String theory, Relativity, and angels

by onacruse 133 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Sunnygal41
    Sunnygal41
    I'm not sure what the IN BETWEEN would be to "balance" primacy of consciousness with primacy of existence. Could you give me an example of how they are not mutually exclusive?

    Are you asserting that we are born with actual data inside our head? Could you give me an example of that? I'd love to know.

    Arrrrgggghhh, can you please just speak plain english for me? You have my permission to break things down into simple sentences. My protest was not just about the highlighted paragraph. I wanted to highlight the entire comment, actually, but stopped myself. What I do understand is that you feel that there is something incorrect or unintelligent about belief in mysticism, angels, etc................why does that have to be? Why can't we be intellectual, rational AND hold open the possibility that we can't prove everything by hard scientific data? Why must people like Funky and you and others be so negative about such things as intuition and mysticism, angels, etc? That's all I'm saying.

    In Lakech, (I am another yourself)

    Terri

  • Sunnygal41
    Sunnygal41

    Just to let you know, Terry. I often post without reading ALL the posts. I see that you made some attempts to be less wordy and break things down in simple concepts after I already posted my thought on your comment to me.

  • Terry
    Terry

    Replying to this:

    Arrrrgggghhh, can you please just speak plain english for me? You have my permission to break things down into simple sentences. My protest was not just about the highlighted paragraph. I wanted to highlight the entire comment, actually, but stopped myself. What I do understand is that you feel that there is something incorrect or unintelligent about belief in mysticism, angels, etc................why does that have to be? Why can't we be intellectual, rational AND hold open the possibility that we can't prove everything by hard scientific data? Why must people like Funky and you and others be so negative about such things as intuition and mysticism, angels, etc? That's all I'm saying.

    Terri

    **********************************************************************************************************************

    I am so ashamed of myself! I have a bit of a fetish about making myself clear and understood! And I am failing to do so!! My fault. So sorry.

    Let me, perhaps ask you a question that might clarify my position and make it easier to understand my previously stated objections.

    Should I hold open the possibility that there really is a Santa Claus? I'm am sure you would say "no". And the reason you would say no would stem from your awareness of the reality which refutes the myth. Should we teach children that Santa Claus is an actually-existing person just so we can politely "fool" them into have an experience of mystical joy?

    Whatever your reply to that question, my answer is a resounding "NO!"

    Some things are true and other things are not true. If we confuse what is true with what is NOT we lose our grasp of reality.

    I strongly feel we must protect ourselves from what is NOT true by having a very high standard of what is acceptable. It is like asking "Who will you let in your front door?"

    Would you let anybody who knocked on your door into your house because they "might possibley" be nice? Or would you exercise reasonable caution that tests people as to their character and intentions?

    That is all I mean when I speak about these things.
    I have been badly burned by allowing Jehovah-mythos into my brain and I entertained it as "possibly true" and it took root and stole 20+ years from my life.

    I test everything before it is invited into my "possibly true" brain file.

    I disavow mystical things because the SOURCE is hidden and cannot be tested.

    Think of it this way. I say to a concept that knocks on my brain's door: "HALT! Who goes there? Identify yourself. Show me your credentials. I don't invite them in first.

    Did I make that simple enough or am I still bloviating?

    Terry

  • Terry
    Terry

    The Wild Child example brings to mind some experiments made with flatworms. Some sort of "chemical" memory can be transmitted in certain organisms. That memory trace seems to convey a kind of information that constitutes knowledge. It is definitely true of flatworms and is a physical reality.

    Those flatworms don't reflect or meditate as far as I know. But, heck, I haven't spoken to one lately.

    I just don't know. But, it is fascinating.

    Terry

  • frankiespeakin
    frankiespeakin

    Terry,

    I think you might be interested in Carl Jungs theory of the "collective unconscious", and the archetypes.

    Here's a quote from Jung: "The collective unconsciousness seems to be not a person, but something like an unceasing stream or perhaps ocean of images and figures, which drift into consciousness in our dreams or in abnormal states of mind. I understood that there is something in me which can say things that I do not know and do not intend, things which may even be directed against me."

  • IronGland
    IronGland
    God is a big fat 0. 0 is nothing, yet it is something. Add a 1 to it, and you get the number 10

    No, you get 1. Unless you're referring to something like 0+0+0=0. But add 1 to it and you get 1,000. Wish I could make money like that. 0 is just a placeholder. There is nothing in the one's, tens or hundreds place and one in the thousands. Is this supposed to be a bad(worse? more bad?) version of St.Anselms proof?

