Pierre

Electic Eye

You said

I agree 100%

I also say that one does not need a god to act, react and interact in a “good” way.

To Unum

To which you, Unum, replied

Unum, I do not make demands to god simply because I do not believe in him. I also do not make demands to father Christmas – but I enjoy receiving nice things. If there was a god, it would have been nice to receive great things from him.

What you say about having eternal life by being in perpetual motion is like some far out statement from the hippy era. I really cannot think of one single response to it.

Regards from Africa

Pierre

Eclectic eye

Pierre

You said:
"I also say that one does not need a god to act, react and interact in a 'good' way."

I agree 100%.

In fact, it's the childish "my god's better than your god" belief of "religious chauvinists" that causes so much of the world's troubles.

Pierre

Eclectic eye

We see eye to eye...

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: Pierre ]</p>

Eclectic eye

Pierre,
Seeing eye to eye is mutual respect, sir.

Unum,
Are you there?

I'm still eagerly awaiting your plausible explanation of the parallel between ourselves and stars; and heaven and hell.

You said you were willing to share.

Pierre

Could be that Unum is in perpetual motion and cannot stop to reply...

Unum

I am not sure if this belongs in this post or even in this forum, but here it goes anyway.

A common concept that shows up in many of the world's religions is one of shedding the exterior layers to focus on the interior. Those exterior layers would be things such as money, material possesions, and ultimately anything that one desires. It is often said that truth if found on the inside while false is found on the outside. Hindus signify this by putting a bindi in the middle of their forehead, the so-called "inner eye". While our two eyes look out into the world, it is this inner eye that looks in towards God. Buddha taught that the outer world was an illusion and the desire for these illusions are the source of suffering. He practiced his teaching by living a life with as few possesions as possible. Jesus, also lived a life of poverty and homelessness. He taught often of having faith in oneself. Mohammed also spoke eloquently of his poverty. These are just a few of the many examples of this concept in religion. This shedding of the exterior to focus on the interior is a very important one. If one focuses on the things outside of them, they have less time to focus on those things which are inside of them. To illustrate this, imagine that I own an automobile (I don't, but bear with me). By owning this automobile, I have obligations towards this object that I wouldn't have if I didn't own it. I have to clean it, get insurance for it, make payments, be careful driving it, etc. All of these tasks require me to focus my attention on this automobile, instead of focusing on the object that is within me, that is me. The more objects I have, the more my focus is drawn outward (away from me). Another common concept in many religions is that of the duality. The duality can be seen on the outside as female and male, energy and mass, good and evil, circumference and diameter, etc. However, when one looks inside (thinks about it), one realizes that these are both one and same thing as they come from the exact same source, a singularity. Taoism represents this concept as well as any religion with the yin and yang symbol. The halves represent the opposing dualities ebbing and flowing against one another, yet are ultimately joined together in the completely balanced symbol. These two concepts, the inward motion and the joining of the duality into a singularity, are the two concepts that I will attempt to use to form a plausible explanation of the concept of heaven and hell. My conception of heaven (or nirvana) is a blissful, eternal unity with the One, while hell is the exact opposite a suffering non-unity with the One. Now, on to the stars.

Recent scientific discoveries has led a number of scientists to speculate that the core of a star is not incredibly hot as once believed, but instead very cold. It is in this cold core where cold fusion takes place. In physics, fusion is the act of combining nuclei to form more massive nuclei with a corresponding release of energy. The outer layers of a star are extremely hot and instead of undergoing fusion are instead undergoing fission. Fission is the act of splitting apart a heavy nucleus to form smaller nuclei. Also, like I mentioned in an earlier post, when a star dies the outer layers are ejected outwards in a massive explosion to form new stars or other space bodies, while the core implodes on itself, creating an extremely massive and dense singularity (possibly a black hole depending upon the size of the original star) that stays around in place.

