Comparative Religion: Godmen

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

No they do not. You really aren't making an effort to understand. It's written out so obvious that indeterminism or acausality do not explain anything. They are a self-gratifying concept only. At least you could admit that is all that the theories offer, they offer no further explanation.

I am okay, you are okay, and everyone is okay. We're all living our lives. The only conflict is in terms of "argument" which is removed from the empirical. We can give power to argument, or not. We can make "argument" the prevalent issue, or we can allow reality to be.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

I am okay, you are okay, and everyone is okay. We're all living our lives. The only conflict is in terms of "argument" which is removed from the empirical. We can give power to argument, or not. We can make "argument" the prevalent issue, or we can allow reality to be.

Argument does not do anything to the nature of reality.

Reality is not that which exists in your head, which seems to be what you are concerned for "letting be".

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

It's more likely that I will become insane.

It's not an easy developmental stage, by any means. It's like being in the carnival funhouse. It feels insane, that's for sure. Many here can attest to it. The point is, you are chosing it. It seems it is predetermined, and even though you consciously fight it and degrade it, your whole Being is here, on Purpose. Being has a way of doing that to our egos. When our egos are the tip of the iceberg of our Being, and we get so caught up in that tip-of-the-iceberg view, we cause ourself inner conflict. Surrendering to Being is the harmonious, conflict-free option.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

It's not an easy developmental stage, by any means. It's like being in the carnival funhouse. It feels insane, that's for sure. Many here can attest to it. The point is, you are chosing it. It seems it is predetermined, and even though you consciously fight it and degrade it, your whole Being is here, on Purpose. Being has a way of doing that to our egos. When our egos are the tip of the iceberg of our Being, and we get so caught up in that tip-of-the-iceberg view, we cause ourself inner conflict. Surrendering to Being is the harmonious, conflict-free option.

I am not fighting an inner predisposition to your belief system. I'm sure everyone who arises at your mystical conclusions feels an inner desire or predisposition to that belief. That is not true for me, I do not need a fundamentally mystical explanation or theory in my life. What I need is a good solid theory that provides further explanations for the behavior and nature of human beings. A theory that is reproducable, adaptable, has evidence supporting it and has a null hypothesis. Determinism provides all of that stability in a theory of human nature. Indeterminism provides nothing but the personal gratification equivelant of the belief in the tooth fairy.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Argument does not do anything to the nature of reality.

Reality is not that which exists in your head, which seems to be what you are concerned for "letting be".

I've been saying throughout this thread that reality is not that which exists in any of our heads. Our existence is what is real--our thoughts are ego and are about separation and illusion.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

I am not fighting an inner predisposition to your belief system. I'm sure everyone who arises at your mystical conclusions feels an inner desire or predisposition to that belief. That is not true for me, I do not need a fundamentally mystical explanation or theory in my life. What I need is a good solid theory that provides further explanations for the behavior and nature of human beings. A theory that is reproducable, adaptable, has evidence supporting it and has a null hypothesis. Determinism provides all of that stability in a theory of human nature. Indeterminism provides nothing but the personal gratification equivelant of the belief in the tooth fairy.

What I am saying is that if you consider it "insanity"-provoking to be on this board, and if you resent the consequences, and the call to inner resolutions, etc, and yet you are here most days contributing so much energy, the conflict is between you and your Being.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

What I am saying is that if you consider it "insanity"-provoking to be on this board, and if you resent the consequences, and the call to inner resolutions, etc, and yet you are here most days contributing so much energy, the conflict is between you and your Being.

The problem is with "inner resolutions" or intuition. Is that reality is often times counter-intuitive. I'm sure you believe the earth rotates around the sun and is round. That is all counter-intuitive. For if you try to feel the rotation of the earth you cannot and if you look at the horizon it appears flat. Do not be deceived by your "inner resolutions".

The reason I contribute so much energy is out of concern for social progress and mutual understanding of all human behavior. All I want is for people to stop using the black-box of free-will to halt further explanation, to end the causal chain and rest all blame on a single individual. It is harmful. It's absurd. The exact same logic that "proves" God is being employed to "prove" free-will. You call it "Inner resolution".

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

I've been saying throughout this thread that reality is not that which exists in any of our heads. Our existence is what is real--our thoughts are ego and are about separation and illusion.

Don't you think it's a bit ironic that you make this claim, then in the very next post tell me to seek resolution within myself, i.e. within my head. First you say reality exists independently of what I think, then you tell me to use intuition to achieve a greater understanding of reality.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Don't you think it's a bit ironic that you make this claim, then in the very next post tell me to seek resolution within myself, i.e. within my head. First you say reality exists independently of what I think, then you tell me to use intuition to achieve a greater understanding of reality.

I have thoughts and I have opinions. I've mentioned, also within this thread, that they are valuable as tools, when we realize our thoughts and opinions are not the reality of our Being. By using our thoughts and opinions to serve the whole Being, we are harmonious. When we identify with our thoughts and our opinions, thinking they are us, that's when we get distorted.

I use different contexts depending on my purposes in each moment. In reality the objective/subjective exists in the whole. It is not actually split in two, putting one or the other in a vaccum like the human psyche tends to see it. I support everyone resolving the false duality between that which is within and that which is outside of us, in order to be realistic. People continue to see these concepts in a fragmented, separate fashion when the inner lenses are fragmented. When our inner conflicts are unresolved, we project our lack of resolution outside of us, onto the real world.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Don't you think it's a bit ironic that you make this claim, then in the very next post tell me to seek resolution within myself, i.e. within my head.

In the next post, I said: "If" you feel this way, and "if" you feel that way, then your conflict is within.

I did not tell you to seek resolution within yourself.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

The problem is with "inner resolutions" or intuition. Is that reality is often times counter-intuitive. I'm sure you believe the earth rotates around the sun and is round. That is all counter-intuitive. For if you try to feel the rotation of the earth you cannot and if you look at the horizon it appears flat. Do not be deceived by your "inner resolutions".

The reason I contribute so much energy is out of concern for social progress and mutual understanding of all human behavior. All I want is for people to stop using the black-box of free-will to halt further explanation, to end the causal chain and rest all blame on a single individual. It is harmful. It's absurd. The exact same logic that "proves" God is being employed to "prove" free-will. You call it "Inner resolution".

This is what the "I" in you wants. The "I" is the ego. Your Being is taking you into the existential realm, where you will learn some huge things about the millions of maps that people perceive. I tell you this so you can have this context through which to learn consciously. You can certainly opt to ignore it and continue to learn unconsciously. My sense of you is that your dissonance to this idea will have you being vocal in your disagreement. And your strongly intuitive self will eventually embrace this truth, consciously. Probably sooner than later.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

The problem is with "inner resolutions" or intuition. Is that reality is often times counter-intuitive.

I am all for science, objectivity, and what both uncover. I am against false-science egoism, and the human flaws that are weilded to continue the illusions of false dichotomies. I said earlier that the existential types on this board welcome knowledge and information. They are so willing to learn new things and embrace what is counter intuitive. Existentialism DEMANDS and depends on full integration of objectivity. Each existentialist understands the value of objectivity, or they would not be--and are not--at the level of existentialism. Where they bristle, and go into opposition is when their strengths, being the understanding of personal individual infringement is violated. They know you have stepped out of bounds when you do this.


For the record, any of the scientists you have presented info for, who are in the public eye, have gained their positions of power because they can focus on their agenda without infringing on others, and without crossing those lines. They have earned those positions of power by making the resolutions I refer to. As you can also someday do.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

This is what the "I" in you wants. The "I" is the ego. Your Being is taking you into the existential realm, where you will learn some huge things about the millions of maps that people perceive. I tell you this so you can have this context through which to learn consciously. You can certainly opt to ignore it and continue to learn unconsciously. My sense of you is that your dissonance to this idea will have you being vocal in your disagreement. And your strongly intuitive self will eventually embrace this truth, consciously. Probably sooner than later.

Angelica. That sounds incredibly self-centered, condescending and ignorant.

The 'I' in me is a pattern of what I know. It does not want to achieve ignorance, it wants to achieve understanding. You are terribly misguided by your intuition, dangerously so. This is not a matter of cognitive dissonance. I am not torn between mystical explanations and real observable and useful explanations.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Angelica. That sounds incredibly self-centered, condescending and ignorant.

The 'I' in me is a pattern of what I know. It does not want to achieve ignorance, it wants to achieve understanding. You are terribly misguided by your intuition, dangerously so. This is not a matter of cognitive dissonance. I am not torn between mystical explanations and real observable and useful explanations.

angelica wrote:

My sense of you is that your dissonance to this idea will have you being vocal in your disagreement.

Right on cue.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

I am all for science, objectivity, and what both uncover. I am against false-science egoism, and the human flaws that are weilded to continue the illusions of false dichotomies. I said earlier that the existential types on this board welcome knowledge and information. They are so willing to learn new things and embrace what is counter intuitive. Existentialism DEMANDS and depends on full integration of objectivity. Each existentialist understands the value of objectivity, or they would not be--and are not--at the level of existentialism. Where they bristle, and go into opposition is when their strengths, being the understanding of personal individual infringement is violated. They know you have stepped out of bounds when you do this.


For the record, any of the scientists you have presented info for, who are in the public eye, have gained their positions of power because they can focus on their agenda without infringing on others, and without crossing those lines. They have earned those positions of power by making the resolutions I refer to. As you can also someday do.

I urge you to apply this thinking to yourself. You seem to be projecting on me your own flaws. Your post prior to this one is again in direct conflict with this post. This is the second time you've contradicted yourself.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

The 'I' in me is a pattern of what I know. It does not want to achieve ignorance, it wants to achieve understanding.

Yes, it is the pattern of what you know. That is what the ego is--the part of us that interfaces between the outside world, and our Being. I completely agree you want to achieve understanding. The issue is that for all the "I" knows, it doensn't yet know what it does not know, so sometimes it denies it's own ignorance.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Right on cue.

That was a self-fulfilling prophecy, parlor tricks, mind games. Nothing more. It certainly reflects the shallow nature of your illusions and the strong emotional attachment you have to them.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

That was a self-fulfilling prophecy, parlor tricks, mind games. Nothing more. It certainly reflects the shallow nature of your illusions and the strong emotional attachment you have to them.

Either that, or I'm simply right. Be sure that the "audience" will judge for themselves.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Yes, it is the pattern of what you know. That is what the ego is--the part of us that interfaces between the outside world, and our Being. I completely agree you want to achieve understanding. The issue is that for all the "I" knows, it doensn't yet know what it does not know, so sometimes it denies it's own ignorance.

Are you on drugs?

My whole point is that I don't make assumptions about what I don't know. I don't base my knowledge on intuition because of the potential fallaciousness of doing so. You on the other hand feel a need to have a complete understanding, you erroneously fill-in the parts you don't know intuitively.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

Either that, or I'm simply right. Be sure that the "audience" will judge for themselves.

So that is it? It's about the "audience"? This is a social endevour for you to prop your ego up on a higher ground?

Think about this statement, really think about it. Look at all the finger pointing you've done. The self-projection onto me. See the irony.