Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   North Spore Injection Grain Bag   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Mushroom-Hut Liquid Cultures

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7  [ show all ]
Belief revisited...
    #1027014 -

For once I would LOVE to get an actual STRAIGHT answer which seems impossible. If there is no direct evidence for your pet belief, i.e. it requires faith, whether it be a particular religion or mystical thoughts; then why would you choose A over B?


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1027022 -

Deaf and dumb and blind and born to follow.

Sums up a large portion of humanity..

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1027028 -

Why choose chocolate over vanilla?
Personal preferance?
Past experience?
A combination of the two?

I choose the most logical, based on my experiences and perception of reality. If something comes along that offers a different perspective, with good reasoning behind it, I will change my belief accordingly. In other words, show me that there is no God, and I will stop believing in God.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Shroomism]
    #1027032 -

How can we erase your memory of a delusion?


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Sclorch]
    #1027036 -

Prove to me I imagined it all.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Shroomism]
    #1027043 -

What is real and what is a delusion is in the eye of the beholder.


.......just like the defination of real.  :tongue:


--------------------
What if everything around you
Isn't quite as it seems?
What if all the world you think you know,
Is an elaborate dream?
And if you look at your reflection,
Is it all you want it to be?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Murex]
    #1027054 -

Shroomism: Prove to me I imagined it all.

How'd I get stuck with the burden of proof here?
Whatever... Murex answers better...

Murex: What is real and what is a delusion is in the eye of the beholder.

Right... but a rock I throw at you is going to hurt just like it will if you threw it at me (if you're as good of a pitcher as I am... hehehe). So, if we have ANY common ground, there is a way of determining "what is real and what is a delusion". Now we just argue about that way.


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Shroomism]
    #1027060 -

Why choose chocolate over vanilla?

I may have phrased my question poorly. Let's try again. If I cannot confirm that that are zero chakras, seven chakras, or infinite chakras, why should one choose to believe in any amount?

If I cannot confirm that either Mohammed or Jesus was divine (not merely a great philosopher / teacher) why should I choose either as an entity to pray to?


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Sclorch]
    #1027066 -

Right... but a rock I throw at you is going to hurt just like it will if you threw it at me...

Changing from "hit" to "throw" is not sufficient. I still get a royalty for the Swami ROTBOTHC.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Edited by Swami (11/06/02 04:10 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1027080 -

Hey Sclorch, is that Swami's Avatar behind yours? I swear it is. I can see something after your avatar moves to the left.



--------------------
What if everything around you
Isn't quite as it seems?
What if all the world you think you know,
Is an elaborate dream?
And if you look at your reflection,
Is it all you want it to be?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Sclorch]
    #1027122 -

Right... but a rock I throw at you is going to hurt just like it will if you threw it at me

Yes. But, maybe if you threw it at a buddhist monk (or something) who was deep in meditation, he would perhaps not feel any pain? The rock would still have been thrown though, I guess.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1027171 -

Is seeing believing?

Or

Is believing seeing?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1027177 -

I believe in degrees i.e ufos exist 60%.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Sclorch]
    #1027178 -

not the bloody rock again! :grin: 


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1027179 -

what you mean you are a 2000 year old buddhist monk who first came up with that? woooaaaahhh man far out!


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1027313 -

I see it as a question of living happily. There is no way of knowing for sure how many chakras there are if any at all, but believing in it gives me a lot of joy and pleasure. When I meditate I feel my chakras open up and it is quite a wonderful feeling. Maybe its an artifact of my delusion, but who cares? This search for absolute truth and veracity isn't going to arrive at happiness, only more futile searching. So I say embrace concepts that make you feel good and alive, for that's what living is all about. For you such a concept might be rationalism, and that's fine. To each his own. But let each person chose their own beliefs.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Metasyn]
    #1027413 -

So I say embrace concepts that make you feel good and alive...
The religion that I was raised in, Catholicism, makes people feel guilty yet millions follow it.

But let each person chose their own beliefs.
Sounds good in theory, but other's beliefs frequently affect my life adversely. Other than an occasional rant here, my beliefs have no negative effects on others.

Maybe its an artifact of my delusion, but who cares?
I do else I would not have started this post. Delusional beliefs can be incredibly harmful. Please don't make me whip out my laundry list yet again. The beliefs of Nevada voters, tell me that I will continue to risk prison for using MJ. The beliefs of US war hawks tell me that my tax dollars will be used to kill other people. Wonderful!

I meditated for 12 years and never once discovered or felt a chakra, never saw a blue light entering my head, never left my body nor touched the cosmic. Either I am incredibly dense or I refuse to delude myself into experiencing something that I read about in an Eastern mysticism book.

I will take a painful truth over a warm and fuzzy delusion any day.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1027491 -

Maybe if you dont expect to see them you wont. Perhaps,You have to participate in reality and suspend those hard and fast beliefs every now and again. IMHO

Out of interest, what benefits did you gain from 12 years meditation?


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1027653 -

The nature of belief is that is is just that *belief* it can't be proven. You won't believe something unless you want to or for some reason need to. Some beliefs are incredibly destructive. Ie: jehovahs witness- i have family involved in this religion and they are incredibly fearful, weak and judgemental. I never see them. It's torn the family apart, yet they follow and they believe... why? They need to. It is a support system. They are too afraid to question, to afraid to seek a kinder path.

On the other hand some beliefs are incredibly healing. Some beliefs give one a sense of hope, belonging, wellbeing, and direction. The main goal of my lifetime is to follow a path that will promote love, acceptance, beauty.... to hold beliefs that allow myself and those around me to grow as infinitly as we so chose. If I accomplish this, I accomplish all.

I care little of the discrepancies of details and the differences of words used to explain perception.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1027843 -

Rather than choose A or B I try to accept both A and B and live somewhere (A+B)/2.

Actually, after a bit of pondering, I accept both A and B, but try living somewhere !(A U B)... U=union, !=not



--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1028258 -


I meditated for 12 years and never once discovered or felt a chakra, never saw a blue light entering my head, never left my body nor touched the cosmic. Either I am incredibly dense or I refuse to delude myself into experiencing something that I read about in an Eastern mysticism book.

That's funny... last night I meditated for 5 minutes and touched the cosmic.. Draw your own conclusion.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1028681 -

If chakras are a part of the "placebo pill effect" that allows me to base my actions in love rather than fear/uncertainty, then I'm going to eat that fucking pill.

Now, did that belief hurt you?

No?

So what's your problem?
ANY belief can turn out to be false, be it scientific "fact" or a belief in chakras.


--------------------
:heartpump: { { { ṧ◎ηḯ¢ αʟ¢ℌ℮мƴ } } } :heartpump:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Seuss]
    #1028767 -

Yeah. Many people think that an A-or-B-decision forces them to choose. But a neither/nor always works, too.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Shroomism]
    #1028806 -

We all know how special that you are and how the Universe has singled you out for favored treatment; or could it be that you are susceptable to everything that you read?

I only studied under the lineage of Paramahansa Yogananda and spent the better part of a year under direct tutelage of Kriyananda and approached it with tremendous youthful enthusiasm and sincerity. I was open enough for the experience to quit my job and sell everything that I owned.

If chakras were a reality that could be confirmed then there would be agreement about them, but there isn't and they can't.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1028828 -

Agreement does not determine what is true.


--------------------
:heartpump: { { { ṧ◎ηḯ¢ αʟ¢ℌ℮мƴ } } } :heartpump:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Adamist]
    #1028904 -

I agree.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1028968 -

posing your question in the vaguest manner possilbe is a great way to get an answer.