Now imagine that all of humanity is a star. Those that focus inward (towards God) would see and attempt to fuse the duality into a singularity. They would be very cold but those that succeeded in doing so would stay around a long, long time after they have died (in heaven). On the other hand, those that focus outward would see and attempt to divide (fission) the singularity into the duality. They would burn themselves up in the process living many, yet very temporary lives (in hell).

Eventually, I believe we will all experience heaven. I'm under the belief that the universe will slow down and eventually contract in on itself in the "Big Crunch". It will be at the singular moment when everything will be in heaven, yet the next moment everything will be back in hell (after another "Big Bang") and it will all start over again.

Peace,

Unum

Unum

Of course, you may join in. Welcome.

Yes. In fact, because it is One and everything. In zero dimesions it would be a point. This point would literally, figuratively, metaphorically, and allegorically be the point of everything.

Yes and no. Any evidence whatsoever would be evidence of the One, yet unless people understand that there is One, then they will not be able to see the evidence this way.

That is very true. I've had many names and nicknames throughout the years, yet they all still refer to me.

I understand the distinction. However, if the definition of universe includes all things, including conscious humans, then it is obvious that the universe contains consciousness. Fundamentally, everything can be thought of as energy. When this energy forms in certain complex patterns consciousness or the appearance of consciousness arises. I would assume that the more complex the energy pattern the more conscious the entity. Which would explain why humans seem to be more concious (or aware) than dogs or dogs more conscious than trees, etc. The earth, however, is combination of all trees, all dogs, all humans and many, many other things. It's consciousness would include the consciousness of all things conscious contained within it. We can name this thing earth or gaia, but in the end they both mean the same thing.

There is no proper label for this thing that I am talking about. It is both theism and atheism. It is the something that just is.

Peace,

Unum

[ December 17, 2002: Message edited by: Unum ]</p>

Unum

Go back and read my post and my responses. When did I ever say that this concept that I am talking about is original? In fact, I encountered a similar argument as yours and said, no it's not anything new, it's the oldest thing there is. I would think it would be obvious from the subject matter of my post that it isn't original. If what I am talking is the One that is everything, than anything that has been said about it is talking about it. It's why I said Hindus talked about it, Taoists talked about it, Jesus talked about it, Buddha talked about it, Abraham talked about it. It was here long before any of them and will be here long after we are all gone. It is not an original concept in the least bit, but my phrasing of it, however, is.

Peace,

Unum

Unum

This God that I am talking about is necessary, as without it you wouldn't be able to act, react or interact in any sort of way, whether good or bad. Without something there is nothing.

You have already been given one of the greatest gifts there is, existence. Here is what you said inititally "It would be great to die peacefully in my sleep and wake up say an angel blessed with eternal bliss and happiness. If a god could give me that I would never say no. If a god cannot do things like that (“nice” things) to me I would have no need for it." Like I said, you've already been given life, to make more demands upon God to give you more things without putting forth the effort to deserve these things is silly. If you want to die peacefully in your sleep waking up to eternal bliss and happiness, then you must work for it. It's totally your choice.

To be in perpetual motion is to be in eternal motion. There are many people out there who have died long ago, yet the words, deeds and memories of these people continue to effect and change people to this very day. By being able to still cause this effect, they obviously still have power as power is defined as the ability to cause an effect over the change in time. The memory of who and what they really were still lives and will continue to live for quite some time.

Peace,

Unum

Koyaanisqatsi

If I may?

Another that comes up is deliberate fraud designed to enslave the minds of others to one's own cause; aka, power trips.

In other words, one's property and sense of worldly responsibility, which, naturally, includes one's burgeoning sense of self and placement within society.

Starting to see a pattern developing? Don't worry, it's coming...

It is also often said that a fool and his money are soon parted.

Christians signify this by passing around a collection plate.

The "symbolic" inner eye, that does not actually exist? Well, then, that seems poetically appropriate that such an imaginary sense organ would be used in that manner .

And lo how the Asian people have suffered throughout the centuries at the exact same time that Buddha taught them all this neat trick to end suffering!

Funny how that correlates.