    Why cant I type?

  • onacruse
    onacruse

    Well, I won't lie and say that I've read each and every post on this thread (geez, you people like to talk! LOL )

    But two words come to mind: epistemology and existentialism.

    For epistemology, it's a matter of how we know what we know: the words (especially of whatever language with which we were raised...our "natural" tongue), and the cultural and social influences that are incorporated in that language (the "collective consciousness" mentioned above). We can't escape it: our very thoughts themselves, as formulated in the privacy of our midnight musings, are always represented in our brains as words...words which came from someone else, which we blithely accept, and about which we often have very little knowledge of where they came from and what they really mean. Then, of course, as others have mentioned, there's the issue of genetic patterning.

    So, if a Yugoslavian came up to me and expressed himself very forcefully, what would I think? I'd think "Gosh, I don't have a clue what this guy is saying!" because 1) I can't understand the words he is saying, and 2) even if I learned the words (dictionary-style), I still wouldn't have a clue about the nuances and entedre of his meaning. And so also for a higher-dimensional being trying to communicate with me, except much worse: the higher-dimensional being would be trying, using "my" language," (and such a being could only communicate to me using "my" language) to describe something to me that was utterly beyond my ability to comprehend; all "my" words in the world couldn't take me beyond the limits of my own being.

    Which then connects to existentialism: "What am I? Why am I? Who am I?" Again, a higher-dimensional being might well have all those answers ready-to-hand (if they even have hands ), and engage me in prolonged explanations in an effort to elucidate me. But all those answers would necessarily incorporate concepts and awarenesses that transcend the capacity of my own physical organism (brain and all) to comprehend.

    In that respect, I believe the resort to mysticism is futile, and may well be the last desperate act of frustration for those who realize that their brains will never lead them to complete awareness (re: Kant, etc.)

    Bottom line is, I'm just a teeny-weeny little Flatlander (of the non-Dutch type LOL), who will forever remain incapable of understanding those "higher" things...though it is quite stimulating to consider the possibilities (oops, my existentialism is showing).

    Craig

  • frankiespeakin
    frankiespeakin

    On,

    What if a person thru meditation was able to completely quiet his human part of consciousness with all it's concepts and ideas and just be aware and this allows the "one" who is listening to the thoughts (though he is not the thoughts themselves) to percieve something very subtle in this state of awareness and stillness of human mind,,,to percieve something about his higher dimensional self????

  • Pole
    Pole

    For epistemology, it's a matter of how we know what we know: the words (especially of whatever language with which we were raised...our "natural" tongue), and the cultural and social influences that are incorporated in that language (the "collective consciousness" mentioned above). We can't escape it: our very thoughts themselves, as formulated in the privacy of our midnight musings, are always represented in our brains as words...words which came from someone else, which we blithely accept, and about which we often have very little knowledge of where they came from and what they really mean. Then, of course, as others have mentioned, there's the issue of genetic patterning.

    So, if a Yugoslavian came up to me and expressed himself very forcefully, what would I think? I'd think "Gosh, I don't have a clue what this guy is saying!" because 1) I can't understand the words he is saying, and 2) even if I learned the words (dictionary-style), I still wouldn't have a clue about the nuances and entedre of his meaning. And so also for a higher-dimensional being trying to communicate with me, except much worse: the higher-dimensional being would be trying, using "my" language," (and such a being could only communicate to me using "my" language) to describe something to me that was utterly beyond my ability to comprehend; all "my" words in the world couldn't take me beyond the limits of my own being.

    Onacruse,

    1) Check out "the linguistic relativism hypothesis". Also known as the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis hypothesis.

    2) How the heck do you know that "we can't escape it: our very thoughts themselves, as formulated in the privacy of our midnight musings, are always represented in our brains as words...words which came from someone else"??? How do you know we think in terms of natural language words and phrases only? Is it because every time you try to communicate your thoughts you use language?

    Would you then say that people deaf and mute from birth don't think at all? Read the example of the deaf Nicaraguan children. I posted it above.

  • Pole
    Pole
    Those flatworms don't reflect or meditate as far as I know. But, heck, I haven't spoken to one lately.

    I just don't know. But, it is fascinating.

    Very funny Terry.

    I'm just not sure if we are all that different from flatworms. Well, we are of course supreme in terms of self-delusion...

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit