the residents. The implication is sort of comparative: this 'loka' where we find ourselves has peculiar characteristics that make it different from some others, which these Vedists feel (or imagine) they have knowledge of. So, the way I am describing this place, this earth that we all know, is in imitation and interpretation of what they have written. They noticed that even in a dream, for example (a lucid dream in which they were aware they were dreaming and had their wits about them and could examine things, move about, question people they came across) there was replicated in that dream space the vault of heaven, the sky over them and an earth under them, and they marvelled that there was this 'space' in which their awareness manifested itself.

I don't at all think it is a wacky idea to seek knowledge about the place where we happen to find ourselves, in this peculiar way that I am talking about. Also, perhaps, we can compare different 'temporal modalities' (ways that different ages and times have organized their perceptions about this 'space' where we are and where all things take place) and gain something from that comparison. It is our consciousness that is 'assembling' our world, that orders our perception of it, and this perception most certainly can and does (often) shift. It is not a unity it is a multiplicity. Because that is so, different people 'assemble' in many ways a radically different world. But along comes one very potent way of organizing perception and it dominates perception, it overrides and pushes aside other methods, or habits, or predispositions. In each case, something is lost and something is gained. I am certainly not advocating for any one of them in particular, but knowing that they shift and morph is interesting. It is the psyche that mediates perception, and it seems to me that so many odd and peculiar things happen in this 'psyche'. When the psyche is nourished in certain ways, cultivated perhaps, the entire view of reality---the interpretation---can shift. I am not advocating that it shift in any particular way, but it seems to me that there is a great deal of wonder just in the chemistry of all that.

"So is God the things we experience? If not, why not?"

If I were to attempt an answer to this very grand question I would say that God is or could be, in a way of speaking, the hinge or the link through which perception occurs. It seems that only in consciousness is there even a concern with 'God', or some way that when there is consciousness this 'God' shows an interest in us. In a sense God 'beckons' to us, approaches us, maybe manifests to us. Some people are very dull and have no inkling of this, and others (usually, as I have seen it, people of another order of sensitivity and awareness). The better poets and philosopher-poets and artists seem to foment this relationship, to enter into a dialogue, a play, a game, even an adventure with 'God'. There are some great minds who describe their 'atheism', no doubt, but as I see things the better and more gifted intellects are predominantly spiritual people. Or is that just my prejudice speaking?

So, I wouldn't say God is the 'things' we experience, but is an internal relationship we have that mediates perception of 'things'.

"Why should God be any less real for a guy like me who experiences all things as the face of God? "

I wasn't talking about you, I was talking more about people with a more standard construct about God. This divided reality. Religions always seems to inculcate, in the majority, very cartoonish conceptions of reality. I think that if one says that this 'God' must be seen as operating, even exclusively, on this earth, at this time, right here in you and me---I think that is a pretty challenging idea. I feel that is an almost exclusively modern idea, and I note it strongly in the existentialists (like Sartre even though his is supposedly an 'atheist'). To my way of seeing things, nothing could be more welcome.

"So is experiencing God more real on psychedelics? If so, why?"

I think that powerful doses of psychedelics in the right circumstances and at the right time tend to show a person what they really think and feel, and tend to overcome a tendency we have to lie and to establish buffers between ourselves and this reality we find ourselves in. They tend to defeat those barriers and they tend to force one to rely on other...strengths within oneself, other...modalities. Almost everyone who takes psychedelics seems to come away with a different---better?---understanding of whatever it is we refer to when we say 'God'. But, perhaps like 'poisonous medicines that should be used only as a last resort' they tend to have notable side-effects, especially in moderns. I personally think that psychedelics should be used only from time to time, and that there has to be an authentic day-to-day spiritual life that is integrated nicely with the way one lives and conducts oneself.

It is not so much that the experience of 'God' is 'more real', but rather that it is inevitable (to most people) when they use psychedelics.

"What do you mean by "place as an eternal factor?"

Where we are, and for us, there is always a place provided. 'Place' is what is eternal, though it may shift and become something else, something different. (Sorry Cory, it is you that is asking these questions, I am answering them just as it occurs to me).

Sat-Chit-Anadna is of course a sanskrit term, and all sanskrit terms are very dense and loaded, very ample and labyrinthine. According to that tradition (way of perceiving or ordering perception), the nature of 'all things' is sat-chit-ananda. Existence-Awareness-Bliss. That is sort of the ultimate description of God but also of the potential of our participation here. They say that in some internal particle in us, that is in fact what we are---all that we are and could ever be. Existence-Awareness-Bliss. Maybe when 'vedists' speak of all things arising from 'love' they mean more 'ananda': eternal bliss.

"Well, when you consider all of the suffering in this world, how can you believe that it was created out of love?"

True. I personally would refer you to the final chapter of Klein und Wagner (Hermann Hesse) and in that could only speak in allusions about things very difficult to put into words. I know that that is 'vague', and I certainly am not proposing that I am above suffering or don't sometimes feel pretty bothered by it. This weird God who is creating all this, is really up to some strange tricks when it comes to those (us) who have the consciousness to even think about it. (I guess I am sort of avoiding an answer, eh?)

You have asked other question but I'm running out of steam...but I'll attempt this last one:

"What would happen to our wonderment if we attained answers?"

It seems to me, and it has always seemed this way to me, that we receive local answers from this weird 'God' who pokes his nose (as in your hyperspace) into this odd loka where are and everything else is 'taking place'. The 'answers' we receive always have to do with conduct, and how to get along in the here-and-now. So, an 'answer' should help one to live better, but then who can really say what 'better' necessarily is?

That was about nine, wasn't it Carl Gustav?

Alex Jacob wrote:I think that powerful doses of psychedelics in the right circumstances and at the right time tend to show a person what they really think and feel, and tend to overcome a tendency we have to lie and to establish buffers between ourselves and this reality we find ourselves in.

Amen, brother Alex.

Alex Jacob wrote:But along comes one very potent way of organizing perception and it dominates perception, it overrides and pushes aside other methods, or habits, or predispositions.

Such as?

In each case, something is lost and something is gained. I am certainly not advocating for any one of them in particular, but knowing that they shift and morph is interesting.

Please give examples of what might be gained or lost. And why not advocate?

Existence : Father
-Awareness: Son
-Bliss : Holy Spirit

Maybe when 'vedists' speak of all things arising from 'love' they mean more 'ananda': eternal bliss.

Maybe they mean that from Existence itself the Mind/Word (organizational principal) is the Way for things to manifest via the all-penetrating divine energy (Love/Bliss/Spirit) that is the vehicle for all movement, all happening, all communication.

In which we live and move and have our being.

And why not advocate?

At least, he is advocating for some fluidity of assemblages of perception in this puritanical era!

Brokenhead,

I guess the dominant one right now is this media-mediated one of which we are a part. It is you and me and the other people here, the way we view the world, the way we understand ourselves, existence, etc. It is the story-line by which we live our lives. The American culture we all know so well and love, with all its epic economic potency and its ascension after WW 2 has set the pattern for our culture but also so many others. As the dominant culture it sets down the story-line. You know: the NYTimes frames the main news stories of the day and feeds them to the rest of the news outlets. It is this 'framing' that has potency.

What this 'pushes aside' is everything else that was not selected, not favored.

"Please give examples of what might be gained or lost. And why not advocate?"

In our own lives the choices we make mean that we have excluded other choices. Every choice entails a sacrifice. By 'joining' the dominant view (which does not necessarily occur by conscious acceptance) you gain all sorts of things, one being the fluidity to move in that world. What you lose is (potentially) so many other things, some you might not even be aware of. But if it should happen that what is offered to you (us) is 'not enough' for a genuine connection to life (cf hexagram No 48 The Well) there is a conflict or a schism that arises, and people have to find a way to break through the concrete (as it were) and get their taproot down into the soil for 'real nourishment'. I interpret a great part of the impetus of the post WW2 radical movement as expressing this need for 'more' and 'more real'.

Why not advocate...Yes, advocate. It is unavoidable in fact. I have lived in many far-flung places and I am so much the American that, consciously or unconsciously, I cannot BUT influence my environment along the lines of Americanism---practical, problem solving, pragmatic, confident to the point of over-confident---I suppose there are negative features too). I learned a great deal through my last sojourn in Colombia about my 'Americanism'. I hate those backassward little fuckers and they need to be invaded, conquered, and their whole social order needs to be remodeled...according to the American Way. I am of course joking, but not as it pertains to pragmatism and 'order'. I think it is very important to 'know who you are' and what you stand for, believe in, and yes, we all must advocate our values. To do so is to involve oneself with activity on the ground, and it is a dirty business. To advocate is to decide power-issues and is to take control, decide for others, and in that it is a kind of violence (the sort of violence that Iolaus spoke of as being 'evil'). To live on the earth and do anything here (aside from perhaps playing your lute...) is to involve one in good and evil.

