Unum

Feel free.

Yes, that has happened with many religions. However, the person enslaved has no one to blame but themselves.

Do you judge someone's placement in society by what they own and posses? People such as Buddha and Jesus owned nothing, yet a large number of people in this world put their placement high above others. Funny how that happens, huh?

As for me, I put no one above me, nor no one below me.

Yes, I'm starting to see a pattern develop. One of you not understanding what I am talking about.

Yes, I have heard that phrase many times.

Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with what I am talking about here.

What exists and what does not? The fact that people do this and it causes an effect on them means that it exists. Something that does not exist is not able to cause an effect, however these do cause an effect, so in essence they exist. They may not exist in objective reality, but they certainly exist in subjective reality. Also, you deride the imaginary, yet our entire world is imaginary as it is our minds that give image to what we consider reality.

Suffered? They seem to be doing quite well. How have they suffered? I would like some examples please.

Why is it that you're not welcome in everyone's home? These people that I spoke of were. What was it about them that allowed them to live this way? Why did so many people so freely welcome them into their homes?

Did you notice I never mentioned anything about Jesus being God? Even Jesus himself admitted that he was lesser than the Father. It's obvious you are confusing the words of Jesus with the words of his followers.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If you are oppressed now, you will be the opposite of oppressed later.

Yes, it seems as if the whole Muslim world lives this way doesn't it. Please note the sarcasm.

You've done nothing of debunking. All you have shown is your ignorance.

Of course it is a perspective thing. I am not advocating that you have to do this. It is your choice. Whether you want to look inward, outward or both for your happiness is entirely up to you.

Because infinite limitlessness is actually a limitation as you have no choice but to be limitless. It's the duality at work again.

Yes, everything is a part of this One. No, neither side is out to get one another because when it is One there are no sides. It is only when we split it into two that it takes the impression of having sides.

If that is how you see it, so be it. However, I see the One that I am talking in entirely different terms. If everything is One, it means that there is nothing better and nothing worse. Therefore all things are equal and are to be treated as such. I guess, to you though, that this equality that I speak of is a bad thing.

Yes, they are mundane but not irrelevant. By focusing upon these things I am unable to focus on making myself a better person, whether that be through reading, thinking, or doing something.

The task is causing the removal for if I didn't have a car I wouldn't have to do the task. By not having a car I free my mind from having to take care of a car. It's equivalent to lying to someone. When someone lies to someone they have to be constantly on their guard and mindful of the lie that they told so that the person they lied to doesn't figure it out. By not lying in the first place, one frees the mind of the baggage that comes with carrying around the lie. Instead of carrying around the baggage of a lie or a car one can more easily focus on the moment at hand.

They do not tax me, but they take my time which I choose to use in a more constructive way.

Speaking of a psychologist, it appears that you could use one yourself as I don't have the foggiest idea as to what this sentence is supposed to be saying.

Huh? A ruling elite? Where? Brainwashing me into becoming a sheep? easily guided and docile?
Hmmmm?

That's a pretty interesting thing to throw out there. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that this is what is truly happening? If you don't, I would recommend that it is you who should be seeing a psychologist.

I never once claimed that it was unique to me. In fact, it's far from it. It's also you too. Yet, you obviously don't understand that. What is unique is my particular phrasing of it. What I am talking about is the same thing that has always been talked about. It's what you talk about and everyone else for that matter. My particular energy configuration is unique, however the energy that makes up this configuration is not, it's the same as all the energy in the cosmos. The same applies to you.

You call this the flipside, yet I don't see it that way. If the duality has no meaning please explain to me a singularity. Calculus is built upon these concepts. To find the area under a line, we are required to sum up an infinite amount of zero width sections. Somehow this works and does find the area under the curve. Yet, logically it makes absolutely no sense. Please, if you will, explain these points where human logic completely and utterly breaks down. It is at these points where the infinite and the nothing come from, at the same time. You say this is a cult or elite class doing this to "reboot" peoples minds, tell that to all the scientists who use calculus on a daily basis.

It sure is simplistic. At our most basic core we are energy. Energy is released in something called a quanta. A quanta is a fixed amount, it can not be anything smaller. It either is released or it is not. There is no in between. Just like a computer or electronic circuits, either 1 (released) or 0 (not released). You say the world is a shade of gray, I say gray is made up of percentages of black and white.

What is your fascination with cults? I am part of no cult nor any religion for that matter. The only time I talk about these issues is on this board. If that constitutes a cult, welcome to my cult.

Have you ever studied calculus? Are you aware of the fact that infinity and zero never, ever appear alone. For there to be infinity there must be zero. They come into existence at the exact same time from the exact same singular source.

I do not think it is so arbitrary as you think it to be. In fact, I think when we fully study string theory that this shape will show up again.

Right, just like Einstein stating the simplistic formula E=mc^2. But what did he know?

Do you see any good whatsoever in any religion?

Do you honestly blame this solely on religion? Do you think that there might be any other factors at work in these things?

There is no chance of you bursting my bubble, so don't worry about it. It is my conception in the sense it is what I believe, because others believed it before me matters not.

I never said we were stars. There is One however and being One the same patterns would continue to show up over and over again. That is what I am talking about.

God is the singularity.

Our mind is what gives image to the world around us. Everything is our imagination.

Anytime.

Peace,

Unum

Koyaanisqatsi

And their parents and their community and their cult leaders and the fact that most cult indoctrination occurs from birth onward, of course.

No, I judge someone's placement in society by the way they handle the responsibilities they take on and how they postitively influence the society we all live in.

Rejecting that society and/or seeking to withdraw from it is little more than cowardice, IMO.

Yeah, people are idiots easily duped by obvious charlatans. Go figure, huh?

Un hunh.

Wrong pattern, then. I not only understand it, I see right through it. It's wonderfully poetic and ultimately has no meaning (accept to you, of course).

Yes.

No, it has to do with what I'm talking about here in response to what you're talking about here.

The words you just typed.

I sense a pointless solipsist reduction coming on. Again. Joy.

Oh, phew! My mistake. You're just conflating disparate meanings of the word "exist."

Un hunh...

That's an interesting contradiction, don't you think? If that latter part is true, then what is "objective reality?"

Hold on a minute while I write down every single Asian person's name and degradation suffered unto them throughout all of human history. Then, if I have time, I'll also count every single atom in the universe for you too.

How do you know that I'm not?

And just exactly how do you know that? Because of what you've read about those alleged people from those who deified them, perhaps?

Quantifier? Quantify thyself.

They most likely did not live that way, which was, of course, my point about your poetic musings, romanticizing and glorifying that which probably had a much more "nitty gritty" reality to it, absent, IMO, from your post.

All of the people I have ever met (in real life) have freely welcomed me into their homes as well. Why? Because, outside of these fora, I'm a very affable and engaging, polite (yes, polite) man that has never given anyone a reason not to freely welcome me into their homes.

So what does that tell you? Absolutely nothing, of course, because it's an irrelevant observation that you are raising up to a pedestal through your tone and choice of words; i.e., glorifying.

You're certainly painting a pretty picture, but it has little to nothing to do with reality, which is where I come in .

You didn't have to, of course.

How big of him.

Since they are the only ones who wrote them down, it's little wonder.

Did you notice that I actually used their words to demonstrate the obvious fraud being deliberately perpetrated by the Jesus cult?

Oh, good you did:

Fascinating. Now, if you could actually address my point, we could get somewhere, since Jesus was not saying that (or shall we say, the author of the Sermon on the Mount was not saying that) as I pointed out.

Jesus (aka, whoever wrote Matthew) is telling his disciples that they should consider themselves to be blessed for their persecution; the the persecution they suffer on earth means that they will win anything off the top shelf once they are dead.

Why?

Accept your persecution and love your enemies so that a fictional creature will reward you once you're dead. Consider youselves blessed by the persecution you suffer from the ruling elite.

In other words, don't seek to end the suffering; that's going to happen as a reward once you're dead and it no longer matters.

Seeing the pattern now?

You're merely accepting poetry while I am deconstructing the prose and seeing how it actually breaks down in the real world.

Suffer now--and consider yourselves blessed because of it--and you win anything off the top shelf once you're dead in a magical fantasy land that we've concocted to get you to fall for our nonsense and join our cult.

It is, quite literally, the oldest con in the book.

Please note that my comment was meant to be from the perspective of the cult leaders, not the millions of unfortunate minds trapped in the cult.

I guess I should have said "So do his disciples. They speak of it from their limosines and comfortable homes."

My mistake.


Devastating argument.

I'm so glad you put no one above you, nor no one below you.



Again, you've missed my point.

Un hunh.

I see. So it's one, two three strikes you're One.

Nice fallacy. I get that one a lot around here.

So driving your car means you can't focus on being a better person? That sucks.

Let me ask you a quick question. Being a better person for whom and to whom?

Beg pardon?

To what end?

Again, I would reiterate my observation that you seem to be trying to shift some sort of perceived spiritual blame (I'm still unclear what you've done, of course) onto benign objects.

Equating a car with lying, for example. A car is just a means of transportation. Should you also now cut off your feet rather than risk hell fire?

But not to make you a better member of society, right? To make you a better person unto yourself; an island of self-directed, self-centered, self-reflection, perhaps?

Perhaps more self-reflection then?

Just good old fashioned observational deconstruction; sifting the nuggets of reality out of your poetry.

Un hunh.

Again, you're missing the point, but whatever...

Un hunh...

So we're all one in our uniqueness. Got it.

Fair enough (and abundantly clear).

What has this to do with my observations regarding the truth (as I see it) behind your poetry?

What, for that matter, has this to do with a singularity? There is no "duality" in a singularity. That's just your poetry.

No, it is not.

Although not a Calculus Professor, I would venture to guess that you are doing what I once did here; confusing literal definitions with poetic notions of mathematical terms.

I'll leave that to a Calc wonk, though.

<ol type="1">[*] You're incorrect in your poetic application of mathematical constructs[*] Logic is nothing more than a tool of cognition[/list=a]

According to your poetic interpretation of (most likely, though again, I'm no Calc prof, but I'd bet dollars to donuts) misconstrued mathematical constructs.

And just to remind you, all I'm trying to do is pop that poetic bubble and to try and get you down to earth where things actually do happen and there are real results of such poetic nonsense, such as wars, inquisitions, torture and other forms of victimization.

Let me reiterate something I touched upon earlier and you admitted too, as well. Nothing you are spouting from on high is new (not even, I would argue, your particular "take" on it as I've heard this exact same diatribe from several people here and in the real world). Indeed, the "teachings" you have been glorifying have been around for thousands and thousands of years and until only relatively recently, those "teachings" have "completely and utterly" ruled every aspect of just about every single human being's lives on this planet, comparatively speaking.

Now, although I already know your answer, what, in your estimation, has been the qualitative outcome of thousands of years of billions of people all thinking and believing (and acting upon those beliefs) in precisely the manner you are here claiming for yourself?

For what reason? To the best of my recollection, no one ever killed anybody in the name of Calculus.

Then you are once again contradicting your own dogma (the One).

Now do you understand why I mentioned cognitive dissonance and its adverse effects?

You mean, beside thousands of years of victimization and genocide?

I thought that would be clear by now. They destroy people's ability to properly mentally process the world around them and their place within that world, which in turn, poisons the collective unconscious water supply that we all drink from so that everyone's mental processes are either degraded or must work exceptionally hard to provide everyone with the antidote.

Thousands of years of billions of people poisoning that supply is quite a daunting task to undo, don't you think?

Un hunh.

Thanks, but I was actually referring to cult thinking and it's ill effects, using your post as an example of the kinds of contradictory and, IMO, socially detrimental constructs that inevitably can and do result.

In high school. Not my strong suit.

Are you aware of the fact that those are human terms used to explain incomprehensible constructs for mathematical purposes?