Who needs possesions when one is entirely supported by everyone else around him? I wouldn't need any possesions either if I were freely welcomed in anyone's home at any time and freely offered their food or their clothing or whatever other "simple" need I may have from time to time.

Must be nice.

Did he now? Well, that must have been no problem. Considering he was, you know, God and everything.

He also taught often of loving your oppressors, not so that this love will transform either them or one's self, but because this oppression made them all blessed in God's eyes.

That one should love one's enemies; again, not for some higher, transformative result but because their oppressive force upon you and your family meant that God would wink at you on your way to judgement after you are dead.

A suffer-now-and-you-win-anything-off-the-top-shelf-when-you're-dead-and-it-no-longer-matters, kind of thing.

Do you smell the whiffs of snake venom in that watered-down whiskey bottle yet?

So do his followers. They speak of it from their limosines and comfortable homes.

And just a few of the many examples debunking these concepts in reality.

I guess it really is just a matter of perspective; from the bars looking out.

According to those who wish you to focus on "the interior" as they define it, of course.

It's not just "perspective," then, as we can now see, it's the perspective of the cult that's at issue.

That's a fascinating dissociative duality you're working on. Could you explain, perhaps, why you consider yourself to be so limited in your limitlessness?

If you are, indeed, "One" innately, then anything you do is all a part of that "Oneness," yes? Or are you saying that the "One" can be "Two" and that one part of that two is out to "get" the other part of that two that is One?

I mock this, not out of invective, by the way and not out of any personal disrespect to you directly, but because I felt it necessary to use the same kind of approach (just the flipside) as you are here doing; describing lofty, idealized versions of constructs that, when deconstructed to the simplest degree, betray a far more realistic agenda (aka, man's inhumanity to man).

The very same agenda, I should add, that is always the first to be obscured and it's detractors marginallized through dogma ("Doubting Thomas" ring any bells?).

Ok. That would mean that you are in no way a part of the automobile; that you simply exploit it's distinctiveness for your own ends.

"Obligations?" That's an odd, homocentric way of putting it. The car is just a car. Any "obligations" you put upon it are your problem, not your car's.

Oh, I see. You aren't talking about "obligations" in any other sense than simple, mature responsibilities inherent in your initial decision to exploit the distinctive qualities of the object in question (aka, car).

You own a car, which means certain responsibilities come along with that ownership. Got it.

This is bad why? You use the car for your own needs, it only seems right that you in turn maintain the "needs" of the car, yes?

Isn't that a mature, responsible lesson to learn that can be applied to all other aspects of one's life?

There's that perspective thing again.

And there's that bizarre dissociative disorder again. Perhaps a good psychologist would be what you're searching for .

Again, no offense intended. I'm just attempting to illustrate the flipside to your poetic machinations.

On a more serious note, I would reiterate the fact that "all those tasks" you seem to imply to be so distracting and so removing are in fact mundane and irrelevant.

It is how you mentally assess and project your own emotional state upon them that really is at issue here. You are implying that it is the tasks that cause the removal and not simply what is actually going on, that one is falsely blaming the tasks for things that are actually internal.

Hmmmm. Good ol' coke sniffing Freud.

Again, I suggest a good therapist, then. You're priorities are not just out of whack, but apparently easily distracted by rather banal activities that shouldn't tax you in the slightest.

Also, you keep reiterating this notion that it is somehow possible to be doing things that aren't you doing things and while I'd love to get into a psychological discussion of Multiple Personality Disorder, this isn't the place.

What this is the place for, however, is the advancement of yet another possibility going on here, rather easily inferred from all that simple deconstruction of your terms I mentioned earlier and that is, of course, that a ruling elite is simply brainwashing you into willingly becoming a sheep; easily guided and docile.

In other words, a slave.

How? By instructing you to seek "inward" toward their own constructs that you've simply augmented (most likely through cognitive dissonance) to make more sense to you personally, thereby allowing you to think that what you are doing is entirely of your own creation. As others have pointed out, however, nothing you have posted so far supports such a unique-to-Unum conclusion.

If you're not thinking about your "worldly" concerns (which are all that actually, tangibly exist to you), then you are deliberately causing your own cognitive dissonance, distracting your thoughts even more so than that pesky car of yours.

In this way, you become even more lost while all the time thinking you are "found" (the very definition of cognitive dissonance).

And you owe this enlightenment all to: Jesus, Buddha, Allah, Insert Your Version Of The Same Damn Thing Here.

Thus, you are their slave [i]of your own free will[/b], which is exactly what any ruling elite wants. The sick part here is, you think you're setting yourself (and your mind and your soul) free, when in fact, the opposite is occuring.

The more "free" you become and the more you dismiss your "worldly responsibilities" (what you call "obligations") the more you simply detach from the only tangible qaulity that is being offered directly to your senses.

After all, your body is nothing more than a sensory input device and you are here arguing to shutoff those senses in order to be more in tune with your own existence.

Now, why in the world would a satellite dish, for example, deliberately force itself to not receive the kinds of information it was designed to receive? So it can receive "internal" information?

Yes, it surely is. The best way to instigate cognitive dissonance and "reboot" the individual mind so that it can then become controlled by the group (aka, the cult, aka, the elite).

Yes? Again, just trying to point out the flipside.

All of which in such simplistic, black and white absolutes, too! Funny how absolutely nothing in reality is ever that clear, though. And funnier still that such a basic truism is never incorporated into cult dogma.

I wonder why that would be and to what end that serves? I guess it's back to perspective again.

Beg pardon? You lost me on that one, so I'll let that mock itself.

Or are you trying to say--like our posts being flipsides to the same coin--there is ultimately the coin that contains the two sides, in which case I would only repeat my caveat about how nothing is actually composed of absolute, polar opposites, we simply interpret things that way? Even "matter" and "anti-matter" are not absolute opposites of each other, especially when you consider Einstein's contribution that matter is energy and there is no such thing as "anti-energy."

At least, not that I know of, but I digress. The point is clear that you are, again, speaking in poetic imagery that has little to no relationship to how this physical existence actually unfolds. So far, in fact, there's little else but the poetry.

Fine work if you can get it...

As arbitrarily designed by humans for humans. Show your cat the yin-yang and see what its response is.

I'm sorry, but all I see is an unjustifiable, homocentric glorification of man's ability to oversimplify that which he actually knows almost nothing about.

Again, forgive me, but you sound more like a teenager who just got stoned for the first time.

You mean, the imaginary constructs of a handfull of cult authors from two thousand years ago? The patently obvious constructs of fear and judgement and cosmic reward for "doing good" that have been the primary cause of the world's suffering over those two thousand years?

The cause of wars and retribution and torture and murder and the wanton rape of indiginous populations that continues to this day? Manifest Destiny ringing any bells?

Again, I hate to burst your bubble as others have, but that is not necessarily your conception, but, minor point.

Why not come back to Earth? You know...? Where you actually live?

I'd very much like to read a source on that, if you don't mind.

Hunh. Finally something truly fascinating.

Sounds about right...

Why should we?

Here's where it all falls apart into Doug Henning Imagination Land.

We are not stars and there is no analogous substance of any weight for us to join you on that flight of pure fancy.

Again, lot's of poetry, but exceedingly little substance.

Just like religion.

Again, interesting poetry, but where's the nitty gritty where the real world exists? You have simply asserted that God is like a singularity out in space.

To what end, other than poetic symbolism?

Your dance has no substance. I could just as easily say to you, "Imagine that God is a little girl in Wisconsin and that all of us are nothing more than hairs in her comb."

Or, "Imagine that we are all tiny particles that are themselves grouped in larger particles and that everything we call the Universe is actually a flea on the back of a sickly dog who..."

Imagination is a wonderful play toy, of course, but, again, in this regard it appears to serve little else than mental masturbation.

Well, thanks for sharing, I guess.

[ December 17, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi-Still Retired ]</p>