--------------------
All refrences to and statements concerning mushrooms, mushroom cultivation, and mushroom related paraphrenalia refer specifically to the cultivation of legal species.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Adamist]
    #1028971 -

Of course it doesn't, but is a better pointer than disagreement. Disagreement means one or both parties are wrong (open v.s. closed universe). Agreement by all parties at least allows the possibility that all parties are correct albeit, it is not a foregone conclusion as you point out.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: vaporbrains]
    #1028979 -

Here is the question yet again: Why should I believe in anything for which there is no empirical evidence (such as life-after-death) other than to trick myself merely in order to feel good?


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1029062 -

You shouldn't, if you don't want to.


--------------------
:heartpump: { { { ṧ◎ηḯ¢ αʟ¢ℌ℮мƴ } } } :heartpump:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1029746 -

if something physically showed you life-after-death, would you put all of your 'faith' into it? if so, why?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1031149 -

Chakras are a metaphor for the body energy system. Next you'll be telling me there is no such thing as chi! ; :smirk: 


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1031159 -

I supposae its ok if you feel good anyway....but if you dont, why wallow in misery to protect this rationalism you treasure so much? At the end of the day, alot of what you believe will probably be shown to be false in the next 100 years or so anyway, so where does that leave you??


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: GazzBut]
    #1031370 -

So basically what you are saying is that you CANNOT give me a straight answer. No one has in 3 years yet.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1031483 -

In reply to:
For once I would LOVE to get an actual STRAIGHT answer which seems impossible. If there is no direct evidence for your pet belief, i.e. it requires faith, whether it be a particular religion or mystical thoughts; then why would you choose A over B?



I take it you mean direct evidence to be that which can be verified objectively?

If so, I would choose A over B if my subjective evidence led me to "believe" it was true.

But to qualify the above, I would be more than aware it was only a belief, not a fact and would be willing to change / discard it in the light of new direct evidence or a change in my subjective experience.

Is that a straight answer?


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1031502 -

Hey there Swami. Hypothetical situation here: Let's say every one here at S & P had no formal(or even informal) scientific "knowledge". And we're all seeing a ruler sitting in a clear glass of water for the first time. Through empiracal evidence, wouldn't we all agree that th ruler was curved(or bent, or warped, or w/e).

Yet upon removing the ruler from the glass our illusions as th the "real nature" of the ruler would be dispelled once and for all......

Empirisicm(imho) would have been demonstarted to be a totally inadequate vehicle through/with which to determine the "true" nature of reality...

And further, the actual "truth" is that no longer is the ruler "bent", but in fact when seen in this new light, it had never actually been bent in the first place......

And yet our senses did not lie.....they reprted accurately what they percieved...it was our own collective judgement/interprtation of what we "thought" we saw that led to our collective illusion of the ruler being bent in the first place....


--------------------
"Being crazier than a shithouse rat is not sufficient grounds for banishment"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: FreakQlibrium]
    #1031595 -

Interesting point, however I must add:

Yet upon removing the ruler from the glass our illusions as th the "real nature" of the ruler would be dispelled once and for all......
Frequently beliefs are refuted, but because there is so much invested in them, the new evidence is denied. Good examples are Roswell, the Shroud of Turin, Nessie, etc.

Empirisicm(imho) would have been demonstarted to be a totally inadequate vehicle through/with which to determine the "true" nature of reality...
What is a better method in your opinion?





--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Edited by Swami (11/07/02 06:26 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: FreakQlibrium]
    #1032160 -

In reply to:
Yet upon removing the ruler from the glass our illusions as th the "real nature" of the ruler would be dispelled once and for all......

Empirisicm(imho) would have been demonstarted to be a totally inadequate vehicle through/with which to determine the "true" nature of reality...


I wouldn't say that empirisicm is totally inadequate, but it is inadequate. In your example, the empirical evidence continues to accumulate even after the ruler is removed from the glass, so empirisicm has provided you with new evidence that can help you to more correctly understand the nature of what is happening. If we were allowed in your example to apply science and/or logic to this evidence we may arrive at an understanding of the "real nature" of the ruler that is closer to the truth than our previous concept (but that wouldn't be 'empirisicm'). It is important that we learn to apply reason in formulating our concepts, the evidence of the senses is merely the begining of knowledge.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Edited by Evolving (11/07/02 11:13 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Evolving]
    #1032514 -

It is important that we learn to apply reason in formulating our concepts, the evidence of the senses is merely the begining of knowledge.

What if evidence of the senses strongly supported the existence of extra-terrestrial beings, even after one's reason worked to prove otherwise?


--------------------
:heartpump: { { { ṧ◎ηḯ¢ αʟ¢ℌ℮мƴ } } } :heartpump:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Adamist]
    #1032820 -

In reply to:
What if evidence of the senses strongly supported the existence of extra-terrestrial beings, even after one's reason worked to prove otherwise?


You'll have to elaborate. Can you give a hypothetical (or actual) situation?


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Evolving]
    #1032898 -

An appearance of what appears and feels to be an outside entity, at least from the perspective of the one perceiving it.


--------------------
:heartpump: { { { ṧ◎ηḯ¢ αʟ¢ℌ℮мƴ } } } :heartpump:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1032925 -

I think people would simply be inclined to gravitate towards either A or B dependent upon which was more popular within their general social context, such as being in the company primarily of Catholics, for example, and so being inclined to conform to the common ideal.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Adamist]
    #1033022 -

If I had no reason to think that I was hallucinating (or being tricked by another) I would trust my perceptions. But what would lead me to believe that said entity was an extra terrestrial? (BTW, I do think that there is a possiblity of extra terrestrial life.)


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Evolving]
    #1033056 -

But what would lead me to believe that said entity was an extra terrestrial?

The message they communicate could be one... But in order to understand this message, it must be interpreted by the individual, and individual interpretations are always at least slightly different. Thus the message is easily distorted... Maybe if aliens do and have been communicating with the human race, people in the past have interpreted them as being the spirit of God, demons, angels, fairies, gnomes... (any ancient myth could be a possibility, because most myths have an origin of truth, no matter how slight.)


--------------------
:heartpump: { { { ṧ◎ηḯ¢ αʟ¢ℌ℮мƴ } } } :heartpump:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1033389 -

(just repeating a question incase it was missed the first time)

Swami:

if something physically showed you life-after-death, would you put all of your 'faith' into it? if so, why?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1034474 -

What is a better method in your opinion?

In my opinion Swami, there probably IS no better method than empirisicm for arriving at the nearest approximation of truth/reality. That is as far as seeing the physical world through the senses in the normal subjec/object modality(ego. separatness).....

I want to say that is only one mode of conciousness however, and it's also the one that the majority of the beings/people on this planet seem to share so by that consensual factor alone it tends to get mass approval.....

And then again the masses seeing/experiencing what they "believe" to be true, simply goes to reinforce their illusion(IMHO) that what they "see" and agree upon is
in fact an external objectifiable external reality.....

In order for one to KNOW reality, the pure power of apperception, the bare "ability" to be aware(being here defines as pure conciousness without an object) that resides in all of us has to be awakened(IMHO)

Having seen and experienced the physical universe through the eyes of creation, even when one "comes back" to normal ego conciousness, one is aware of how inferior the status is relative to the Divine presence....

That it is possible to achieve this truth, this "knowledge through identity" with Divine/Love/Wisdom has been testified by many, although giving objective "proof" would appear to be impossible as it occurs on a level/realm/domain far beyond the 5 physical organs of sensory perception to percieve(if that's being too redundant lol)......

You've obvioulsy gone to great lengths from what i've read to substantiate for yourself some(if not most) of the claims made by "supposedly" evolved beings...
Why the universe, or God chooses to(seemingly) "favour" one individual over another in granting what i can only describe as a "Divine Presence" is beyond me...

You're an excellent spokesperson supporting your positon, you probably never will be convinced that a  higher conciousness exists...but in closing Swami, i respectively assert that your essential position or mode of conciousness throiugh which you arrive at your conclusions is false......