Again, no Calc prof me, but as I've always understood it, infinity can not "come into existence" by its very definition. Infinity has always been in existence, yes?

As for the zero, it too must always have been in existence, since it is nothing more than an abstract concept.

Again, I would submit this section as support for my earlier contention that you are simply misconstruing a poetic interpretation of literal terms and mistaking the incomprehensible for something mystical.

Did you ask your cat? No, of course not, because only human intellect matters, right?

Doubtful, considering string theory is predicated upon a tenth dimensional (or twenty sixth dimensional) construct and the yin-yang is only two-dimensional.

He knew enough not to glorify it and proclaim that his formula is somehow evidence for mysticism.

Not so far. At least nothing that would outweigh the "bads."

Like?

Then I guess it's not the cult of you.

Yes, actually you did in essence. Remember:

But, whose counting?

And I am debunking.

Yes, so you have asserted again.

So it's to be the pointless solipsist evasion. What keeps happening to that "objective reality" you mentioned earlier?

Great. Now, instead of sharing, could you address my points directly? Preferrably without constantly trying to employ the tiresome and sophomoric aphoristic style so popular with the NT authors, yes?

[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi-Still Retired ]</p>

JusticeMachine

Tiny and ugly are human terms, and therefore subjective. (Subject to human interpretations)
They are not valid.

Again things simply are how they are in totality, regardless of our ability to sense them accuratly.
So false = mistaken identity, incorrect evaluation of what is.

JusticeMachine

I disagree, kind of. If we have incorrectly named the universe we preceive as "the one" and there are multiverses, that only means that our preceptions of "the one" need to be expanded. In other words, we were incorrect in our prior assumption, and his arguement still stand.

But, what is everything is infinite. Then there can never be "the one" for there to be "the one" implies and end or and finite value where there isn't one.

Unum

Their parents might have introduced them to the cult, but if they participate in the cult they have no one to blame but themselves. No one can make them stay in the cult.

You have no idea as to what responsibilities people take on. You are only able to judge them from your perspective and what you think is right and wrong. However, because you do not know everything, your judgement is biased and skewed. A word of advice, be careful judging someone else, lest you be judged in return.

The same thing can apply to how people positively influence society. Your idea of positive might be entirely different than someone else's. It's obvious that many people thought Buddha, Mohammed, Jesus, and others were a positive influence, otherwise they wouldn't take these people as a role model to look up to and emulate. Some people are leaders and some are followers. It would be nice if everyone could be a leader. However, throughout history that has not been the case. It would seem if someone is going to choose to be a follower that they choose someone such as the people I mentioned above, as opposed to choosing someone such as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, or someone similar to follow.

It is exactly what you said, your opinion. If you see something wrong in something do you embrace it or do you reject it? By rejecting society, one goes way against the norm. They stand alone in doing so. If that is not bravery, I don't know what is. The thing is, one person with strong convictions is all it takes to enact change. That is what is refered to as efficacy.

I sense envy in your words. These people, even though they have died long ago, are still held up today as moral examples by which to live by. What charalatans to be so highly praised by their peers.

If this has no meaning to anyone, then anything you write has no meaning either (except to you, of course).

Please, enlighten me then as to what passing a collection plate around has to do with what I am saying.

The reason they keep coming up is because they have yet to be solved. It always seems to end up in an infinite regression. Why? Once you understand why, you will finally understand what I am talking about.

Please explain to me how something that doesn't exist can cause an effect.

I would consider objective reality to be that which a number of people agree upon. I would consider subjective reality to be that which an individual has agreed upon. That being said, our objective reality would be a subset of our subjective reality.

Because Buddha taught a way to avoid suffering does not mean everyone learned or understood his teaching and applied it to their lives. Perhaps if they had, maybe there wouldn't be suffering. In fact, it is my belief that in many cases we willingly choose to suffer. If I believe I am not suffering, I am not suffering.

It is an assumption I made, like many of the assumptions you have made about me. I apologize for it.

Yes, that is all I have to go on is what I have read about these people. The same applies to anyone who has died without me meeting them. All I have to go on is what was written or said about them from others. I do believe, however, that the more good things that are said about a person are said for a reason. There must be a reason why all these people said these good things. Likewise, there must be a reason why some people are remembered throughout history longer than others. People such as Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Abraham and others are still able to cause an effect on people to this very day. To cause an effect, they must still have energy as energy is defined as "the ability to cause an effect". By still having energy, they still have power as power is defined as "the amount of energy transferred over a change in time". Yes, these people are still powerful and there is a reason for that.

What leads you to believe that they didn't live this way? The only evidence that we have on them says they did live this way. If you want to make a counter claim, surely you have ample evidence to back yourself up.

Wow! Every single person you have ever met welcomed you into their homes. That's impressive. I doubt many people can say that. It does say a lot about you, whether you realize it or not.

The words that you are using are words that are not attributed to Jesus. As far as I can tell, he never claimed to be God the Father nor did he ever pass a collection plate around. Your impression of Jesus is tainted by those who came after him who deified him. He did not start the Jesus cult, as you call it. It was started after he died. Yes, it is deplorable what people did in his name after he died, but he was not the one doing it. You're blaming someone for something that they didn't even do. A cult of personality forms around powerful people, whether they want it to or not. Even people such as Nicola Tesla had a cult form around him after he died. Some people were convinced he was a prophet and worshipped him. Was that his fault?

I have a much different interpretation of what he was trying to get across with this sermon. Although to get into a debate about our respective interpretations of the sermon on the mount would merit a new post as I believe it is one of the most beautiful and thought provoking pieces in all of literature.

From your responses to me, it appears as if you regularly take the perspective of cult leaders (aka ruling elite). I wonder how Freud would interpret this?

It might be helpful if you pointed out the fallacy in what I said.

Being a better person for myself and everyone around me.

Again you do not understand my point. If I own a car, it can be considered part of the mental baggage that I carry around, in other words I think about it. If I didn't have a car, I don't have to think about it. Instead, I am free to think about what I consider more constructive things. Likewise, when I tell a lie, it also becomes part of my mental baggage that I carry around or something I must think about. I will always be worried that the lie will be exposed, thereby exposing me as a liar. However, if I do not lie in the first place that worry is now gone and it allows me to concentrate on things that I consider more constructive. Do you now see how two seemingly different things (the car, a physical possesion and a lie, a mental possession) can have the same effect? Of course, patterns like these show up everywhere as everything is One.

Yes and no. Yes, in the sense to make myself a better person unto myself. No, in the sense that the better person I make myself, the better society is overall. I feel like I owe this both to myself and to all those around me. If all of the individuals of a society were mediocre, that society would likewise be mediocre. If all of the individuals of a society were their very best, that society would be its very best.

I like to think of it this way, I may be but a speck of dust on a tiny, insignificant planet in one of many galaxies in an incredibly vast universe, yet as chaos theory says, if I flap my wings I might be able to effect the fate of the planet and quite possibly the universe.

I guess what you're saying here is that anything I believe is wrong, even if I've come to it on my own accord, because somehow a ruling elite is controlling me to keep my docile. Is this really what your reality tells you? It very well could be, however the exact same could be said of you. Perhaps you are being controlled by a ruling elite to keep you hostile to my ideas. Do you see how your knife can be used against you? Could this be why in Revelations 1:16 it says "...and out of his mouth came a sharp double­edged sword"? Just one more example of the duality at work.

Yes, because we are not the overall One, only part of it, we each have a unique perspective upon it. However, combined with everything we are One.

The singularity is a duality and vice versa. That is obviously what you don't understand. A circle is a one-dimensional object. It takes only one variable to define a circle, either diameter or circumference. So, in essense, all I need to know is one variable (either the circumference or diameter) to derive the other. In effect, I get two values from one value. Even though there are two differing values, it still defines only one circle. For another example using a circle, a circle is infinite in the sense that has no beginning nor end, it only has a relative beginning or end, yet it is also finite as it is only one circle. A circle is both infinite and finite at the exact same time. Here is another example using a circle, a circle has one point, the center point, that is equidistant from all other points on the circle, it has one point that can define many, yet the many can only describe one. These examples are all related through the constant pi, an irrational number. An infinitely repeating number, with (as of yet) no discernable sequence or pattern, yet able to be represented with one symbol. Is this all poetry as well?

Yes, it is.

Find a good calculus book and you will see what I am talking about.

1. Please explain to me where I am incorrect in mathematical constructs.
2. Yes, logic is a tool of knowledge, no doubt about that. Regardless, to understand what is truly going on in calculus one must suspend logic as calculus at it's very core is illogical.

Have you ever heard of Zeno's paradoxes? Calculus to this very day has not really solved them. The problem stems from division by zero which in conventional mathematics is not allowed. However, that is what happens in calculus. L'Hopital tried getting around this problem with his new convention as he said as the number approaches zero a limit is reached. This didn't really solve the problem though as the limit must still be reached and crossed for the hare to catch the tortise and to allow us to run into a wall. It's still a mystery that logic, as it currently stands, is unable to deal with.

That's nice, I like that, my poetic interpretations of mathematical constructs. It's got a catchy ring to it.

Because I point out that calculus is logically flawed there will now be wars, inquistions, torture and other forms of victimization? I think it's time you got back to reality. I have never and will never advocate such things.

What teachings am I glorifying? I'm only pointing out things as I see them, just as you point out things as you see them. Is your opinion more valid than mine? No. Is my opinion more valid that yours? No. Only time will tell what the truth is.

It is no wonder these teachings ruled every aspect on this planet, as it is what it is. If you would read my original post that started this thread you would see that it is obvious that everything that has been done and everything that will be done is all in relation to this One that I speak of. Being the only concept there is, makes it THE orignal concept.

I am alive, you are alive, I have friends, you have friends, things must really be bad huh? Yes, there have been wars, many over religion, many over other causes, yet if things had not happened exactly the way they happened I nor you would probably not be sharing this coversation. Look around you, is the world as bad as you make it out to be?

Again, when have I ever claimed this for myself? Please show me.

You blame religion for causing death, yet it is not the religion that causes the death, it is the people in the religion that cause the death. Do you also blame cars for killing people?

I do not belong to any organized religion. In fact, I don't think religion can truly be organized. We each have our own unique walk with the One. We might be able to get together to share our experiences, however no one can do the walking for anyone else. We can walk together for a while and widen the path so that the people that come after us can use it. However, there is a point where the path ends and each one of us must find the rest of the way by ourself. The thing is, one will never find this path by killing others or doing any sort of injustice to others. To do an injustice to another is the same as doing an injustice to yourself.

You have as much distate of cults as I do. Why then do you continue to accuse me of belonging to or wanting to start a cult?

Yes, knowledge has a way of doing that. Knowledge is power. Yet power wielded is both good and bad. Nobel invented dynamite to help the train industry tunnel through mountains, yet others used this same idea to create weapons to kill people. Do you blame these weapons on Nobel? The Chinese invented gun powder for use with fire cracker displays, yet others used the idea to make guns to kill others. Do you blame all gun deaths on the Chinese? Albert Einstein with his famous E=mc^2 equation showed the tremendous amount of power in an atom, yet others took this idea and made nuclear weapons out it. Do you blame Albert Einstein for creating nuclear weapons? What is a person to do? We are born with a curiosity to discover the world we live in and how it works, yet what we find out can have disastrous consequences. In the end, however, all things will work out. They always do.

Yes, they are human names for concepts that are very real. In fact, they are used everyday in all sorts of calculus equations. Without them, we probably woulnd't have cars, airplanes, know anything about space, or even design something so simple as a transitor (so no computers either).

You're right. My bad. Infinity nor zero don't come into existence as they've always been here. It is things, like us, that are in between these two similar opposing concepts that come along to try to figure them out.

However, if you study the development of numbers, you will see that as soon as the concept of zero was discovered, so was the concept of infinity. They go hand in hand. In fact the Greeks and the Romans after them, feared the concept of the void that these things represented and chose not to use them in their number lines. That is why there was a dilemma as to when to celebrate the new century. Most people assumed it was the year 2000, however it was actually the year 2001 as the Roman calendar that we base our calendar off of did not have a zero year. It went from 1 BC to 1 AD, skipping zero altogether. In fact a good book about this is "Zero: the Biography of a Dangerous Idea". A very good read.

The yin-yang is two-dimensional in form, yet multi-dimensional in concept.

Also, there very well may be 10, 11 or 26 dimensions as currently postulated by string theory, however these can still be broken down into smaller and smaller dimesions for us to study. Just as a 3-dimensional object can be represented by a point in physics equations for ease of study.

Let me give you a few quotes from Einstein himself.

That may be. I'm not a fan of organized religion as I already said above. However, I think the good equals out the bad and it is a wash.

If I were to see one atheist commit a heinous crime, should I blame the crime on his atheism and all his atheist friends (I'm sure this has been before) or should I blame it only on the person who commited the action? I put the blame squarely upon the person committing the act and not on anything else. The person's atheism wasn't responsible for the act, it was the person themselves.

I am as leery of cults as you are. I do not like them and never will. Even a cult of personality is scary. I would never wish on myself and I would likewise never wish it upon someone else. It distorts the real person into something that they were not. Yes, this happens in religion, but that doesn't mean it has to. I can read the teachings of Mohammed, Jesus, Buddha or anyone else and filter out what I think is the junk that was added to it later on. I might not be perfect at doing it, but I don't have to be perfect. No matter what, I question everything I read, even everything I sense. It's the only way I can come to my own conclusions. If the conclusions I come up with are similar to others, so be it. It still won't stop me from questioning.

You keep talking about cults and such, but you do not know where I have been or what I have experienced. In fact, I once went into a church of scientology, I even went so far as to watch their promotional video. Have you ever seen it? It talks about how great it will make your life and then goes on to talk about how they have cruise ship for members and a celebrity center in Beverly Hills, amongst other things. After watching this, I came out and berated them. I basically told them, if what you have is so great for humanity, why do charge so much money for everything, why not just give it away to help all of humanity. They didn't much like this and proceeded to shuffle me out of the place. Believe me, I am no fan of cults.

It's called an analogy. Because I see beauty in a flower, like I see beauty in a woman does not mean that the flower and the woman are the same thing. Use your imagination, that's what analogies are for.

To debunk, would require you to address my original post that started this thread. I have yet to see you do this.

You have also failed to address this from my original post.

Hopefully I've addressed your points. I would like to see you address mine now.

Those NT authors that you call sophomoric are in the most printed book in human history. Not too bad of an accomplishment if you ask me.

Peace,

Unum

[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Unum ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

You evidently have not studied cult indoctrination techniques, but no matter. Cult thinking is what I was originally referring to, so this is an irrelevant point.

I would say, however, in response that you are quite wrong. It is exceedingly easy and a defining quality of (especially) the christian cult, for example that one can in fact be made to stay in the cult; from the social and familial ostracism (commonly referred to as "shunning" and/or "excommunication," depending upon the cult sect) to decades of hellfire and damnation threats that terrify millions of innocent children throughout their entire lifetimes to, until relatively recently, torture and murder, there are many ways to force people to stay in a cult.

Especially if those people are never allowed to figure out for themselves that they are, in fact, in a cult.

I get all kinds of hell from theists (and atheists alike) who try to argue that christianity, for example, is not a cult.

They're wrong and I demonstrate that, but, again, moot point since neither of our posts need focus on the details of cults so much as we should the details (and results) of cult thinking (and by that I mean detrimental cognitive effects).

Beg pardon?

And there's a perfect example of what I'm talking about in regard to cult thinking (cult mentality). Who said anything about "judging" people from a "right" and "wrong" piousness? I do not morally judge anyone at all, as you clearly here imply.

As should be abundantly clear from my posts, the only thing I "judge" (I prefer "deconstruct" so none of that cult mentality creeps in) is one's argument.

In your case, however, the deconstruction rests solely upon attempting to sift through your poetry to find anything of substance we can actually discuss here in the "real" world.

Who is judging whom?

Oh, I see. You are judging me based upon your own strawman.

Fascinating how the pot always feels the need to call the kettle black around here.

A word of advice, don't build strawmen so close to open flame.

Again, I submit what you've just written as further evidence of cult mentality. Kindly note that this is not the same as claiming you are in or accusing you of being in a cult.

It is abundantly clear that all people have their own opinions about what is or is not "positive." What makes a society is sharing those opinions in order to, hopefully, arrive at a consensus that in turn molds the society.

Indeed, that's a textbook definition of what a society is.

You, however, appear to be warning me against being an active participant in shaping my own society, by using loaded words such as "influencing" as if I (or someone else who wishes to positively participate in the forming of our own society; the human society) am some sort of Hitler hell bent on world domination.

Again, I submit that such mentality is the same kind of mentality one would expect to find in the propaganda of a ruling elite wishing to subjugate.

Indeed, I've made that point directly using the Beatitudes as an example and you are here confirming my argument with this example of how such a mentality ("judge not, lest ye be judged") adversely effects the thinking of otherwise intelligent people such as yourself.

Note that I am addressing and deconstructing what you have written and not you personally (or so, I am trying to do), so please do not take any of this personally in kind. I am simply using your words and your aphorisms to try to illuminate the flipside to your poetry; the (IMO) detrimental side effects of the reality of your mysticism for consideration and reflection, not ad hominem or invective.

Well, first of all, those "people" never existed in the form or substance claimed by the cults that formed in their names, so it's misleading at best to say that anyone looks up to those "people" as role models to emulate.

Indeed, one of the central problems with cult mentality is that the members aren't looking up to or emulating people. They aren't even people at all; they're fictionalized/aggrandized gods to the majority of followers in one way or another, either directly or indirectly.

Here, let's take the flipside to further illustrate my position here. Calling Hitler a monster is very similar to calling Jesus a god.

Why? Because it removes his humanity and, in turn, removes what he did from the human condition. Hitler is considered an aberration in this manner; an impossible monster that just sort of appeared almost mystically out of the darkness of man's soul and did monstrous acts of cruelty, the likes of which no one has ever seen before, etc., etc., etc.

The truth, however, is that Hitler was very much a human being and the atrocities he ordered were nothing new under the sun. Indeed, Stalin ordered the extermination of almost four times the amount of people Hitler did and don't get me started on what American's have done throughout the world, the point being that by "demonizing" just as with "deifying," the human element is removed.

Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Hitler all become something they never actually were, which in turn means that anyone following "them" aren't actually following them at all; they are following the cult of them and that's where it becomes historically detrimental.

Leaders can't be leaders without convincing their followers to follow them. Again, your poetry implies that these men gained followers honestly as a result of pure living and leading by example and while that may have been true for the first followers, we can't and don't know why that was or who those people actually were, of course.

We can speculate; we can assume (as you are doing) that these people (if they ever did factually exist) were benign teachers whose words were subsequently perverted, but the only way we can assess what any of the world cults are "about" is through the dogma of those cults and the effect that dogma has had on the world; on human society.

Although you may have addressed this later and I just haven't gotten to it yet, I will reiterate a previous point; your mystical poetry has been around for thousands of years and fanatically adhered to in one form or another by literally billions of people, yet man's inhumanity to man has not only never abated, it has historically, progressively gotten arguably worse with each passing century, up to the point today where we have finally developed weapons that can destroy the entire globe in about ten minutes.

I would argue (and am) that your kind of poetry has caused, not cured this.

Just as a side note, I generally don't read other's posts prior to deconstructing them point-by-point, so the mention of these names right after (or, technically, before) I brought them up is interesting.

Now, on point, you are demonstrably incorrect again, since many millions of people did choose to follow Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot, (Hitler more so than the others no doubt). Many millions were forced to follow them as well, but then again, many millions are forced to follow Jesus/Allah; the only differential being the manner of force utilized.

Make no mistake, though. A steel boot crushing a skull that has a smiley face on it is still a steel boot crushing a skull and it’s only relatively recently that the christian cult has slapped a smiley face on their boots.

What a pointless observation.

I seek to correct it (note the proper, non-piously loaded term as opposed to "right" and "wrong")! That's the gray area you seem to be either refusing to understand or incapable of addressing.

Again, I submit what you've just written as evidence of the detrimental mentality your kind of poetry seems to inevitably induce in its adherents.

You seem to be arguing that only the leaders should lead and that the followers should simply learn and accept their place; that the followers should do nothing and can do nothing but either embrace something "wrong" or "reject" it, when there is a third, far more positive choice, which is, of course, to seek to correct it.

Where your kind of poetry appears to reveal itself in regard to my arguments about cult mentality comes not just here, but also in the very next thought you are most likely thinking about what I just typed; i.e., "Who do you think you are to correct what is wrong? Only the leaders can do that!"

Do you see my point now regarding ruling elite (aka, cult) mentality and its detrimental effects (IMO)?

Again, nice poetry, but it certainly doesn't refer to any of the people you were previously deifying. Jesus, for example, did not "reject society" in the slightest if we can at all believe what was written about his actions; he (allegedly) jumped right into it--arrogantly--and intimated that if he were not followed and believed to be god (or the son of, depending upon which myth you read), then everyone who did not follow him would be tortured for all eternity in a burning lake of fire.

No, wait! Let me guess. I'm "obviously" not reading his words, but the words of his followers again, right?

Do you see the dichotomy of what you're preaching? On the one hand, you're saying (in essence) that I am not worthy of being anything in society but a follower and that, further, that is as it should be for I do not know what is "right" and what is "wrong" and that I shouldn't judge lest I be judged; that I should reject all of the “trappings” of society and look inward, effectively removing me from being an active participant in that society.

So, you've taken care of the citizen by belittling and degrading me as a human being; by indirectly implying that I’m “trapped” and not focusing inward and, what’s worse, not capable of “truly” focusing inward with all of this stuff around; the stuff of my society.

Then, on the other hand, right after doing this to me, the citizen, you deify the leaders (who market and provide all that stuff) and marvel in the fact that they did precisely what you just strenuously discouraged me from doing!

You chastised me for having (in your eyes) the audacity to wish to positively change my society from within and in almost the exact same breath deified Jesus (and Buddha, etc.) for doing the very thing I sought to do.

Again, I submit this as another example of ruling elite imposed mentality for your consideration and reflection.

See? There you go again. If I'm not deifying and genuflecting, then I am envious.

Cult mentality in a nutshell.



Not by anyone around here, they're not!

What a shock that members of a cult would hold their leaders in high regard.



Yes, just like Hitler. Still.

Again, your poetry signifies everything and means nothing.

Are you serious? Did you just say, "I know you are but what am I? Nyah, nyah, nyah?"

It betrays the fraud in the kind of poetry you are espousing, IMO.

And still more of that misguided pious condescension.

The reason solipsism is still on the books is because of homocentric arrogance (like your poetry) and nothing else.

Indeed, all one has to do is take solipsism to its logical conclusion to immediately dismiss it as the simplistic mental masturbation it actually is.

Either you accept an "outsidedness" to existence or you don't. If you don't, then you should simply sit in your room and never do another goddamned thing, because nothing but you exists (including a God, by the way), so you are, once again, incorrect in your assessment of what you are talking about.

The One you fantasize about would not be an example of solipsism, but if it were then you are arguing for the existence of an utterly and ultimately pointless singularity.

Let me demonstrate. Let us say that you are the solipsist (since there can be only one, it must always be singular). That means that everything around you (including, arguably, your own body) is nothing more than a figment of your imagination. Take that to its logical conclusion.

Only you exist and you are everything. That means, of course, that all of this is a pointless waste of your own time, since it would ultimately mean you can't learn anything, truly experience anything or in any way grow, since ultimately it's all coming from you.

If you're the solipsist then it is you who wrote the script. You know (ultimately) what happens in the first act and the second act and the third act, etc., etc., etc. In other words, you know it all, created it all and continue to maintain the lie of linearity.

Why? To what end? To learn? No, there is nothing to learn if you're making it all up. To grow? No, there is nothing to "grow" since you'd have to be "grown" to be this meta-thing. To feel or experience? No, since it would be nothing more than you, at best, fooling yourself (if at all even possible).

So, by all means, argue solipsism all you want, just take it to its logical conclusion and then shut yourself up in a dark room somewhere and fulfill the machine-like processes you would no longer need to fulfill once you've figured it out so the rest of us can get some sleep (in your imagination).

MORE IN NEXT POST SO THAT THESE THINGS DON'T EXCEED TOLSTOY'S COMPLETE WORKS IN LENGTH.

(edited for dyslexia and formatting - Koy)

[ December 23, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi-Still Retired ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

MORE...

Just walk up to a stranger today on the street and call them a "worthless f*ckface" and you'll see exactly how something that doesn't exist can cause an effect.

Holden Caulfield doesn't exist, yet "he" (and not--arguably--J.D. Salinger) caused a very serious effect on Mark Chapman (the fuck) and, indirectly on John Lennon.

The exact same thing can be said of Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Allah, etc., by the way, since, again, it is arguably not the people that have caused all the ruckus, since those “people” never existed in the manner that is worshiped.

Well, all I can say to that is, more evidence of cognitive dissonance, IMO; of a black is white mentality.

If "objective reality" is only that which a number of people agree upon, then there is no such thing as "objective reality;" i.e., something that exists independently of human perception and, in turn, no “One” that we are all a part of.

You have just fundamentally dismissed any possibility of there being a “One” that we are all a part of.

You're right, it's all the followers fault for not listening to the leaders. It's not their fault for preaching a false doctrine! No, not all.

It's never the fault of the doctrine/deity, is it? It's always the fault of the followers.

Always.

Right?

So, your response is to say that the billions of people over the centuries just weren't true followers who didn't apply the teachings properly, is that it? That’s awfully convenient, don’t you think?

You once again see black and call it white, then, IMO.

Un hunh. And what about all of the billions of people who desperately and earnestly chose not to suffer; who followed to the letter and devoted their entire lives to the leaders and still suffered?

Excepting, of course, for the christian cult members, since Jesus told them to be glad and rejoice in their suffering, because the more they suffer, apparently, the more candy they'll get once their dead, so let's chuck him out of this particular point right now.

A perfect aphorism to illustrate my point. My thanks.

All part of the thrillkill cult of Koy.

Thank you for acknowledging that. We may now both discard all of the nonsense prior regarding the “people” followers emulate, since you have just granted that no one can follow the people, only follow the cult’s dogma.

So now, of course, the question becomes, who was writing what you read and what was their agenda?

I think you know my position on that one already.

Care to count how many good things have been said about Hitler? Still.

Yes, there must be. The question, of course, is what is that reason?

It appears you are taking the "glass half full" assumption and I am taking the "what glass/what water?" default.

The question is, why would you? You’ve finally granted that the people don’t actually exist (in the manner written about them) and that all we have to go on is what was written about them. Taking Jesus as the most ready example yet again, we have a man who preached hatred of one’s family, friends and self, claiming to be the fulfillment of Jewish Messianic prophecy, yet fulfilling none of it; ending up murdered for sedition by the Romans with the end result being the outright blaming and persecution of the Jewish people (by Paul and subsequent generations of christian cult members).

In short, the exact opposite of what the Jewish prophets foretold would happen when the Messiah comes, yet I’ll wager that you still consider Jesus to have been sent by Yahweh and not an obvious counter-cult myth, concocted most likely out of 5% fact (i.e., that a radical rabbi named Jesus probably did exist and probably was killed by the Romans for sedition and that’s the end of it).

Do you take into consideration the intelligence and/or demeanor of the early Jesus cult members? No. Why? Because of the manner in which they are described in the mythology of the Jesus cult, that’s why. All of the disciples are depicted in one form or another as archetypes of possible questioners of this brand new faith (Doubting Thomas, Paul/Saul, etc.) and all of the stories either directly or indirectly center around crises of this new faith. In short, anticipatory and pre-emptive propaganda.

So, again I ask, why do you assume benign origins when there is ample evidence (“I come not to bring peace, but a sword”) of the exact opposite?

Cult conditioning is insidious, I agree.

Look how fondly Jefferson is remembered and Lincoln and hell, Reagan. Jefferson was a hypocritical slave-raper; Lincoln only freed the slaves to gain political support; and Reagan sold out our entire country so the rich could throw lavish parties.

As I mentioned before, people are idiots easily duped.

Yes. An adverse effect if history is any judge.

Yes, well, your poetry aside, I agree.

Yes, there is. You seem to think that reason is benign, even though nothing about the historical effects of their "energy" has changed mankind for the better for thousands of years; indeed precisely the opposite is the case and it can, in fact, be directly linked to the dogma of their "energy," as I have already demonstrated to some degree.

Your response to my extension of this construct of yours has been to say something contradictory; namely that it is the fault of the followers for somehow not adequately accepting that energy, which, I would argue, is sophomoric at best and incredibly insulting to billions of people throughout history at worst.

Again, your poetry signifies everything, but means nothing.

You aggrandize a mystical "energy" that history demonstrates quite easily to be not just false in the sense you're deifying, but profoundly detrimental to humanity as a whole for centuries.

Yet, the "energy" is not to blame, right? Of course right.

SOSDD (same old shit, different day)

No, just five thousand years of documented human behavior.

Thanks, but why? Do you normally meet people who wouldn't welcome you into their homes?

I don't see how, but thanks just the same.

The Sermon on the Mount was not attributed to Jesus?

Nice semantics. He did, however, claim to be God, depending upon which translation you read and was, allegedly, stoned twice for his blasphemy, but who cares? My comment was ancillary and glib.

Well, since that's all we both have to go on (as you pointed out), what's your point and what other recourse do I have? Do as you appear to be doing and simply assume that Jesus the man was something different than what is written about and/or attributed to him?

How do you propose I do that?

And you know this how?

Actually, there is a good body of evidence based on the Q theories that claims there was a Jesus cult long before the passion narrative myths.

I have my own theory as well (as others can attest to), but here is not the place. The point is, that you are once again basing what appear to be absolute conclusions on something that is far from absolute.

Go figure.

Again, how do you know? You don't. You are simply assuming that Jesus was not the Jesus written about in the NT. Why?

Well, it's their dogma. I just correctly interpret it.

Again, nice fallacy, but of course the real analogy would be if Tesla had, at one point, preached that he was the son of God and could heal the sick and raise the dead, etc., etc.

Now, if you are claiming that Jesus never actually said any of those things, I'm all for it. I'm much more partial to the Gospel of Thomas version of Jesus anyway.

If so, however, I would politely request your reasons for so assuming.

I retract my earlier request.

The same way I am. Correctly.

Oh, you were attempting irony to avoid my point. Cute.

The fallacy is of the complex question (have you stopped beating your wife?).

Aka, society?

Doubtful...

Ok. Warped, but I understand where you're trying to go with this, so let's see if you actually arrive there:

And here's where it falls apart, since now you're talking about a moral dilemma. How does owning a car initiate any kind of comparable moral dilemma?

Do you see what I am getting at?

Actually, you know what? Nevermind. This is an irrelevant, ancillary point.

No, I do not and, according to your own deconstruction, neither do you. The lie is troublesome because of its inherent moral dilemma. The car, however, shares no equivalent moral dilemma.

But you've just provided an example that contradicts that conclusion! Perhaps I was too hasty in dismissing this as an irrelevant or ancillary section, as it now, once again, betrays a warping of cognitive processing.

Unless I am very much mistaken (and please demonstrate that I am), you are here conflating two distinctly disparate dilemmas; one a trivial and inherently benign one (the responsibilities of owning a car) and the other an arguably far more significant and inherently troubling one (the moral responsibility and consequences of betraying the trust of your friends and family by lying).

Forgive me, but I see little to no justification in conflating those two clearly disparate dilemmas into "One" just to beg your question. and would further argue that the lack of justification demonstrates one of the serious flaws in your reasoning; your mystical poetry of the One.

In my opinion, of course (lest such a tautology be pointed out by you again).

Unless you mean that it is the "time taken away" from you doing something "constructive" that you claim is equivalent, in which case, of course, we'd have to get into a semantics spiral about what is or is not "constructive" according to you and why you feel (as I alluded to earlier with my Freud reference) driving and/or owning a car precludes you from this mysterious construction work you seem to cryptically allude to.

Exactly what is this construction work you keep referring to?

Do you not see the contradiction in what you're saying here with what you were saying previously about society?

I agree, so what was all that crap about society earlier?

Not at all. I'm saying that what you've posted so far--when deconstructed--in my opinion, betrays the same detrimental effects of this mentality (if not this mentality directly) and I think I have demonstrated and continue to demonstrate that fairly conclusively.

Interesting. Go on...

To what end? "Your" ideas are nothing new and have literally been around for thousands of years. Indeed, they are arguably the basis of at least two cults that I know of (Buddhism and Hinduism) and appear to share identical aphorisms with Judeo/Christianity, with what I would argue (and have here) an emphasis on the latter.

No. You haven't even remotely demonstrated how it is I could be the indoctrinated one programmed against your ideas. Please do so in as much detail as you wish as I have demonstrated many salient elements within your posts that do, indeed, betray if not direct cult mentality, certainly indirect influence.

Only if you're looking in a mirror, my friend.

Right. So we're not all One, just a part of the One; separate and distinct yet combined and contained as we all agree upon, since there is no such thing as “objective” objective reality.

And the color of your black white horse is?

And do you understand that simply reiterating nonsense does not make it sense?

Right...

Yeah...

But they aren't "differing values" in any poetic sense nor do they define "only one circle" in any poetic sense, which is your mistake.

You are doing nothing more than imposing your own sense of mystical thinking onto mathematical equations; this does not mean, however, that the mathematical equations generate or represent evidence for mystical thinking (yet another fallacy).

From two you can derive one. From another two, you can derive another one ad infinitum, so if you really break down what you're saying, at best, the only logical conclusion to come to is an infinite series of disparate individual derivations of two values, again, with particular emphasis on the qualifier disparate.

You say as much in your own words: Even though there are two differing values, it still defines only one circle.

So, at best you would have a universe filled with infinite unique circles. Setting aside for a moment the obvious fallacy in your reasoning (all of the other geometric shapes and their own unique qualities), you are still left with nothing more than a collection of disparate, unique "entities" that only add up to a whole in set theory terminology.

No, "it" is not. You're conflating disparate constructs again without justification in order to simply obfuscate, IMO, the fact that you have no causal link; no final connection from one to One.

Let me demonstrate with my own example. Mathematically speaking, a line is likewise infinite and finite in much the same way as your circle.

So, using a line as my poetic symbolism, what does that make the "One"? An infinite piece of rope? An eternal road that has no beginning, middle or end?

See what I’m getting at? My symbolism is based upon the same construct as yours, yet shares none of the poetry. Why? Because I simply imposed a symbol (a line) that doesn’t resonate in the same mystical manner as a circle.

And there you go again! STOP IMPOSING A POETIC INTERPRETATION ON MATHEMATICAL CONSTRUCTS IF YOU PLEASE.

I could just as easily poetically interpret the fleas on a dog and the hair in a girl's comb as I did previously, but that doesn't prove what I'm merely imposing upon these constructs.

It is the very definition of poetry! At least in the manner you are reading into it.

No, it is not. Calculus is not based upon the mystical symbolism you are reading into phrases we use to describe what appears to our intellect to be an anomaly (such as pi).

You are doing nothing more than staring at the unknown and proclaiming Goddidit because it’s like something known (a circle). Simply because we don't necessarily fully understand what the unknown is or how it actually works, but we do partially understand a circle and how it actually “works,” doesn’t mean that a circle is the analogous key to the mystical unknown.

We call "pi" an "irrational number," but the term "irrational" does not have the same poetic meaning that you are trying to force upon it (or, better, extract from it), so that it fits your mystical thinking.

I doubt that very seriously, so, on this point, I shall let my doubt rule.

Look, as others (again) can attest, I'm just as fascinated by you are that it's mathematically impossible to count from zero to one (because of the infinite amount of decimals in between), but just because I don't understand the mathematics or just because the current mathematical understanding we rely upon (that changes by the way), doesn't ipso facto mean that I have evidence of mystical creation.

The mathematics of a circle are fascinating in the abstract and largely irrelevant in the physical ( 0. There, see what I mean?), but regardless of both, hardly convincing evidence for "the One," especially considering all of the missing causal links as well as the fallacies of equivocation you keep throwing around (not to mention non causa pro causa).

Again, a line has the exact same fundamental qualities you keep pointing to in a circle, yet an eternal line has rather limited appeal to the senses as an analogy for this “One” you keep talking about, correct? Yet you can offer no legitimate justification for accepting a circle as the resonant extension of those fundamental qualities and not a line. (or a square or a hexagon, for that matter).

The only reason you keep lauding a circle as somehow significant is due to the “mysterious” qualities; that since the circle is mysterious, that therefore proves or in some other forced, fallacious, equivocal terms, mandates mysticism.

It doesn’t work that way.

Please read my posts more carefully. You're incorrect in your poetic application of mathematical constructs. You have been repeatedly stating that because a circle has certain fundamental mysterious properties, those properties establish mysticism.

You are equivocating “mysterious” with “mysticism.” No dice; no causal link.

You have yet to support this claim in any substantive manner beyond the several fallacies already revealed. Please do so now.

Yes.

I have actually read a solution to the supposed paradox, but did not retain it, but no matter. I ask you, is that a fault of "calculus" or of those mathematicians who have not been able to apply calculus properly to solve the paradox or, more likely a fault of mathematicians in their use of calculus to address the paradox?

Calculus is nothing more than a dynamic language concocted by humanity to address (if memory serves) a means to find the area under a wave.

It is not inviolate nor supreme (though, again, don't quote me, since no calc prof me).

I'll leave that to someone like Clutch, as he knows far more about modal logic than I (and delights in pointing that out to me whenever fools such as myself rush in), but, again, I can see the most glaring fallacy you are here committing; the fallacy of equivocation.

The word "mystery," for example, to a mathematician means only that the solution has not been reached. It does not mean (either directly or indirectly), "evidence of mysticism."

So does "fallacious reasoning."

Nice try, but you know that it is because you are trying to equivocate "logically flawed" and/or “mysterious” (in your estimation) with "evidence of mysticism."

This fallacious thinking you are displaying is identical to the very same cult mentality that induces and inevitably results in cognitive dissonance (turning black into white; or should I say, black into yellow, since those are disparate constructs; one a shade, the other a color) that, in turn, leads to the wars, inquisitions, torture and other forms of victimization as history readily demonstrates.

If you can see black and think white then we have evidence of cognitive dissonance, wouldn’t you say?

How would you know with such a scrambled, dogmatically controlled view of things? Besides, what's the difference if, as you say, there is nothing good or bad and we are all One and everything we do is part of that One and it all balances itself out in the end?

Doesn’t that mentality inherently imply (if not directly state) that everything can ultimately be justified (including genocide) through your ideology?

For all you know, Calculus Professors might be the first ones on your list, once your cult is established and the power (or "energy") you spoke of earlier is all yours.

The point being that this thinking (that everything balances out in the end, but you can’t kill anybody, because that won’t balance out in the end) is the very genesis of cognitive dissonance. Don’t worry about anything you do, but make damn sure you worry about everything you do.

Cognitive Dissonance 101.

The exact same teachings that are the basis of just about every single cult on Earth.

No, you are not. You are in fact preaching and there is a difference.

Yes.

No. Ahhhh, that was fun. Pardon me.

Yes, but in the meantime, the detrimental effects of what you have been espousing within your opinions--the mystical mentality--are readily apparent and fairly easy to quantify as I have been here doing.

Right. Control propaganda designed to subjugate; a fraud deliberately perpetrated upon ignorant, innocent people in order to induce a slave (or better, “sheep”) mentality through cognitive dissonance.

That has already been espoused by thousands of charlatans throughout history.

No matter how earnest or innocent those charlatans may have actually been, that doesn't mean they weren't (ultimately) snake oil salesmen.

It just means they probably never looked inside the bottle and analyzed the contents.

You can't be serious.

No, it's worse.

That is the extent of your counter argument? Simplistic denial?

Holy Jesus!

Billions of people over thousands of centuries all fervently and honestly and sincerely believing just about the exact same thing you are espousing and the end result is an increase in human suffering and man's inhumanity to man?

It fundamentally disproves just about everything you have been asserting regarding the beneficial aspects to your construct.

I'll let you blame the cars .

Now where oh where have I heard that before?

F*ckin' people, man! They just don't get it no matter how many billions get it and for how many thousands of years they all got it! If only they all were a part of the One! Oh....wait....

I don't and never have.

Why do you continue to misconstrue my posts?

"Knowledge," eh? Here we go again...

Ok, then lets go right back to the question you dodged. Billions of people throughout thousands of years have possessed this "knowledge" you regurgitated earlier.

Let me guess. The devil (not the One) somehow countered the wielding of that majority power?

I would have had Nobel formed a religious cult around himself, based on a fraudulent claim that he was God's son because of the miracle of his invention and then threatened his own followers that God will blow them up if they do not follow him and etc., etc., etc., and blah, blah, blah.

Are you going to continue to oversimplify and leave out all of the pertinent facts? My guess is, yes.

These would be the same people who first understood your "original" construct, by the way.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt your strawmen with anything relevant.

Do continue.

As a matter of fact, I do, but since this has no bearing on our discussion I'll just let you get it out of your system.

The dogma and the things Jesus allegedly did say can be demonstrated to be direct causes of the atrocities we've been alluding to and that is, of course the issue all of this pointlessness attempts to obfuscate.

Jesus didn't invent a gun or figure out a formula or grind saltpeter, charcoal and sulfur together to form gunpowder, because the Jesus we are talking about never existed. The Jesus we are talking about is a mythological construct created out of the imaginations of the largely anonymous authors of the NT myths and it is that mythology and that dogma and that cult that we are talking about, which ultimately breaks down, of course to the cult mentality that results in not just one person using a gun to kill somebody else in a moment of dissociated passion, but hundreds of thousands of people trained in the name of Jesus to kill hundreds of thousands of other people; and the millions of followers who are told that God--their God, the One True God--hates all Jews for killing his only son or hates all Christians for being infidels and so on and so on and so on.

You're right, it is the fault of the dogma and not Jesus, because no such being as the one described in the NT ever did or could exist.

But don't let that stop you either. I kind of like your strawmen with the simple dress and unassuming blank stares.

Tell that to the men, women and children we are now eviscerating with our cluster bombs throughout the world. Better yet, tell them they are all a part of the One as their corpses are bulldozed into open pits so that we can continue our Manifest Destiny.

But please, whatever you do, don't blame the baby Jesus (or the teenager Vishnu or Old Man Yahweh, etc., etc., etc.,) for any of this. What possible influence could God's son have on any of us, right?

Blame the people! It's the people's fault for not understanding the simple message of love from the One, right?

(edited for addendum, dyslexia and formatting - Koy)

[ December 23, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi-Still Retired ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

THE REST...

Yes, I know, but you've missed my point. They are "very real," but that doesn't make them mystical.

I've actually read that and I concur. About the "very good read" part."

What isn't? How this affirms mysticism, however, is still not established.

I reiterate my charge that you are doing little more than pointing to the dark, claiming mystery equals mysticism and then saying, "That is the One! The ONE!" (cue music)

Yes, I know. Fascinating isn't it? Not evidence of mysticism, however, but let's not get back on topic. These posts are too long (something I thought I'd never say).

Only one could barely be applied to my point, so you just squeaked by on that one.

That's a tragic flaw in your analysis, IMO, and, not to beat a dead horse, but more evidence for the mill.

Ahh, yes, this chestnut again. I particularly enjoy the "court of law" standard you've erroneously forced upon the question as well as the exploded extreme. Never mind that we have been discussing questions of influencing behavior, let's go directly to the court of law, where sociological questions of group consciousness and the detrimental effects of slave mentality instilled into a culture over centuries have no relevance.

That's the best strawman you've built so far.

Could we now, however, place the argument back into its proper context? That of a ruling elite that concocts these myths in order to control and subjugate, or do you want to continue to avoid a discussion of the detrimental effects on society and "man's inhumanity to man" inherent in slave mentality by trying to make it seem as if there are no such influences and every single person is on this earth is educated so well that we have the ideal of self rule firmly established.

In other words, are you going to continue to hide behind non-real world standards, because, such sophistry is really starting to annoy me.

It's just too bad that every single person on this globe isn't fully educated to the level of enlightenment that you have achieved, but f*ck them, right? You're an island unto yourself and can't concern yourself with the thousands of insidious ways in which otherwise innocent, ignorant people are manipulated and controlled.

It's funny, too, since we've had your "enlightenment" around for thousands of years, followed diligently by billions of people in subtle, yet non-substantive variations and yet...oh, sorry, I keep forgetting that your response to all of this is to basically stick your head in the sand and say, "Hey, it's all ok from where I can see."

And if that "act" is to condone slavery (either directly or indirectly)? Or to demand that one's disciples must hate their mother and father and sister and brother and wife and own life, etc., or they can't be your disciple? Or what if that "act" is to convince innocent, ignorant people that their suffering from an oppressive elite is a good thing and that they should love their oppressors for the oppression? How about that crime?

How about the crime of deliberate fraud in order to subjugate and control millions of people? Would that be up for your consideration?

And if it could be demonstrated that it was, indeed, the atheism that was to blame; that had the person, for example, not been influenced by atheism in some manner not currently evident, he would not have committed whatever act he is being accused of? What then?

But, ironically, not of cult mentality and the detrimental effects such thinking has on both the individual and the society (the One!).

Curious.

Well, that's good for you, then isn't it, because you're an island unto yourself in your journey to reject society so that you can then (somehow) become a better part of society, right?

Are you beginning to see the cognitive dissonance cult mentality (aka, mystical thinking) induces yet?

How about answering?

I do not talk about cults and such per se as much as I talk about the detrimental effects of cult mentality (aka, mystical thinking) and how there is ample evidence, IMO, of those detrimental effects to be found in your "One" construct and posts; that your poetic interpretations demonstrate how cult mentality detrimentally effects cognitive processing so that you can see black and think white.

Right before I was thrown out for laughing, yes.

Nor am I, in any form.

No shit.

Yes, and they are also supposed to be analogous to the question at hand. Yours was (and is) not, which was of course my point.

No, actually it would not. I'm perfectly capable of debunking anything anyone writes at any given time, wherever it is they may write it, but if you'd like me to directly address what others already more than adequately have, I'll look into it.

As it is, the post I did initially respond to was the only one I saw of your’s that merited a response. Which is, of course, precisely why I presented one.

You're very observant. Was there a counter-point, however, to my observation that this is nothing more than an assertion on your part, because I can find nothing relevant in your first post, which is where I am assuming you were directing me for illumination?

Some, yes, and I do appreciate it.

Sufficient?

Well, setting aside two obvious points (how many prints a book has does not reflect how many people purchased the book nor does it bear any relevance to the veracity of the book), funny how thousands of years of victimization, torture and mass murder based entirely upon a fear of eternal damnation and a dogma that depicts a savior of peace who came not to bring peace, but a sword can have that effect on otherwise innocent, ignorant people, hunh?

A “own this book or burn in hell” mentality is certainly a strong one, yes?

But again. Don't blame the baby Jesus. It makes him cry.

(edited for addendum, dyslexia and formatting - Koy)

[ December 23, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi-Still Retired ]</p>

Unum

Koy,

Sorry for taking so much time to get to these. I've been busy with the holidays, but I now have time to respond.

There are many ways to try and get people to stay in a cult. However they all fail against a person with strong convictions. Even under the worst possible case, that of death, someone can still choose death over futher participation in the cult.

If those people do not figure it out for themselves, it is because they do not want to figure it out for themselves. No one can stop another from thinking.

This is from a previous response to me, remember it well as I will be using it again.

You now claim that you do not judge people, however let's go back to a previous post of yours "I judge someone's placement in society...". It seems pretty clear to me, from your own words no less, that you judge people. So in response to your question above "Who said anything about "judging" people from a "right" and "wrong" piousness?". You did. If you read my response, notice that I am just pointing out the fact that your judgement comes from your perspective of what you think is right and wrong. This can hardly be considered a judgement on you, as I am not saying you are right or wrong in your judgement, only that it is your perspective when you judge.

Again, you will notice that I am not passing a judgement here. What I am doing is pointing out that all judgements, including my own, are biased and skewed because neither one of us knows everything.

Again, keep my words in mind as I will be using them in a latter response to you.

I appear to be warning you, where? Nowhere did I say you should not share your opinions or beliefs with others. I never even said not to judge others. I did say "...be careful judging someone else, lest you be judged in return." This does not say do not judge others, it only says be careful in judging others, otherwise you will be judged in return. Go ahead, judge away. I am only pointing out that you might not like the consequences of being judged yourself in return.

Also, your accusing me of using loaded words such as "influencing" is laughable. To show you why, I'll present to you your words again "No, I judge someone's placement in society by the way they handle the responsibilities they take on and how they positively influence the society we all live in." I hope you can now see that those loaded words that you accuse me of using are actually words from your response.

Again, I am compelled to assume that you don't understand the meaning of this particular beatitude. It doesn't say "do not judge" and that's that. It says if you do choose to judge someone, you will be judged in return. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If you choose to judge, you are also choosing to be judged. It seems perfectly fair to me.

I agree with most of what you say here. However, with the people I mentioned (Buddha, Mohammed, Jesus) there are writings or sayings directly attributed to them. Do I know for certain that these sayings or writings have remained intact or that they said these exact words? No, I do not. Although, do I know for certain that William Shakespeare wrote "A Midsummer Night's Dream" or Ernest Hemingway wrote "The Old Man and the Sea"? No, I do not. I can only assume that they did as that is the evidence that I have to go on. I also base my decision upon coherency of thought amongst different writings or sayings, similar speaking or writing style, and many other things. I am also under the belief that the closer we get to the actual author, the more relevant the writing. I am much more likely to believe something directly attributed to the author, as opposed to what someone else wrote about them one hundred or more years later. I am also more likely to believe a close friend or associate of the person over someone who did not know the actual person and is basing their writings on what they heard. That being said, through time all people become almost fictionalized characters of what they really were. Although, certain patterns will emerge from these characterizations. Have you ever had a close friend or family member pass away? If yes, what sort of stories do you tell others about this person? Do you tell every single thing that you both experienced together or do you sift through the memories and tell only the ones that you remember most clearly? These clear memories we tell are the ones that had the most effect upon us, it is because of this great effect that we remember them. These memories are what become the caricature of the person. With some people these memories are almost universally positive in nature. They are this way because of the actions and deeds of these people in their lifetime. There is a reason (scientific and spiritual) as to why people are remembered the way they are, for the time they are.

I agree. However, people becoming caricatures of who and what they really were is inevitable as long as people continue to talk about that person. Certain stories and features are remembered at the expense of others, thats just the way it works. Those stories that are the most remembered are the ones that are most important to the people remembering.

I believe in equality for all people, goodwill towards all things, peace and harmony throughout the world and the desire for everyone to live an honest and decent life on their own terms. I not only believe these things, I live these things. Yet, somehow to you, because I write about this and live this way I've caused man's inhumanity towards man to increase. How? I speak of only peace and never war, yet because of this we have developed weapons of mass destruction. Huh? What is it that you are basing your argument on?

Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot spoke of killing people if they didn't follow along. I have yet to read where Jesus or Buddha wrote of killing people if they didn't follow them. People chose and still choose to follow Buddha or Jesus, they are not forced to.

Good poetic imagery.

So instead of using the terms "right" and "wrong" you use the word "correct"? Please read what you wrote above and see if it makes sense. What sort of things are you going to choose to correct? Those things that in your opinion are "right" or those things that are in your opinion "wrong"?

Instead of trying to put words in my mouth, why don't you try to explain how you got this idea from what I wrote. Where did I write about followers should never try to lead? The fact of the matter is this, leaders are called leaders because they lead. Followers are called followers because they follow. I'm all for a follower becoming a leader as well as a leader becoming a follower. I believe that we should all be able to make our own decisions as long as these decisions do not infringe upon the rights of others. I do not tell others what to do because I dislike it when others try to tell me what to do.

Again, please refrain from trying to put words in my mouth. If you are making an argument please show me what you are basing your argument upon so that I may refute it. As it stands, you are making strawmen and nothing more. I have not once in any response to you said people should live a certain way, I have not once said people should worship or follow a certain person or god, nor have I advocated any religion or way of living. I have no desire to be in a cult, nor do I have any desire to form a cult. If a cult were to somehow form around the things that I say, I will say right now, that this would be wrong and a bad thing.

Yes, I believe that cults and a ruling elite can have detrimental effects. However, nowhere in my responses do I advocate such things. I choose not to follow anyone, nor do I choose to lead anyone.

Jesus did not reject society as a whole, he did however reject certain parts of it.

Again, if you read his words (the ones in red in certain bibles) you will see that he never said he was equal to God the Father. He was god, in the sense, that we are all God. God is the One, so in effect we are completely made of God. However, we are just a part of God, therefore we are lesser than the overall whole that makes up God. When you see me or hear me you are seeing and hearing god. Just like when I read your words, I know that I am reading the words of god. However, you and I are but a small part of the overall whole that makes God. Jesus saying he was the son of God makes perfect logical sense. God, from my original post, is the ultimate parent, as such, we are all sons and daughters of the ultimate parent. We are all the children of God.

As far as the following aspect that you attribute to Jesus, I again have a different interpretation of this. I don't think he wanted us to follow him in the sense that he is our leader and we should listen to what he says and be content with that. Instead, I think what he meant was to try and follow his actions. Acting peaceful, loving one another, helping the poor, rejecting greed and vice, etc. If one wants to truly get closer to the overall One, all of these things and much, much more must be done. One can't expect to get closer to God by lying, cheating, stealing, and killing. If someone were to resort to these things, that person should expect nothing less than these things being done back to them over and over again, until they stop doing these things. Only by turning the other cheek does the cycle of violence, followed by violent retribution stop.

Where have I said that you are not worthy of anything but being a follower? You repeatedly make these claims, yet offer no evidence whatsoever to back them up. I am not telling you how to live your life, I am not telling you what decisions you should make. Those are your decisions and how you make them will determine what God deems you worthy of. You are completely free to do whatever you wish with your life. That is the beauty of free will. You don't have to reject the trappings of society nor do you have to look inward. That is the path that I have chosen, no where have I said you have to do the same. Go ahead, judge people all you want. Tell them they sound like stoned, teenagers. However, just be aware that when you choose to judge, you are also choosing to be judged. Also, there are ways to be incredibly active by being incredibly passive. Gandhi actively threw the British out of India, by being very passive about it.

You are capable of anything you choose to believe that you are capable of. How is this degrading? You are not trapped, no one is. The only thing that can trap you is yourself.

I do not deify these leaders. I admire what they did, however I do not deify them. I do not go around telling people that they should follow these people. Everyone has to figure it out by themselves. I do believe that people such as Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Abraham, etc, can be used as guides to help everyone find the way. However, they can only help so far and then it must be done by the individual (if they choose). Also, I did not chastise you for wanting to positively change society. I hope you can. I hope we all can. You and I just have a different way of doing this though.

There I go again? You just claimed up above that you want to do the very things that these people did (influence society), yet you call them charlatans for doing so. Do you also consider yourself a charlatan?

If it means nothing why do you so feel the need to respond and try to put words in my mouth to discredit it?

I am not making an argument for solipsism. I realize that I am one, in the sense that I am made of many parts (organs, molecules, atoms, quarks, etc), yet can be considered one entity. However, I am also able to see things that exist outside of me, so it's logical for me to conclude that there is One that is everything and I am one (of many) of this One. E Pluribus Unum (Out of many, One).

Peace,

Unum

Unum

Koy: Just walk up to a stranger today on the street and call them a "worthless f*ckface" and you'll see exactly how something that doesn't exist can cause an effect.

Holden Caulfield doesn't exist, yet "he" (and not--arguably--J.D. Salinger) caused a very serious effect on Mark Chapman (the fuck) and, indirectly on John Lennon.
[/QUOTE]

Holden Caulfield does exist. That is why he is able to have an effect upon Mark Chapman and many other stalkers for that matter. J.D. Salinger breathed life into him and literally spoke him into existence.

They do exist currently the way they are worshipped. However, I would agree that they were not always thought of this way. Either way, somehow they have morphed into mythic figures. You say this happened because people are stupid and easilty duped, that very well might be the case. However, I believe that there is much more to it than you think, I believe that there is a scientific and spiritual explanation for it. I believe it is something we can study, examine and learn about.

You are misunderstanding what I am saying. I consider subjective reality to be that which each one of us as individuals experience. I consider objective realtiy to be that part of their subjective reality that they share with others. I consider reality to be all of the unique subjective realties combined.

I am not talking about just human perception here either. I believe that animals have their own reality, trees have their own reality and even the earth has its own reality. As human, being part of the earth, we share in the Earth's reality.

How are you so sure the doctrine that these people taught was false? Have you ever tried to do exactly as the Buddha did? If not, you are in no position to validate or invalidate the teaching.

Why do you want to keep throwing around blame unto people. I don't think it's the followers fault nor do I think it is the leaders fault. There is no fault here. Buddha can not and did not force anyone to listen to him. If people wanted to listen and follow, it was their choice, if people didn't listen and didn't follow, that was their choice as well. Buddha was a teacher. People came to Buddha to learn knowledge from him. The Buddha believed he had found the way to avoid suffering in life. Do you fault him for wanting to teach it to others? Do you fault those people who chose to go to the Buddha to learn this?

There have many, many people who have applied his teaching and would testify to it's abilities. It probably explains why there are still adherents to Buddhism today. The truth endures and Buddhism is still around.

Have you ever studied Buddhism and the teachings of the Buddha? Have you ever tried to apply them to your life? Have you ever willingly gave up all your money and possesions to live a life of ascetisism? If not, are you really in any sort of position to comment as to whether it works or it doesn't?

Do you claim to speak for these billions of people? Are you their elected leader? You keep speaking about a ruling elite and continually you keep taking the voice of this ruling elite. Do you believe that you are the catcher in the rye and that you need to catch the people from teachers such as Buddha, Jesus or Mohammed?

You're welcome. Is this aphorism not truthful? The question then becomes, what will it take for me to do for me to not believe that I am suffering?

No, I have not granted that people can not follow the person being talked about. This is just another example of you trying to put words in my mouth. In the case of Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed I have their words to go on. That can be followed. I do not follow them in the traditional sense of they are my leader, I follow them in the sense that they came before me and I after them. By coming after them I am able to read what they wrote and said and apply it to my life and see if it fits or does not. In fact, we have the advantage today of being able to study many people and compare and contrast what they said and what they were able to accomplish. It doesn't much matter what the cult says about them. For the people I'm talking about I have their own words to look at, not the cults.

Yes, let's count. It won't even be close to the amount of good things said about Buddha, Jesus or Mohammed. Also, the amount of bad things written about Hitler are probably more than the good things.

Your analogy doesn't make sense. You are comparing "glass half full" and "what glass/what water?" which is equivalent to comparing apples and oranges. Here is how would improve it, I am taking the "glass (the person)/water (the sayings and deeds of said person)" while you are taking "what glass/what water?". Also, neither one can be considered the default.

You do not understand his teachings if you think they were hatred.

The Jewish religious leaders at the time were the ones that wanted him killed, not the Romans. The Romans saw nothing wrong in what he was saying, they just went along to appease the Jewish leaders. While I think it was wrong that people took out their frustration on the Jews, their religious leaders did bring part of it on themselves. I am not excusing this action, I am only trying to explain it.

I do believe that Jesus was sent by God, but I believe we are all sent by God. I do not believe Jesus was the final messiah. He was a messiah, just not the final one. The final messiah will be the one that sacrifices all of humanity to the cross. You probably think this is a bad thing, it might be, however it is an inevitable thing. Just as the dinosaurs lived and died and we now use their energy to fuel humanity, so humanity will someday die and will be used to fuel a future generation.

Most of the sayings of Jesus have nothing whatsoever to do with this propaganda that you are talking about. However, I will not dispute that Paul brought some propaganda to the message. This is why I said, I read the words of Jesus. Paul, having never met Jesus, I don't think understood the whole message. Without Paul adding a rigid structure to the message of Jesus it might not have survived very long, yet by Paul doing this he changed the what I think is the essential message of Jesus. Paul is a very controversial figure.

I do not assume benign origins. It started, it's still here today and there is a reason for that.

Your sword reference refers to a metaphorical sword. If Jesus wanted to be violent in his lifetime he could have been. Supposedly he had many followers and was an extremely charismatic person. Why did he not arm his followers and attempt a violent overthrow? I think he chose peace to show us that an overthrow is possible in an entirely different way.

I don't think these people are remembered as fondly as you think they are. In Reagan's case, half the country loves him, half the country hates him. That's hardly universal. The thing is, will these people be talked about 1000, 2000, or 10000 years from now?

I strongly disagree. The only history that we have to judge is history that includes their causes and effects within it. Our world is what it is today because of the things these people did.

It's called physics, perhaps you should learn about it.

I never said it was benign. Their energy has changed mankind, that's it. There is no better or worse about it. What has happened, has happened. It has led us to the moment that is right now. There is nothing wrong or right with the moment. It is our choice as to whether we see this moment as right or wrong. There is as much right about it as there is wrong. We have three choices, pessimism ("this is bad"), optimism ("this is good"), or both ("this is both good and bad, so it is neither").

Here we go again, with another one of your men built of straw. Where have I faulted the followers? Where I have faulted the leaders? I choose not throw blame around as you do. People throughout history have chosen to do what they did. It has led us to this moment. We can either focus on the moment at hand and change it as we see fit or we can focus on the past or the future and wallow as we are unable to change these.

Thank you. You could just as well say "my poetry signifies nothing, but means everything" as nothing and everything are equivalent concepts.

This energy that I'm talking about is not mystical, it is based purely in physics. Just as the energy of an electron or quark can be studied and quantified so can the energy in a person. I do not deify this energy, I am in awe of it however. Energy is neither created nor destroyed. It's always been here and will always be here. At our fundamental core, we are this energy. It's the most amazing things I can think of, because it is the only thing I can think of.

You claim that this energy has been profoundly detrimental to humanity, in what way? Without this energy there would not be a humanity to speak of. In fact, there would be no speech, there would be nothing.

Go ahead, blame the energy. In fact, blame whatever you want. You seem to have this need to blame something. The thing is, where does this blame get you? I'll tell you. It gets you nowhere. Blaming someone or something else does absolutely nothing to solve a problem. It only exasperates the problem by keeping it going.

Oh, I see, because the majority of people don't live this way, no one has ever lived this way? Is that what you are trying to say? Perhaps because these people did live a different way than most is the reason that they are so remembered. Just because you do not live this way, doesn't mean someone else can not live this way.

Yes, the Sermon on the Mount is attributed to Jesus. However, I have a much different interpretation of it than you do. Because you see it as a fraud, does not make it a fraud to everyone who reads it. In fact, I see nothing fraudulent in the Sermon on the Mount. I do not doubt that there are others like you who see it as a fraud, however there are also people like me who do not see it as a fraud. You are making the claim that it is fraudulent. Can you prove it?

Koy: Nice semantics. He did, however, claim to be God, depending upon which translation you read and was, allegedly, stoned twice for his blasphemy, but who cares? My comment was ancillary and glib.
[/QUOTE]

His semantics are very important to what he meant. Those people that wanted to stone him are just like you, they and you thought he was saying something that he never really says. He says he is the son of God and they equated that with him saying he is God, he corrects them and says it has been said that there are many sons of God. The ironic thing is, is that almost all of Christianity is also founded upon this mis-interpretation.

Read his words and his words only. Do not let what Paul, Augustine, Constantine, Arias or anyone else for that matter says about him taint your interpretation of what he actually said.

I assume from his words that he did not.

I never claimed to be doing anything different. Of course, it is not absolute. Jesus is not here for me to ask him the question directly. Therefore, I go on my assumptions, just as you go on yours.

Jesus was long dead when other people started the crusades in his name. Jesus was long dead when other people started the Inquisition in his name. That is why I can safely say he was not the one doing it.

So you think. However, there are many different interpretations than yours.

What strikes me as funny about your words, is that you sit back and claim it is all false, yet you can't offer any evidence as to why. In fact, from what I get from your words, you've never even tried to live like these people that we are talking about. Have you turned the other cheek to an enemy? Have you loved your enemies as your friends? Have you given up all your possesions and willingly led a homeless, non-material life? Have you ever even tried these things?

The things is, Tesla didn't claim these things, yet others claimed them for him. That is what I am talking about. I've already explained to you that we can all be considered children of God, so Jesus saying he is the/a son of god is not that big of a deal. I also believe that he probably could heal the sick. I think he got people to not only believe in him but also in themselves, so much so, that it created a placebo effect within them. Their mind healed themselves. As far as raising the dead, I don't know about that one. I suppose it's possible, yet I don't see how. Regardless, I always leave my options open. I am a believer, as such, anything is possible in my eyes.

I assume this is in response to my using the concept of the One. However, you have yet to refute this concept. It there is something, it is logical to be believe that there is One something that encompasses all of this something. The One something would then logically be all-powerful (as it would contain all things that have power), all-knowing (as it would contain all things that have knowledge), and would be our supreme reality (if it is everything, anything we sense would be it). As you can see, this fits in quite well with most people's definition of God. Not to mention the fact, that yes, if I do choose to harm something, I am also choosing for something to harm me. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I treat everyone equal, because I also wanted to be treated equally.

Easy. By driving or using a car I am using something that is much less efficient than I am. I'm not exactly sure on the numbers, but a human body is somewhere in the range of 80% efficient (only 20% wasted), while even the best internal combustion engine is in the range of 30-40% efficient. By choosing to use something much less efficient, I am also choosing to waste energy and therefore cause more harm to the environment than I would have if I would have chosen to walk or run instead. This is a moral dilemma. Should I risk harming the environment by driving everywhere I go, or should I walk or run to as many places as possible and only use a car when I absolutely must?

Look above. It does.

The only thing you have demonstrated conclusively is that you are quite adept at trying to put words into my mouth.

Do you think that there is a cult of mathematics because people conform to mathematical standards? Do you think there is a cult of philosophy because people subscribe to some of its tenets? Your idea of what a cult is is ridiculous. This One that I speak of is logical and the truth. If people believe it, it is not because they are in a cult, it is because it is the truth. Some might take this concept and form a cult around it, however it takes nothing away from it being a truthful concept.

You've got to be kidding. Because I believe what some others have believed or believe, it is cult mentality? I also believe that in the summer, leaves on trees are green. Gee, I wonder if anyone else believes this. I suppose if they do, we're now in the green tree leaves cult. Have you ever considered that the reason why many people believe in this One is that because it is in fact true? In fact, do you believe in anything? Anything at all? If you do, you believe in this One that I'm talking about.

Koy: Right. So we're not all One, just a part of the One; separate and distinct yet combined and contained as we all agree upon, since there is no such thing as “objective” objective reality.
[/QUOTE]

It's obvious that you don't have the slightest idea as to how to understand this concept. I'll try again. You are person 1 (P1) and I am person 2 (P2). You have you own unique perspective called u1, while you and I also agree upon a shared perspective called s12. I have my own unique perspective called u2, and I also have that shared perspective called s12. So you can be thought of as (u1+s12), while I can be thought of as (u2+s12). Together we can be considered one entity that I will call P12. This one entity can be considered (u1+u2+s12). You and I each are one and have our own unique perspective, however combined we are also one, but this one encompasses all of our perspectives. We can think of ourselves in two different ways at the same time. We are One of many and we are one of Many. Do you truly not understand that there are always two sides in an argument? The same one argument, yet always having two sides.

Think about it. Why can every argument always end in an infinite regress? It is because it is an infinite regress. One becomes two, as two become One. Two sides of the same one coin. It's still one coin, yet it has two sides. How we choose to view it, is what determines our perspective. We can either view it as heads or tails or both heads and tails as it is the same coin and there really aren't any sides to it. A duality can be thought of as a singularity, just as a singularity can be thought of as a duality.

Yes, they are different values. The value of the diameter is not the same value as the circumference. They are related, but they are not the same value. Also, I only need one of these values (either circumference or diameter) to define a circle or to find the other value.

Where did I say there is anything mystical about what I'm saying? You are the one that is applying the label of mystical thinking. This is based purely in geometry and physics. Go ahead, learn up about them. You will see exactly what I am saying.

This is exactly what I've been talking about. 2 to 1. 1 to 2. over and over again. All depending upon perspective.

A circle can be broken down fundamentally into it's center point to represent it. These center points can be used to define the points of all other geometric shapes.

We would be left with more than disparate, unique "entities" as you call them, because they would only appear that way, yet they will all be a circle. And yes, these will be a whole in set theory. It is this whole that is the One.

The circle can be thought of in two ways. Either as one circle or as an infinite line. So, yes, it is both finite and infinite at the same time.

Sure it does. It can definitely be thought of this way. In fact, energy is this eternal road. Do you now see the beauty in math?

I am not the one doing the imposing. I am only explaining the multiple ways of looking at a circle. You are the one that keep calling these views poetry. I thank you for thinking of it that way, but it's all very mathematical to me. I've done a fair amount of thinking regarding circles. I think they are very, very important concepts in our life. What goes around, comes around.

How am I reading into it? I'm explaining to you what the constant pi represents. You are the one that is thinking that I am trying to describe some mystical aspect behind it. On the contrary, I don't think there is anything mystical about it. I do think that it is a pretty amazing concept however. I find the circle and the golden spiral to be two of the most beautiful shapes in the cosmos. They show up everywhere we look.

Where did I mention mystical symbolism? Calculus, at its very core, is based upon the illogical. I'm not making this up. Read a Calculus book and figure it out for yourself. There is no doubt that it works, however it doesn't logically make sense.

I never said it was. I will say this though, it's much more important than you probably think.

Why do you think they chose to label these numbers irrational? It is because they believed they are without reason. Hence, the way irrational is used in poetry and common speech is the same way they meant it to be used for these numbers. I do not need to force it, nor extract it as it is what it is.

Look it up. Try educating yourself about what you're talking about before dismissing someone who has educated themselves in it.