To advocate is to decide power-issues and is to take control, decide for others, and in that it is a kind of violence (the sort of violence that Iolaus spoke of as being 'evil').

Only if done by force. It is not violent to advocate for oneself or one's beliefs, to try to change laws, write your congresswoman, or offer alternatives via persuasion.

It could be an act of 'good' to: invade a recalcitrant, backward, perennially conflicted country that is also vastly and irredeemably corrupt, decimate the corrupt ruling party (i.e. kill them off and those connected with them), and set up a new government that abides by 'the rule of law'. I brought up a hopelessly mired case, Colombia, but some believe that this was one of the purposes of invading Iraq: to so restructure it (which involves a literal battle against recalcitrant factions in the country and eliminating them) that it is not a threat anymore.

Some faction within that country would support your plan and cheer you on, another faction oppose you. In the end---if you succeeded---it is 'history' that'd be your judge.

You could invent thousands of other examples: Say some wayward teenagers, runaways, living in an abandoned building practicing 'satanism', taking on followers, abusing other kids, getting into all sorts of trouble. Someone finds out they are there, the cops burst in and bust them all, violently. Could such a thing and other things like it be carried out by committed and upright Christians? Or should they gather outside, get on their knees and pray piously for the evil to transform itself? What if we become the vehicle through which 'God's will' is realized?

Skip: Finally, in all my life, whether an event seems easily explained or not, I've never been able to relate it back to a "Creator" any more than a random flock of seagulls, or a white picket fence. What am I doing wrong?

BH: Begin with three things: the notion of a Creator; the notion of a random flock of seagulls; and the notion of a white picket fence. Now think forward from these three things. You are saying that the effects each of these can cause are indistinguishable to you.

Not exactly. I'm saying that I have observed flocks of seagulls and white picket fences, but never a "Creator".

I've certainly entertained the idea of a "Creator", just as I've entertained the idea of pink elephants, as well as other things in my imagination. But when I look out into the world, it would seem arbitrary to explain away all the happenings with a "Creator", just as it would with fences and seagulls.

How am I to answer any of your questions, in that case?

Well, to be honest, I was hoping you'd take an interest in them and explore them for your own sake and not mine.

"Hope" away, Skipair.

How anti-intellectual Christians, like Brokenhead, are. They place all the burden of proof for the existence of their god on those that oppose such nonsense, and then when they are cornered into giving an answer, they believe they are supplying 'answers' by babbling untenable twaddle – for example Brokenhead wrote: "you have the mental capacity to grasp such proofs...If your anahata chakra were not blocked or closed". It is a complete fiasco!

This is not the Dark Ages! All that hocus-pocus stuff is way passed its use-by-date. Rationality is the measure of thought. Any discussion about the absolute has to be built upon reason and logic - and not the infantile emotional needs of people.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:How anti-intellectual Christians, like Brokenhead, are.

Well, Sue, I agree with you that many Christaians are anti-intellectual, and many are simply nonintellectual. This is, of course, true of people in general, including, it seems, your own self.

I have not read one single sentence from you that displays even a hint of intellectual capacity.

They place all the burden of proof for the existence of their god on those that oppose such nonsense

If you were not such an idiot, Sue, you would understand how stupid this statement is. I have said many times, in no uncertain terms, that proof of the existence of God is not possible. Why then would I ask anyone to try to do it? Your head is a useless block of cement. What I am doing, if anything even remotely related to your claim, is asking those "opposed to such nonsense" to prove there isn't a creator.

untenable twaddle – for example Brokenhead wrote: "you have the mental capacity to grasp such proofs...If your anahata chakra were not blocked or closed". It is a complete fiasco!
This is not the Dark Ages!

You do not have the slightest idea what I'm talking about, do you? Is that a rational position from which to crticize what I'm trying to tell you?

All that hocus-pocus stuff is way passed its use-by-date. Rationality is the measure of thought. Any discussion about the absolute has to be built upon reason and logic - and not the infantile emotional needs of people.

This is all you ever say. You are nothing but a cheerleader. A poor one. Learn some new cheers.

You need something in your life to shake you out of your intellectual complacency and your emotional malaise. "One thing you can't hide/Is when you're crippled inside."

Skip: Finally, in all my life, whether an event seems easily explained or not, I've never been able to relate it back to a "Creator" any more than a random flock of seagulls, or a white picket fence. What am I doing wrong?

BH: Begin with three things: the notion of a Creator; the notion of a random flock of seagulls; and the notion of a white picket fence. Now think forward from these three things. You are saying that the effects each of these can cause are indistinguishable to you.

Skip: Not exactly. I'm saying that I have observed flocks of seagulls and white picket fences, but never a "Creator".

Yes. Exactly. As you go on to demonstrate:

I've certainly entertained the idea of a "Creator", just as I've entertained the idea of pink elephants, as well as other things in my imagination. But when I look out into the world, it would seem arbitrary to explain away all the happenings with a "Creator", just as it would with fences and seagulls.

Why not forget the pink elephant as it adds nothing to the discourse. Stay with the original three things as I asked you to do. You were the one that first brought them up. Now consider. Who is asking you to "explain all the happenings" with a Creator or anything else, for that matter? You are not inquiring in either a deep or productive manner. Take instead the question of the origins of life. Can a picket fence or a flock of seagulls be said to have anything to do with the origins of life on this planet? Is it possible to form a concept - any concept - of a creator that can explain the existence of something that has evolved into ourselves?

BH: How am I to answer any of your questions, in that case?

Skip: Well, to be honest, I was hoping you'd take an interest in them and explore them for your own sake and not mine.

But that is not being honest. You said "What am I doing wrong?" I am just trying to answer.

Skip: Finally, in all my life, whether an event seems easily explained or not, I've never been able to relate it back to a "Creator" any more than a random flock of seagulls, or a white picket fence. What am I doing wrong?

BH: Begin with three things: the notion of a Creator; the notion of a random flock of seagulls; and the notion of a white picket fence. Now think forward from these three things. You are saying that the effects each of these can cause are indistinguishable to you.

Skip: Not exactly. I'm saying that I have observed flocks of seagulls and white picket fences, but never a "Creator".

BH: Yes. Exactly. As you go on to demonstrate:

I've certainly entertained the idea of a "Creator", just as I've entertained the idea of pink elephants, as well as other things in my imagination. But when I look out into the world, it would seem arbitrary to explain away all the happenings with a "Creator", just as it would with fences and seagulls.

No, it's not quite the same, and I'll tell you why.

I have experienced data regarding fences and seagulls, and therefore I can make reasonable assumptions about their effects today and in the future. The data I've received is different for each, and they are distinguishable for that reason.

What I can't do is make the distinction between a "Creator" and a fence, or a "Creator" and a seagull, because I have no idea what a "Creator" is. I've never received any data about it, just as I've never received any data about pink elephants.

Can a picket fence or a flock of seagulls be said to have anything to do with the origins of life on this planet?

Yes, their existence today is caused precisely by what happened in the past.

But I'm guessing that you probably had something else in mind. Like, "could a fence, and nothing else in the world, be responsible for the origins of life?"

The issue I have with this question is, first, it's difficult for me to make the distinction between "life" and "not-life". And second, while it seems obvious that causation runs back into an infinite past, I haven't quite proved to myself why it seems so obvious, and so for the time being I'm still considering the "first mover" theory.

Could a fence or seagull be the "first mover" of life? I have no idea. If I had to guess from my experience with fences and seagulls, I'd say "no", but it could just as easily be "yes", because I don't know.

Is it possible to form a concept - any concept - of a creator that can explain the existence of something that has evolved into ourselves?

Yes, in my imagination I can look at images of a fence that went under an evolutionary process to create the human race.

BH: How am I to answer any of your questions, in that case?

Skip: Well, to be honest, I was hoping you'd take an interest in them and explore them for your own sake and not mine.

BH: But that is not being honest. You said "What am I doing wrong?" I am just trying to answer.

Baiting you was my way of starting this conversation. But it is helpful for me too, for sure.

skipair wrote:I've never received any data about it (a creator), just as I've never received any data about pink elephants.

There is no point in this dialogue if you are not going to be honest, Skippy.

Just when it was getting interesting, the walls shoot up.

I also have walls I was compelled to build, and I keep them out of fear. But if I built them I can tear them down.

The keystone is hidden in the deep, but I will find it or die trying.