Why do you keep seeing my words as proof for some mystical concept? This isn't mystical it's all based in science. Early religious leaders did similar things that scientists do now. They both try to explain the unknown. Most of the major worlds relgions started before the scientific method became available for them to use. Because of this, they are much less likely to embrace change as modern science is. However, there are many examples throughout the history of science where change was frowned upon and how people clung to outdated notions rather than accept the new data. Many of Einstein's peers in his day called him a fool for even postulating that time is relative to the observer. Newton chose to sit on his invention of calculus for over 15 years for fear of being labeled a kook. Yet, in both of these people's cases the truth won out over time. The things that religious leaders have said have been around for a long, long time and I feel that science will eventually be able to validate what they were saying. Only time will tell.

The mathematics of a circle are very relevant in the physical. Energy moves in a wave. A wave is a circle drawn over time. At the most fundamental of physical levels is the mathematics of the circle.

A line is also very important. The diameter of a circle is a line. The circle itself is actually a specialized line (one that has the same beginning and end point and where all points on the line are equidistant from one point). I use the circle in my examples because that is how most things appear in nature. A sphere is an extension of a circle and planets, the sun, raindrops, and many other things naturally take the shape of sphere.

You are reading way too far into what I wrote again. I never once said that it mandates mysticism. I am only pointing out the fact that circles do have what many consider to be mysterious qualities.

Please go back and read what I wrote again. No where did I say because a circle has some mystery to it that it mandates or validates mysticism. The causal link you are attempting to attribute to me actually belongs to you because you have come up with on your own.

Please show me where I am incorrect in my "poetic applications" of mathematical constructs. All I am doing is explaining them in normal language terms. You call this poetry, I call it understanding.

I've already explained to you Xeno's paradoxes and also the zero/infinity paradox. I've also explained L'Hopital's attempts to find away around this. However, in Calculus a division by zero happens. To us, this is illogical and doesn't make sense, yet that is exactly what happens.

The "solution" that you are talking about probably had to do with L'Hopital's limits. However, this doesn't solve the problem, it hides the problem. Somehow the limit is not only reached but it is crossed, as the hare does catch the tortise and we are able to run into walls. It is these singular points where infinity and zero roam, that calculus and human logic are unable to deal with. It doesn't make sense, yet that is exactly what is happening.

You don't say. I am somewhat of a mathematician myself. Again, I never once said it has anything to do with "evidence of mysticism". It is just the way things are. Nothing more, nothing less.

Is that what I am doing? Or is that what you think I am doing?

Please quote something from me (not from this response to you) where I use the words "evidence of mysticism". Good luck finding it, because I never once said it. You are continually building strawmen from things that I never said, only to tear them down and try to look smart in the process. Go ahead, go back and read my posts again. Where did I say those things you are attributing to me? You are looking so hard for something to tear me down with that you are resorting to making things up to give you the appearance of tearing me down.

Right, because I say there is One, wars, torture and other forms of victimization are going to break out. Go ahead, blame it all on me if that's what makes you feel good. You have to have someone to blame, don't you?

How about if I can see black and think black and the absense of white?

You don't understand what I am saying. There is good and bad, depending upon the perspective that we look at it. I think honesty, beauty, love, peace and fellowship are all good things. I think greed, vice, war, and killing are all bad things. There are all still part of this One that I am talking about and good will be balanced with bad. It's the only way it can be. For there to even be good, there must be bad for us to compare it to.

Only if you choose to view it that way. Genocide is a horrible crime against humanity. However, it has happened and more than likely will happen again. There is no justification for it. Certain conditions existed that allowed it to happen. We humans allowed it to happen. We can stop it from happening again if we remove those conditions from which it happens.

A balance will happen, but the balance will happen against you. If you hurt someone, you will be hurt. It might not happen immediately, it might not even happen in this lifetime, however it will happen. So if you want to avoid getting hurt, do not hurt others. Eternal life is a key part of what I believe in. We live forever. If we want to live forever in peace, we must be peaceful ourselves.

Please tell me the difference. I am not telling you how to live your life. I am not telling you what you must do to avoid sin. I am only telling you what I do and how I see the world. If you feel that is preaching, that's too bad.

It's ironic, you accuse me of thinking that I'm some sort of ruling elite, yet here you are telling me that my opionion doesn't matter. It's only your opinion that matters. Who thinks they are part of the ruling elite here, hypocrite?

Actually to refute what I have to say you have to refute the evidence that I've given showing the existence of One. I have yet to see you address this. The reason why this is the basis for so many people's lives, is because it is the truth. The truth endures. It's sticks around and it oftentimes hurts. The truth has a way of bubbling it's way to the surface again and again. I welcome the change that truth will bring.

Wrong. There is One, you are a part of this One. How does me saying this subjugate people? How am I forcing this upon people? Why do you think people can't choose for themselves? What makes you think that you are so much more intelligent than them that you have to be their protector? What is fraudulent about me saying that there is One? I believe it to be truth and I believe I have give compelling evidence to show that it is so. No one has to accept what I have to say. I can't force anyone to do that. All I can do is tell the truth as I see it, if people like it, great. If people don't like it, great. Either way, it's no skin off my back.

Sure, truth has an awful way of just showing up again and again doesn't it? You can call these people charlatans all you want, however there are many, many people who don't think this as you do. Go ahead, call these people idiots again, as you have already done on a number of occasions already. Calling people names is such a positive way of enacting change *cough*.

Koy: You can't be serious.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, I'm very serious. Try this sometime, get out of the city and talk a walk deep into the woods. Stay there for a while, commune a little with nature. Camp a couple of days or a couple of weeks if you can. Soak it all in. It's absolutely beautiful out there. If you can't do this, sit in your room, put on Louis Armstrong's "What a Wonderful World" , listen and pay attention to what he's saying. It truly is a wonderful world. I feel sorry for you if you have so much trouble seeing beauty in the world. I see it everywhere I look. Stop dwelling on the negative and start looking for the positive. We get what we wish for. If you keep looking for something negative, you are going to keep finding negative things. If you look for the positive, you will find the positive. Change your perspective, change your outlook. It's your choice.

Why would I need an argument to say the world is incredible? Have you studied mathematics? I think it's beautiful. Have you studied physics? I think it's beautiful. Do you have friends? I love my friends. What do you want me to say? I love the world, I really do. I love everything about it. I love waking up in the morning and taking a big breath of air. It let's me know I'm alive. I don't like being miserable, it's not my nature. I choose not to do those things that make me miserable. I know what they are, my body has told me over and over again. I like being alive. I like being able to think, to play, to read, to study, to breath and even to blink. I am in awe of how my body acts and reacts to stimulus. If this is all due to random chance, well then I thank random chance. If it's due to something else, I'll thank that too. I thank you for discussing these issues with me. Not everyone I've met wants to get into such deep discussions. I thank everyone on this board for writing their words that effect me. I love the people that are around me, I love the nature that is around me. Why would I choose to dwell on the bad, when I see so much good around to dwell upon. It's not denial, I just see the world in a different way. I choose to see it this way.

Quantifier, Quantify!

What is your cure for what you think ills the world? What sort of plan do you have for reducing suffering? You say that suffering has increased, that man's inhumanity has increased, but do you have anything to back up your claims?

Okay. What do you want me to say? If I could take everyone on my back I would. I would give up everything, including my life, if I could. However, it doesn't work that way. There is no free lunch. We all must work hard to get to where we want to go. I'm trying to do my part, I hope everyone else is trying to do theirs. I'm not going to blame others if they don't. You don't even realize what I am saying. By hurting others, I hurt myself. By hurting myself, I hurt others. It is why I do not hurt others, it is why I try to help others. What else can I do? Huh? You sit there and snipe, whine and blame everyone around you, yet you offer nothing constructive in return. All you have been doing is trying to tear down. What are your plans? What do you have in mind? How do you plan to fix this world that you think is so bad? Do you really think you are helping society in a positive way by calling the people within this society idiots?

What do you want to undo? How do you plan to do it?

This One that I am talking about is not going to go away. It's always been here and always will. It is a fact of nature, just like gravity.

No. The devil is only a concept that represents everything that is considered bad or evil. A concept in many religions is that of the devil or the evil aspect of life. However, the devil doesn't make sense in monotheism if the monotheistic God is all-powerful. If God is all-powerful, where then does the devil get it's power from if not from God? Many religions get around this by having one God, yet two sides to this God (duality), these Gods could be seperated into good God, bad God.

As far as knowledge goes anytime it is is used it is a double-edged sword. I assume, however, that the more that is used the better, as that is what our evolution seems to be moving towards. The energy that is hitting the earth from Sun has structured itself. If first made itself into an atmoshere to trap more of itself. It then evolved uni-cellular organisms, then multi-cellular ones. It eventually evolved humans. The whole of human evolution has been towards a greater understanding and usage of the energy around us. One of our first inventions was the control and usage of fire. We are the only animal on earth that is able to (and even tries to) control fire. Fire has been an incredibly useful and powerful tool for human development. Even the invention of the tool itself was an extremely important one. The ability to use something outside of our body to increase our power output. We've used ourselves for power and we've even domesticated animals to use their power. We've used water wheels to gain power off of moving rivers and sails and windmills to gain power from the wind. We've developed solar panels to trap energy from the sun. We've harnassed the power of magnetism, dug minerals from the earth for power and even split atoms for power. While all of these things are grouped under what is called technological advancement, every step of the way has also meant potentially more peril for humans. It seems to be always the case that when someone comes up with a new way to get power, that someone then turns that power into a weapon. That is the nature of power. Perhaps that is why God warned Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree of knowledge.

I think we're already gone over this. I do not believe that Jesus formed the cult around himself. Nor did he ever threaten his followers with death. Him claiming to be God's son is perfectly fine with me as we are all God's children.

Are you going to continue to misinterpret the relevant facts? My guess is, yes.

I doubt the Chinese were the first. They might have been the first to write it down, but it was here long before people were even able to write.

Koy: As a matter of fact, I do, but since this has no bearing on our discussion I'll just let you get it out of your system.
[/QUOTE]

Ah, but this is exactly what I was trying to find out from you. You do blame him for this. When Einstein first developed this equation he believed he was helping all of mankind gain a greater understanding of the world around them. It was only after he realized that there are people who are not like him and do not operate to help mankind but to hurt mankind that he realized the power in his equation. If you blame Einstein for creating these weapons than surely you must blame all scientists that are also looking for ways to explain the world around us. Newton invented calculus to describe mechanical motion, this led to more accurate cannons and rifles. This same discussion can be applied to all scientists. Do you place blame on all scientists?

Jesus spoke of peace and loving your neighbor as yourself. He spoke of turning the other cheek to your enemies and loving them even though they try to persecute you. Yet, you say he spoke of hatred and these sayings led directly to people killing one another. I think not. If you tell a person, do not kill, yet they then go out and kill, are you responsible for them killing?

It's obvious you truly don't understand what I am talking about in regards to the One. The One that I speak of is everything. If I harm anything, I am in reality harming this One. I am a part of this One, I can be considered it's child, so if I hurt something, it is like me hurting my parent. This is why violence is always a bad thing. That is why someone who truly understands the One would never, ever in the life commit an act of violence against another. If they were to they would know that they will punished. Any person who does commit an act of violence in God's name is sorely mistaken and deluded in saying this. God is everything, to commit any act of violence, is an act of violence against God. They may think they will be rewarded for this, however that is definitely not the case. Also, because God is everything, anything that someone believes in is actually God. So there is no such thing as an infidel. We are all believers. There is no such thing as a non-believer in the One that I am talking about.

I would if I could. I am against all war, because it never solves the fundamental problem.

No, I won't blame Jesus, Vishnu, Yahweh or anyone else for that matter. I do not pass blame unto others.

Nope, I don't blame the people either. Like I said, I do not pass blame to others. If you feel you need to blame someone, blame me. I can take it.

Peace,

Unum