.....even though on the level of your current mode(egoistic subject/object conciousness*) of percieving things it is absolutely impossible to refute the veracity of your position....hence(i suspect) the inability of anyone over the past 3(?) years to "prove" you wrong.....

i realize the absurdity of what i just said when seen from the position of subject/object conciousness, i mean if i'm challenging that very mode itself, then why can't i supply clear demonstrable proof?

All i can compare it to(and pls don't take this as a "well I been there, you ain't" type comment, in the hinterland of your conciousness you are already there, as are all of us) is that once one has seen colour(canadian spelling) Tv and returns to the (relative) black and whitness of ordinary ego conciousness..... that person KNOWS of the superior nature of the colour mode of perception as compared to black and white....

How does one convey with any certitude the superiority of colour(unless you like old cheesy horror flicks like i do, but i digress  :grin:)........to the majority of the species...... imop it can't be done, at least no one (of which i know) has been capable of doing it**


The strange thing is, that when you "break through" or your 3rd eye opens, and that Divinity that IS your own nature stripped of illusions and false predications as to the nature of reality, that somehow you've known it to be true all along........It's as if a 6th inner dormant psychical organ opens up.......

It's as if the single point of conciousness that you've identified with AS Swami is suddenly annihilated and you no long occupy just one singular point in the space/time continnum but spread out in all directions at once, past, present(in the normal sense) and future no longer have any meaning, it's always NOW :smile:

* It is also where i am right now and yes it does appear to be real, although ultimately i know it's not through my own direct experience with the Divinity....i will even go so far as to say that the experience was entirely subjective when seen from my present state

.......however when one is actually "there" it "seems" to posses a reality value far GR8er than anything i have ever personally pervieved/experienced through my senses....

** Swami, i would be more than intersted in your opinion and/or thoughts on a book called "pathways through to space" a personal transformation in conciousness by Franklin Merill-wollf....i'd be more than :smile: to send mine down to you if you'd care to read it.....

Edit: originally i used a double negative, almost as henious a crime as a difference which doesn't make a difference is no difference.....or words to that effect  :grin:
 


--------------------
"Being crazier than a shithouse rat is not sufficient grounds for banishment"


Edited by FreakQlibrium (11/08/02 12:43 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: FreakQlibrium]
    #1034889 -

Having seen and experienced the physical universe through the eyes of creation, even when one "comes back" to normal ego conciousness, one is aware of how inferior the status is relative to the Divine presence....

That it is possible to achieve this truth, this "knowledge through identity" with Divine/Love/Wisdom has been testified by many, although giving objective "proof" would appear to be impossible
Proof may be impossible, but someone having touched the divine should be somehow altered or changed. There should be indicators. I don't see that in meditators, mushroom users, churchgoers, shamanic societies, etc.

Why the universe, or God chooses to(seemingly) "favour" one individual over another in granting what i can only describe as a "Divine Presence" is beyond me...
I would guess that that person only feels that they have been singled out by God, whether it is Joan of Arc or David Koresh or my fomerly respected Swami Kriyananda, and in reality is self deluded.

You're an excellent spokesperson supporting your positon, you probably never will be convinced that a higher conciousness exists
If I could "touch" it I would.

...but in closing Swami, i respectively assert that your essential position or mode of conciousness throiugh which you arrive at your conclusions is false......
Sorry freq, but that statement is incredibly weak. As I have pointed out countless times, we are communicating with tools derived from this "false" mode of looking at the world.

.....even though on the level of your current mode(egoistic subject/object conciousness*) of percieving things it is absolutely impossible to refute the veracity of your position....hence(i suspect) the inability of anyone over the past 3(?) years to "prove" you wrong.....
Not to prove me wrong, but to validate ONE SINGLE PARANORMAL claim.

All i can compare it to(and pls don't take this as a "well I been there, you ain't" type comment, in the hinterland of your conciousness you are already there, as are all of us) is that once one has seen colour(canadian spelling) Tv and returns to the (relative) black and whitness of ordinary ego conciousness..... that person KNOWS of the superior nature of the colour mode of perception as compared to black and white....

The strange thing is, that when you "break through" or your 3rd eye opens, and that Divinity that IS your own nature stripped of illusions and false predications as to the nature of reality, that somehow you've known it to be true all along........It's as if a 6th inner dormant psychical organ opens up.......
Several personas here have made that claim and are just as ego-driven as those who haven't touched the divine, as are the many mystics and gurus that I have encountered.

** Swami, i would be more than intersted in your opinion and/or thoughts on a book called "pathways through to space" a personal transformation in conciousness by Franklin Merill-wollf....i'd be more than to send mine down to you if you'd care to read it.....
I will read it and critique it if it pleases you.



--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1034996 -

Swami, Do you believe in electrons and protons?


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: GazzBut]
    #1035019 -

Believe in as a semantic concept that works as one way of describing the subatomic world.

I am more talking about beliefs that shape your daily life and choices.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1035107 -

You never did tell me whether my answer was straight enough for yo :grin:u! 


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1035202 -

I would guess that that person only feels that they have been singled out by God, whether it is Joan of Arc or David Koresh or my fomerly respected Swami Kriyananda, and in reality is self deluded.

Again Swami, i submit that genuine self realization or awakening is not meglomaniacal in nature. i myself realized that the universe was completely whole and perfect as is and felt no need to "impress" anyone with my new found mode of conciousness*, i'm certain there have been many instances(such as the examples you have provided) where a deviant pathology manifests itself

There was also the realization or "knowing"(again i have to refer to this special kind of knowing by the Wolfian term, "knowledge through identity) that this state of conciousness/being was the thread which binds the universe while itself remaining invisable to the senses......

that statement is incredibly weak. As I have pointed out countless times , we are communicating with tools derived from this "false" mode of looking at the world.

i haven't read all of your posts and i wasn't aware of that. i think you've basically summated the difficulty in communing the veracity of the higher(imo) mode of conciousness to subject/object plane, the simple inadequacy of words as a vehicle for expressing the inneffable...

Several personas here have made that claim and are just as ego-driven as those who haven't touched the divine, as are the many mystics and gurus that I have encountered.

i'll take you at your word(for now) that many are, that's why i always refer to my persoanl egoistic self/conciousness as i as opposed the I (being defined in this case by the universal conciousness or self that resides in all of us(imo)

I will read it and critique it if it pleases you.

As stated above, i'd be happy to sent you my copy if you wish...A caution though, the into is written by John C. Lilly, but if you ignor/overlook that fact i'd be very interested in your critique

* the edit was removing the word "sanctity", in so much as i felt(imo)it implied a sense of superiority or condescension, it was a very poor choice of verbiage...









--------------------
"Being crazier than a shithouse rat is not sufficient grounds for banishment"


Edited by FreakQlibrium (11/08/02 04:40 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: FreakQlibrium]
    #1035367 -

I think the self realisation concept is flawed. People seem to think that one experience of the divine means you are completely changed forever. In my experience this is not so. You may get a fleeting glimpse of "insert pretty metsphor here" but this does not mean your ego is transcended forever. The thing is, people attach to these beings who can articulate these experiences and then expect them to be "godlike" all the time, when they dont meet upto these ideals they are branded as frauds etc etc and their followers become disillusioned.(is this what happened with you and your guru swami?) I dont believe we can ever destroy the ego without becoming a vegtable in the process because the ego is what lets me type these words. I think really we are transmuting the ego, not destroying it. Obviously this is just linguistics and as the freak probly knows ALL of our ideas/theories are sandcastles on the beach, they look pretty but one day soon the tide will wash them away and we will need to get our bucket and spade out again.

I know thru experience that by doing certain things (Meditation, tai chi, intelligent drug use) certain results follow. On a surface level i am more calm, relaxed and have rid myself of certain neuroses that may otherwise have required years in therapy. I have also come to realise that i will slip back into old programs with alarming regularity but i know that it is getting less and less frequent. I have observed what happens if i dont practice - I slip back quicker. I also know i am operating on faith with this but for me faith is the key. Is it faith that tells you the sky is blue when really it is an absence of blue - i think it is "truly" orange.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: FreakQlibrium]
    #1036342 -

A caution though, the into is written by John C. Lilly

Seems you have read too much into my past posting. I respect the man for all his research and intellectual contributions, I merely pointed out that he was a self-admitted ketamine junkie.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: GazzBut]
    #1036373 -

. I think really we are transmuting the ego, not destroying it.

That's a very good way of putting it, based on my own persoanal experience. If my ego had have been TOTALLY annihiliated, there would have been no direct experience of the Divinity and therefore no recollection of it at all....

The personal egoistic man was allowed to share in the experience and although i STILL had my sense of "i", i was immersed/fused in some unfathomable manner with the supreme force of the universe, transmuted from base metal into gold(it is pointless to try and qualify that statement in regular subjec/object terms, when you are there, you KNOW) :smile:

ALL of our ideas/theories are sandcastles on the beach,

And yet it is that sand(imo)that is the substance from which objective reality bricks are formed.....

 


--------------------
"Being crazier than a shithouse rat is not sufficient grounds for banishment"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1036426 -

Seems you have read too much into my past posting. I respect the man for all his research and intellectual contributions, I merely pointed out that he was a self-admitted ketamine junkie.

Thanks for clarifying that, as i seem to recall* for whatever reason there seemed to be a lot of animosity in that thread so i never really hung around long enough to gain a clearer perspective on you views/opinions re Lilly......

*edit was a typo


--------------------
"Being crazier than a shithouse rat is not sufficient grounds for banishment"


Edited by FreakQlibrium (11/08/02 02:03 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: GazzBut]
    #1036443 -

I think the self realisation concept is flawed. People seem to think that one experience of the divine means you are completely changed forever.
If I may relate to the physical for a moment. One workout in the gym and one day of pure diet does not reshape your body, but continue doing so and all the world can witness your transformation without you saying a word.

The thing is, people attach to these beings who can articulate these experiences and then expect them to be "godlike" all the time, when they dont meet upto these ideals they are branded as frauds etc etc and their followers become disillusioned.(is this what happened with you and your guru swami?)
You are overstating somewhat here. It is not that I expect god-like behavior as much as I expect behavior consistent with that is taught.

I dont believe we can ever destroy the ego without becoming a vegtable in the process because the ego is what lets me type these words. I think really we are transmuting the ego, not destroying it.
I also believe that the ego is necessary, but must be tamed. Again, let me give an example. I love to compete and to win, but rarely let my ego get in the way. A few years back I was watching a major tennis match with an up and coming young pistol. He had the skills and conditioning needed to win. He was on the verge of upsetting the champion when a referee's call went aginst the young man. (I though the call valid.) He got angry and carried that emotion forward. As the match progressed two more calls went against him and he became enraged. Though he was still winning, I said to my buddy, "Watch, now he will throw the match!" The athlete's focus went from winning to displaying to the crowd how bruised his ego had become. He would show them the full force of his disgust with the referee. He got tromped and left a bitter young man because he had zero emotional control.

ALL of our ideas/theories are sandcastles on the beach, they look pretty but one day soon the tide will wash them away and we will need to get our bucket and spade out again.
I am going to steal this line form you some time in the future. :smile:

I know thru experience that by doing certain things (Meditation, tai chi, intelligent drug use) certain results follow. On a surface level i am more calm, relaxed and have rid myself of certain neuroses that may otherwise have required years in therapy.
That is my biggest bitch about most claiming some form of spiritual progress; they still beat their kids, are rude, cheat on their wives and taxes, etc. just like those that don't do these practices. IN GENERAL. I fail to see any difference between the guy trying to convert me to Christianity or TM and any other Joe.

How many names have I been called by people here believing that we are all one? Pettitness and ignorance abounds here on the shroomery just as it does on other message boards. If mushrooms truly opened us up to the cosmic, then as a group, there should be some significant differences.

At the Ashram where I stayed, politics, backstabbing and basic human foibles existed the same as everywhere else only cloaked behind platitudes and benign smiles. 


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1037025 -

swami: any particular reason why you choose to ignore my question?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: deep_umbra]
    #1037538 -

Because that type of "if" game has no meaning to me. Show it first, then we can discuss.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1037603 -

you could have said that the first time i asked instead of being rude..

its a simple question, not a game..

and i dont think im going out on a limb by saying had something physically shown you life-after-death, you still wouldnt believe in it 100%

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: deep_umbra]
    #1038319 -

Everything is a game... and a joke.
Though I may be the only one forever laughing.


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1038433 -

hehe... swami, you just can't win.  People get upset at what you say, and people get upset at what you don't say.  :smile:


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1038445 -

just my opinion, but i think faith from religion is just a basic reassurance. People are attracted to the religion that appeals to them the most, and that makes them the happiest. Nothing wrong with that. Some faith is in the name of learning tho. Some people take it on themselves to discover the meaning of life, and that is faith of sorts. The kinda faith that you can place higher in one thing than an another is just holding on to dear life on the closest most comfortable thing you can find


--------------------
"I think it's time we stop
Children, What's the sound,
Everybody look what's going down"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Seuss]
    #1038452 -

My very existence is upsetting - LOL! I am the Buddah come to push buttons to test where people are at.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Sclorch]
    #1040458 -


In reply to:
Everything is a game... and a joke.
Though I may be the only one forever laughing.



nah, i'll be by your side laughing.. (at you) hehe

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1040502 -

I merely pointed out that he was a self-admitted ketamine junkie.

Utter bullshit. He was no such thing.

Read the interview with Lilly in Dreams and realities. Lilly doubts addiction as a concept and says "When i wanted to take K i took it, when i didn't i stopped".

"self-admitted ketamine junkie" - where do you get this shit from?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Xlea321]
    #1040510 -

Utter bullshit. He was no such thing.

i seem to detect a GR8 deal of hostility and anger in your post(s)

Lilly doubts addiction as a concept

sounds like denial to me......just my opinion as i actually enjoyed reading Lilly's books.....

Lilly doubts addiction as a concept

revisited....try explaining that notion to a person who's just been shot of stabbed for a few dollars by a someone who's "not addicted' because addiction is only a "concept"

imo, that's like saying rape is only a concept......


--------------------
"Being crazier than a shithouse rat is not sufficient grounds for banishment"


Edited by FreakQlibrium (11/10/02 06:34 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: FreakQlibrium]
    #1040516 -

Alex thinks that merely saying "Utter Bullshit!" somehow makes it so. This is the extent of his debating capabilities. When one has no argument, anger is the only answer.

He would have us believe that MAINLINING A SUBSTANCE CONSIDERED TO PHARMACOLOGICALLY ADDICTIVE EVERY DAY FOR MONTHS is not problematic, and is a generally accepted practice of a healthy, well-adjusted individual.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Xlea321]
    #1040579 -

>Lilly doubts addiction as a concept and says "When i wanted to take K i took it, when i didn't i stopped".

As any sort of "proof" that he wasn't addicted, that statement means next to nothing. I don't buy into the concept of addiction in the way it's used a lot of the time these days, but there are some things ... One of the characteristics of "addiction," or any sort of dependance, is that it changes behaviour. The most obvious psychological way that this takes place is through reinforcement: Someone takes a drug for whatever reason--to experience something profound, for example. The user then has a profound experience because he has taken the drug, which happens to be exactly what he wanted, and knowing that the experience is "rewarding" and available, his future tendancies are altered and he is more likely to use it again. If it's a negative experience and he therefore doesn't repeat it, behaviour reinforcement has also taken place.

If the experience is percieved as really enjoyable, useful, or rewarding -as definately seems to be the case with Lilly- one is quite likely to either repeat it or experience a strong desire to repeat it. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but when one starts heavily using a drug, it usually isn't a indication of a "good" thing. 

Anyway, considering that his behaviour was unavoidably changed by the psychological effects of the Ketamine (not to mention the physiological, which I have no clue about), his aforementioned statement can only back that he liked what he was doing. If a lab-rat could talk, it would most likely tell you that it was indulging in the test drug because it liked it, even as it consumed the rat's life.
On the other hand, if it told you that it was using the drug not because it wanted to, but because it kept having seizures without it, the rat would be physically addicted, the other aspect of addiction that I do put some stock in. I'm not sure how or if physical addiction applies to Ketamine.

Sorry about all this. I really enjoy thinking about this stuff sometimes, and I get going on a topic like this; I might not even be offering anything significant to the rest of you. :grin:
On top of that, I'm probably a message board junkie. lol


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1040591 -

This is the extent of his debating capabilities. When one has no argument, anger is the only answer.

It isn't a debate. You made up "self-admitted" to make a point. It is a complete lie that exists only in your head. You are completly wrong and lying about it to boot. What is there to debate?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: FreakQlibrium]
    #1040592 -

i seem to detect a GR8 deal of hostility and anger in your post(s)

No anger. Just passion for truth.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Xlea321]
    #1040605 -

No anger. Just passion for truth.

Passion being defined as emotion in this case? i have persoanly never met anyone who could reason clearly when in any kind of emotional state.....perhaps your are an exception to this, i don't know :smirk: 


--------------------
"Being crazier than a shithouse rat is not sufficient grounds for banishment"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: FreakQlibrium]
    #1040610 -

The truth is the truth regardless of emotion.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Xlea321]
    #1040614 -

It isn't a debate.

Hey, we finally agree; shouting and emotionalism is not debate.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Xlea321]
    #1040618 -

The truth is the truth regardless of emotion.

the "truth" in this case being what Alex..... your own set of beliefs?*

*sounded a bit harsher than i had intended, yet the question itself still stands......


--------------------
"Being crazier than a shithouse rat is not sufficient grounds for banishment"


Edited by FreakQlibrium (11/10/02 09:21 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: FreakQlibrium]
    #1041171 -

I am of ther particular belief that there is common basis of understanding in communications like these discussions, and that is emotion.
When you feel something you "know" it.
When more than one person "know" the same thing, it can be considered a truth.
Not the truth, but one of as many truths as there are people to believe them.

Edited by dee_N_ae (11/10/02 02:53 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: dee_N_ae]
    #1041183 -

I am of ther particular belief that there is common basis of understanding in communication and that is emotion.

Good post Dee, however the type of  EMOTION  that i was refering to specifically was the type that obfuscates(learned a new word today :wink: ) one's understanding and communicative abilities....ie: hostility, anger etc.....even if that particular emotion is cloaked under the guise of "having a passion for the truth"  :grin: 


--------------------
"Being crazier than a shithouse rat is not sufficient grounds for banishment"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: FreakQlibrium]
    #1041191 -

Ahh, I see. Good point  :grin:   

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: FreakQlibrium]
    #1042166 -

the "truth" in this case being what Alex..... your own set of beliefs?*

No, the truth being John Lilly isn't a "self-admitted ketamine junkie". He has never said any such thing. Swami got excitable as usual and lied to try and make a point.

If Swami can provide any evidence that Lilly was a "self-admitted ketamine junkie" it would be a debate. Until then it is simply Swami lying and me telling the truth.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Xlea321]
    #1042570 -

No, the truth being John Lilly isn't a "self-admitted ketamine junkie".

Okay Alex, fair enough and thanks for responding :smile: However, from my own perspective the real issue would see to be that, self admitted or not, Lilly seems to have been at some point....a ketamine junkie. If what you have posted re his comments is true concerning him denying the concept of addiction....in my mind that would constitute classic denial and would tend to reinorce(imo) the  fact  that he was addicted to ketamine for a protracted period...

let me reiterate here in case you think i'm attacking the guy. i'm not, i thoroughly enjoyed his zany exploits in the sensory deprivation tank as well as his work with dolphins...... :grin: 


--------------------
"Being crazier than a shithouse rat is not sufficient grounds for banishment"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: FreakQlibrium]
    #1042589 -

In reply to:
And yet it is that sand(imo)that is the substance from which objective reality bricks are formed.....




Do you mean objective reality is made of our theories of it??


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1042594 -

Quote:
I am going to steal this line form you some time in the future. 



:grin: Feel free,  I borrowed it from a good friend of mine anyway!

Quote:
  That is my biggest bitch about most claiming some form of spiritual progress; they still beat their kids, are rude, cheat on their wives and taxes, etc.



Most of the people I know who have practiced seriously over a period of time show improvements in negative behaviours and habits. None of them are perfect and the old habits still surface from time to time. However, I also believe you can hold asanas, chant mantras and live on a mountaintop but at the end of the day if your only doing it as a game to enhance your ego's sense of its own worh little will change, apart from an increase in pomposity etc.

Werent we talking about belief anyway??  :grin: 


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: GazzBut]
    #1042597 -

Do you mean objective reality is made of our theories of it??


theories/opinions/beliefs or whatever, yes. imo anyhing  could be true because  nothing really is, not in any absolute sense of this "truth" existing outside of our own perceptions via our 5 senses in tandem with our inate ability to reason or "think"....which to  Me  means essentially to sort out and assimilate/reassemble the incoming data as provided by the senses in a manner that best upholds our own workld view according to whatever belief system it is that we adhere to.....

    i realize that this may constitue a somewhat "flimsy" point of view to the rational mind that holds firmly onto beliefs about the nature of "reality", but until someone can come along and convince me i'm wrong, it IS my position......get those objective reality blocks out and  Fire away fellas  :grin: 


--------------------
"Being crazier than a shithouse rat is not sufficient grounds for banishment"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: FreakQlibrium]
    #1042638 -

Well i think I agree wiith part of what your saying. But the way i see it all our theories are reflections of objective reality. We can obviously only experience this objective reality through the human perceptual system, hence our theories and their subjective nature. But to say that our theories are actually the very building blocks of any objective reality just doesnt really work for me.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: GazzBut]
    #1042648 -

But the way i see it all our theories are reflections of objective reality.

Okay, fair enough. However if what you are saying is true, then why don't we all share the same theories/beliefs about the nature of reality.....why are there so many various interpretations if there IS in fact one single objectifiably and empiracally demonstable reality?


But to say that our theories are actually the very building blocks of any objective reality just doesnt really work for me.

Fair enough yet again, as i was only stating my own personal opinion  :laugh:
 


--------------------
"Being crazier than a shithouse rat is not sufficient grounds for banishment"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: GazzBut]
    #1042679 -

Perhaps some clarification of my essential position is in order here. i am in no way implying that the "physical world" does not exist.....it is my undestanding(partially from direct experience) that when the eastern philosophers/metaphysicians say that the "Awakening"(enlightenment, w/e) destoys the universe, that they are only refering to it any longer being a force which impinges externally upon any given time bound subject/object type conciousness....

It is no longer experienced as a limit upon conciousness but rather s a joyous playground...but even in THAT state, walk in front of a moving car and yes, you will get hit(your body will at any rate)....mercifully when one IS in such a state, in my experience, one has the wisdom not to do anything that would be detrimental to the well being of the physicsal organism in which they are still encased(but no longer "entombed")

And i DO understand(as i am in much the same mode of thought right now as most of the people reading this, regualar egoistic conciousness)) that most(if not all) of what i have said is pure nonsensical jibberish to the rational mind.....

And yet on a more profound and ultimatly REAL level based on my own experience and apperception, i KNOW this to be true beyond any doubt....although to convince someone who has ONLY known egoistic subject /object empiracally verifiable reality is excedingly difficult.....if not totally futile....

as stated B4, in a previous post, Franklin Merril wolf's 2 books*(i "think" there may have been a 3rd) come closest to ME to expressing, to the rational egoistic mind what i find to be ineffable.....but just because the experience/mode of BEING can not be dissected and or "filed" away under some category the intellect finds convienient is NO sure proof that this state does not exist, in fact(based on personal experience) this state of BEING IS life life/force itself.....

Those 2 books being:"pathways through to space, a personal transformation in conciousness" as well as "The philosopy of conciousness without an object", which strangely enough(in my own experience) is ALSO conciousness without a subject, as in short the two are fused(but not confused)....

YES, there is still an ego, or sense of SELF present, but it has been transmuted or "fused" with the higher(Divine) self, so i would end this by saying that the concept of ego transcendance may be somewhat misleading.......although it has been transformed in such a way as to produce a genuine re birth(not to be confused with "I am a born again Christian")




--------------------
"Being crazier than a shithouse rat is not sufficient grounds for banishment"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: FreakQlibrium]
    #1042686 -

Our true nature is not limited; it is like the vast ocean...
When we touch Supreme Consciousness,
then we are boundless,
we are everywhere,
we are eternal.


--------------------
:heartpump: { { { ṧ◎ηḯ¢ αʟ¢ℌ℮мƴ } } } :heartpump:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Adamist]
    #1042728 -

Our true nature is not limited; it is like the vast ocean[/b
When we touch Supreme Consciousness,
then we are boundless,
we are everywhere,
we are eternal. *

i'd say we share the same view Adamist, only our own invidious way of expressing what  we know is totally different and uniquely our own....

* And pain is an illusion  :wink: 


--------------------
"Being crazier than a shithouse rat is not sufficient grounds for banishment"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: FreakQlibrium]
    #1042760 -

In reply to:
Okay, fair enough. However if what you are saying is true, then why don't we all share the same theories/beliefs about the nature of reality.....why are there so many various interpretations if there IS in fact one single objectifiably and empiracally demonstable reality?




Well thats what the whole sandcastle metaphor is about. People dont even see a situation in a sports match the same so why would you expect us all to have the same interpretation of objective reality? All our interpretations are culture-time bound anyway.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: GazzBut]
    #1042769 -

Well thats what the whole sandcastle metaphor is about. People dont even see a situation in a sports match the same so why would you expect us all to have the same interpretation of objective reality? All our interpretations are culture-time bound anyway.

Good point :grin: 


--------------------
"Being crazier than a shithouse rat is not sufficient grounds for banishment"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: FreakQlibrium]
    #1042791 -

In reply to:
Perhaps some clarification of my essential position is in order here. i am in no way implying that the "physical world" does not exist.....it is my undestanding(partially from direct experience) that when the eastern philosophers/metaphysicians say that the "Awakening"(enlightenment, w/e) destoys the universe, that they are only refering to it any longer being a force which impinges externally upon any given time bound subject/object type conciousness....



Is this a temporary experience of oneness? From there when you return to normal ego mode you can still perceive it as differentiated unity?

In reply to:
It is no longer experienced as a limit upon conciousness but rather s a joyous playground...but even in THAT state, walk in front of a moving car and yes, you will get hit(your body will at any rate)....mercifully when one IS in such a state, in my experience, one has the wisdom not to do anything that would be detrimental to the well being of the physicsal organism in which they are still encased(but no longer "entombed")



What is no longer a limit? The universe?
Being in the moment, bypassing the ego as much as poss - I definitelly "believe" it keeps me out of trouble!

In reply to:
And yet on a more profound and ultimatly REAL level based on my own experience and apperception, i KNOW this to be true beyond any doubt....although to convince someone who has ONLY known egoistic subject /object empiracally verifiable reality is excedingly difficult.....if not totally futile....



I know what you mean...I try not to let the memories of ephemeral transcendent moments congeal into solid beliefs which are the exact antithesis of the experience.

All these words just cloud the view!

The franklin merril books sound interesting, I will have to check them out.





--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: GazzBut]
    #1042839 -

Is this a temporary experience of oneness?
yes

From there when you return to normal ego mode you can still perceive it as differentiated unity?
i can't personally, but that may be my own personal limitation and not an indice of what someone who has "returned" may(or may not) integrate into their own life experience*

What is no longer a limit? The universe?
the physical universe  no longer "binds" the personal man(or "ego") as he has embraced his TRUE nature(and been embraced BY it) and as such is beyond  the physical world (while still being "in" the physical world he is no longer OF it).....

i think this "might be" what the various schools of eastern thought refer to as liberating one's SELF from the "snares of Maya" or destroying Samsara....
  This can be seen much in the same way as a snake shedding it's skin (a rather crude analogy but i gotta run in a bit)

All these words just cloud the view!

lol, yes, i totally agree, but i am tryng to communicate to someone who perhaps has never been in "touch" with that eternal part of themselves.....and in truth, from what i have experienced there really IS only one of us here.......as crazy as that may sound from my own current perspective. Why the multiplicity and SEEMING seapateness of all things that is not for me in my present mode of conciousness/being to say :grin:

*EDIT was a result of my own misuderstanding of your question the firrst time around(i wasn't sure if by IT, you were refering to "self" or the physical universe :smile:

 


--------------------
"Being crazier than a shithouse rat is not sufficient grounds for banishment"


Edited by FreakQlibrium (11/11/02 08:44 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: FreakQlibrium]
    #1042976 -

self admitted or not, Lilly seems to have been at some point....a ketamine junkie.

Well he wasn't "self-admitted" it that's for sure.

I'm not really comfortable with the word "junkie". Is everyone who uses marijuana a "marijuana fiend"? It's an emotional term that doesn't really aid our understanding. Are soldiers who were addicted to heroin during the war, get prescribed heroin from their doctors and lead totally normal lives at work "junkies"? Are people who use heroin for years for terminal pain relief "junkies"?. You can use drugs without being a "junkie".

I heard Lilly speak and briefly met him. My impression was that he was probably one of the most intelligent man who have ever lived. If he says he wasn't addicted to Ketamine I'd take it pretty seriously. He was exploring the human brain and his use of Ketamine lasted for a couple of years. Doesn't sound like a junkie to me.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Xlea321]
    #1042999 -

My impression was that he was probably one of the most intelligent man (men) who have (has) ever lived.
Tangential and invalid reasoning. Intelligence and addiction are not related.

If he says he wasn't addicted to Ketamine I'd take it pretty seriously.
When your intelligent and drunk friend says that he is OK to drive, do you take that seriously as well?

He was exploring the human brain and his use of Ketamine lasted for a couple of years. Doesn't sound like a junkie to me.

Daily

Injected

For years

No, a junkie might not go for years and certainly not every day. Perhaps we need to invent a new word specifically for Lilly's "usage".



--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Xlea321]
    #1043037 -

junkie".

okay Alex, i'll admit that was aa very poor word to use, perhaps "addict" would have helped to soften the blow.

Is everyone who uses marijuana a "marijuana fiend"?
according to "reefer Madness" they are  :grin:
.....seriously though, the comparison is somewhat odious,trying to draw a parallel between smoking a few joints and the IV'ing of Ketamine(or anything else, imo) over an extencded time frame of @ 6 months

My impression was that he was probably one of the most intelligent man who have ever lived

i have no doubts of that Alex as i've read a couple of his books, from the bit of research i've done ningled witrh my own life experience i would say(imo) that many people that end up strung out on IV use of any type of substance are ofter the most intelligent, weel articualted people around.....

You can use drugs without being a "junkie".

jeez Alex, you REALLY seem to aquired a real liking for a term to said you were uncomfortable with, i digress however......

You can use drugs without being a "junkie".

The REAL question here(imo) is: Can you be a "junkie" without being dependant on drugs? :grin:




 


--------------------
"Being crazier than a shithouse rat is not sufficient grounds for banishment"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: FreakQlibrium]
    #1043051 -

"The REAL question here(imo) is: Can you be a "junkie" without being dependant on drugs?"

junk?ie also junk?y  Pronunciation Key  (jngk)
n. Slang pl. junk?ies
1. A narcotics addict, especially one using heroin.
2. One who has an insatiable interest or devotion: a sports junkie.

I'm a life junkie.
Just took a big ol' hit of the internet, straight into the retinas!  :tongue:
   

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: dee_N_ae]
    #1043124 -

One who has an insatiable interest or devotion: a sports junkie.

well when seen in THAT light, it becomes clear that the connotation of the word "Junkie" has been seriously tarnished and degraded by it's being associated with drug addiction :grin: 


--------------------
"Being crazier than a shithouse rat is not sufficient grounds for banishment"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1043246 -

Intelligence and addiction are not related.

Lets get back to basics, it sounds like you need it.

If you use something regularly does that mean you are "addicted" to it? Do you go to work every day? Are you a "work junkie"? Or do you simply choose to go to work?

Do you have a wife? Do you see her every day? Are you addicted to your wife?

Why do you think that if you choose to use drugs regularly you must be "addicted" or a "junkie"? Because that's what George Bush told you?

You can use drugs regularly for other reasons than being "addicted" to them. Try and grasp this point and you may get somewhere.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: FreakQlibrium]
    #1043263 -

i would say(imo) that many people that end up strung out on IV use of any type of substance are ofter the most intelligent, weel articualted people around.....

The point is if Swami was addicted to ketamine then sure - he'd be a plain fucked up junkie. When it's someone with the intelligence of John Lilly then you can take seriously the possibility that he was using Ketamine for other reasons.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Xlea321]
    #1043302 -

The point is if Swami was addicted to ketamine then sure - he'd be a plain fucked up junkie.

i believe that statement was strongly coloured by your seeming animosity towards Swami, and as such i must dismiss it as it is based on it being(imo) an emotional response rooted in what i percieve as hostility..... even IF that sort of response is cloaked under the guise of pursuing the truth with a "passion"

John Lilly then you can take seriously the  possibility  that he was using Ketamine for other reasons.

as long as you say "possibility" there i have no problem with your statement........however, there are other ways(from what i understand) to ingest Ketamine, and extended long term(every day?) use via IV would seem to indicate (to me) that there was indeed some sort of chemical addiction/substance abuse problem going on there.........regardless if Lilly "admitted" it or not.........and whether or not he "denied the concept" of addiction  :grin:

 


--------------------
"Being crazier than a shithouse rat is not sufficient grounds for banishment"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: FreakQlibrium]
    #1043384 -

and as such i must dismiss it as it is based on it being(imo) an emotional response rooted in what i percieve as hostility

I take it your a pal of Swami's? You seem to concentrate on my "hostility" and ignore Swami's...

The point still stands regardless. If John Lilly tells you something it's best to be quiet and listen rather than throwing your interpretation on his behaviour. Especially Oprah level ideas like "denial"

seem to indicate (to me) that there was indeed some sort of chemical addiction/substance abuse problem going on there

Maybe it does indicate to you but that doesn't make it true. People can choose to use drugs regularly for other reasons than addiction.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Xlea321]
    #1043417 -

Maybe it does indicate to you but that doesn't make it true.

seem to indicate ( to me ) that there was indeed some sort of chemical addiction/substance abuse problem going on there

i think i qualified my statement as subjective the first time around

If John Lilly tells you something it's best to be quiet and listen

i can't believe you just siad that....do you actually expect me to take that statement seriously? i haven't responded to THAT kind of dictate since i was in grade school...

You seem to concentrate on my "hostility" and ignore Swami's...

to be honest with you Alex, you're one of the only people i've seen posting here with any real hostility, once in a while is only human but it seems to be the underlying thematic invariable to many of your posts...any valid point you may make is often to me simultaneously negated by by what I percieve to be anger......





--------------------
"Being crazier than a shithouse rat is not sufficient grounds for banishment"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: FreakQlibrium]
    #1043454 -

seem to indicate ( to me ) that there was indeed some sort of chemical addiction/substance abuse problem going on there

That's fine. And i said that didn't make it true. Ok?

do you actually expect me to take that statement seriously?

Yep. Sometimes it's best to think and listen rather than respond with kneejerk responses like "If you take drugs you must be a junkie"

to be honest with you Alex, you're one of the only people i've seen posting here with any real hostility

Really? You've never read any hostility in any post of Swamis? Ok..



--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Xlea321]
    #1043471 -

Sometimes it's best to think and listen rather than respond with kneejerk responses like "If you take drugs you must be a junkie"

especially when it's one of YOUR idols who has been shown to have feet of clay(whether YOU want to see it, or not).

"If you take drugs you must be a junkie"

You have put that in quotations as if i said that, if i have, then pls show me where. What i THINK i may have said was applying the term junkie or addict to someone(NOT just Lilly) who was believed to be involved with IV use of ANY drug as deeply as Lilly has been reported to have been.....


--------------------
"Being crazier than a shithouse rat is not sufficient grounds for banishment"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: FreakQlibrium]
    #1043485 -

If you thought the ketamine subject was touchy, whatever you do, DON'T bring up the sex and dolphin issue!


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1043509 -

Man, I just ate...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: FreakQlibrium]
    #1043536 -

especially when it's one of YOUR idols who has been shown to have feet of clay

Nah, if he'd been a "self-confessed ketamine junkie" that would have been fine by me. He wasn't. What more is there to say? That's the bottom line. You can read the interview yourself. If you can find one source of evidence backing up Swami's lie lets hear it. Otherwise you are just backing up Swami presumably because you "like" him and "don't like" me.

How about we forget about likes and dislikes and concentrate on the truth?

with IV use of ANY drug as deeply as Lilly has been reported to have been.....

Why does IV make you a junkie? If he'd been snorting it would he have been "not a junkie"?

See this is the knee-jerk response again - you automatically associate IV with "drug addicts". Ask yourself why. That may be what you've been taught but it doesn't make it true.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Xlea321]
    #1043579 -

See this is the knee-jerk response again - you automatically associate IV with "drug addicts". Ask yourself why.

you're right Alex, i have always associated the act of sticking a foreign object(such as a syringe),into a person's arm(or elsewhere on their anatomy) sometimes on a daily basis in order to handle the "pain" of being alive as being somewhat symptomatic of addiction to drugs..... thankyou for pointing out my faulty reasoning...... :grin:

How about we forget about likes and dislikes and concentrate on the truth? 

Best idea you've had so far(imo)

Otherwise you are just backing up Swami presumably because you "like" him and "don't like" me.

i can assure you Alex, personal feelings/emotions do not play a very prominant role in my posts.

because you "like" him and "don't like" me.

i haven't heard that kind of talk since i was in grade school, i'm sorry Alex, i'm really not TRYING to be critical here but that statement seemed to be more befitting a wounded puppy who had had it's "feelings hurt" that a sentinent/rational human being....

how about you/we just stick to: b]How about we forget about likes and dislikes and concentrate on the truth?? 

about likes and dislikes

again Alex, you are  assuming i don't like you, THAT does not make it true




 


--------------------
"Being crazier than a shithouse rat is not sufficient grounds for banishment"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: dee_N_ae]
    #1043698 -

Man, I just ate...

and i imagine the idea of getting sexually aroused so soon after eating is foreign to your nature Dee? :grin: 


--------------------
"Being crazier than a shithouse rat is not sufficient grounds for banishment"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: FreakQlibrium]
    #1043717 -

Well my thoughts were "sexually aroused"... although arousal is not always good, and in this case included the feeling of impending vomit.  :smirk:

Eating has nothing to do with that anyway.  As a young male I'm sexually aroused nearly all day no matter what's in my stomach.  :grin:   

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: dee_N_ae]
    #1043737 -

Well my thoughts were "sexually aroused"... although arousal is not always good, and in this case included the feeling of impending vomit.

Okay, understood Dee, NEXT time you decide to "kill a kitten" or even engage in real sexual relations with the species of your choice :wink: try  not to think of engaging in carnal knowledge of some hapless Doll-fin  :grin:
 


--------------------
"Being crazier than a shithouse rat is not sufficient grounds for banishment"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: FreakQlibrium]
    #1045235 -

on a daily basis in order to handle the "pain" of being alive as being somewhat symptomatic of addiction to drugs

Sounds like a DARE pamphlet.

Best idea you've had so far(imo)

Great. Find me where Lilly says he is a "self-confessed ketamine junkie" then. That would be concentrating on the truth wouldn't it?

how about you/we just stick to: b]How about we forget about likes and dislikes and concentrate on the truth??

Great. Lets do it. Why are you waiting? Evidence for Lilly saying he's a "self confessed ketamine junkie" please.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Xlea321]
    #1045345 -

Sounds like a DARE pamphlet.

i've never seen one , so i can't realy comment

Find me where Lilly says he is a "self-confessed ketamine junkie" then

where did i ever say he WAS  "a self confessed Ketamine junkie"? my point, from the outset was that it really DOESN'T matter if he was an ADMITTED jukie or not......by all definition(s) of which i am aware,  he was. Even if he denied the CONCEPT to addiction, there was still the REALITY of addiction......

to ME your obsession with whether or not he was a "self confessed junkie" is a bit like getting run over by a car and then making your your entire argument: "well, was it a red car or a blue one"?

in CLOSING Alex, i never said he ADMITTED his problem....never said he might NOT have SOMEWHERE.....EITHER. i'm sure when he met people at gatherings such as the one YOU attended, he didn't just walk up to people and say: "HI!! I'm John lilly and i'm a raving drooling Ketamine addict!" :grin:






 


--------------------
"Being crazier than a shithouse rat is not sufficient grounds for banishment"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: FreakQlibrium]
    #1045881 -

by all definition(s) of which i am aware, he was

That's kinda the problem tho. The definitions the government gives us don't work. 100 years ago literally everyone in the country used opium and heroin regularly. Were they all "junkies"? No, they just used the drug regularly because they chose to. There was no "war on drugs" propaganda then you see.

If you see your children every day are you "addicted to children"? No, you just choose to do so because it's what you want to spend your time doing. No "concepts of addiction" are neccessary. Why must you be "addicted" if you use drugs regularly? Read "Underworld of the East".

You can use drugs regularly for other reasons than you are "a junkie avoiding the pain of life". Agreed?

Lilly used huge quantities of LSD for many years (a lot longer than he used K) - does this make him a "self-confessed LSD addict"?

i never said he ADMITTED his problem

Once again, you can use drugs without having a "problem". Not according to the DEA maybe, but it's true nevertheless.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Xlea321]
    #1045921 -

years ago literally everyone in the country used opium and heroin regularly. Were they all "junkies"? No, they just used the drug regularly because they chose to.

everyone? You mean to tell me that 100 years ago, in SOME country SOMEWHERE EVERY living person was using opium and heroin?
What country?(perhaps you are in China?)<==== serious question

100 years ago literally everyone in the country used opium and heroin regularly. Were they all "junkies"? No, they just used the drug regularly because they chose to. There was no "war on drugs" propaganda then you see.

Well if  Everyone used opium and heroin, and Everyone was a junkie there really couldn't be(imo) any war on drugs because, who would have waged it......who would have even been  Aware  that there Was a problem?....compare this to all the slaves in the galley(sp?) of a sailing ship not being aware of their own state of slavery due to the fact that they've never seen anything else, nor sensed anyother way of living/being and hence have no barometer by which to measure and  Acknowledge the true nature of their condition.........as  Slaves  :grin:

to summate the essence of my theseis: a slave is a slave is a  Slave , whether they know it or not, whether knowing it and yet denying the concept of slavery



Were they all "junkies"? No, they just used the drug regularly because they chose to

according to MY understanding Alex, once one is......lol...."habituated" to an opiatre derived substance the withdrawl process(from what i've read) would seem to be somewhat........"unpleasant".....i don't know that i would call taking any drug to alleviate unpleasant mental/physiological symptoms of their  slavery to that drug as taking it by choice.....

If you see your children every day are you "addicted to children"? No, you just choose to do so because it's what you want to spend your time doing.

That's a VERY interesting monlogue you have going there Alex, you ask a question seemingly directed toward me and then you are presumptuous to respond as if claiming to know my answer in advance........

but if you HAD OF allowed me to answer your question i WOULD have said: i duno, i have no progeny, and i wouldn't try to analyse someone else's relation with their children lacking in any kind of direct experience in that area...

You can use drugs regularly for other reasons than you are "a junkie avoiding the pain of life". Agreed?
What drug?
how regulary?
what method of ingestion?

imho, if you're refering to injecting ketamine(LEAVE Lilly out of this shall we? As the mere mention of his name seems to push an emotional response button with you) on a daily basis, maybe even several times a day, by IV, i would say(imo) that the person described above, is a  Slave to their habit.....

"self-confessed LSD addict"?

Alex, i will only say this one last time.....listening?  I never said he WAS a self admitted addict!


Once again, you can use drugs without having a "problem".

you've finally said something i can actually agree with, but again(imo), it's all a matter of the drug, the frequency and the  Control or position of prominence that the "drug" has in your life

to compare IV'ing Ketamine for an extended period of time to someone seeing their children everyday is ludicrous(i didn't say YOU were ludicrous, just your line of reasoning) You may as well have used the analogy of "just because i breath in oxygen every day, does that make me addicted to oxygen).........i think that's one thing MOST of us here have in common.....we are ALL "addicted" to oxygen...... :grin:










 


--------------------
"Being crazier than a shithouse rat is not sufficient grounds for banishment"


Edited by FreakQlibrium (11/12/02 12:04 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1047814 -

Sorry freq, but that statement is incredibly weak. As I have pointed out countless times, we are communicating with tools derived from this "false" mode of looking at the world.


FALSE?  *LOL you don't trust your own perceptions so you pigeon-hole everyone of us in the same category. Or maybe its your 30 years of exploration  turning up zilch.  Perhaps, the word "jaded" fits the issue.

How amusing too..  I supposed I'll chalk up my patterned (for the last 6 years) indirect experiences of past lives, souls, disincarnates, subconscious programming  as delusional or perception errors because I can't objectively prove them. 


I have no necessity to form beliefs on mentioned subjects. There was already a 'knowing' I could not explain fully what I sense was very wrong [major character dissonances] with me for a long time.  I was incredibly irritated everyday since two years ago.  I couldn't clearly conceptualized the sensing because I had no formative beliefs nor had a clear idea what *exactly* these afflictions were.

the only (personal) evidence was when this healer tells me explicitly what I have been 'sensing' and initiates a clearing for me.  I felt the difference immediately.  A dramatical shift happening in my head.  Irritation dropped to 0. Massive heat sensations dispersing outward from my ears and areas of my head.  A clearing of my head the previous healers, over a year ago, could not accomplish.  This continue for days until.. I lost my temper.  Oopsy me. :laugh: I wrecked almost all the balancing done. Head plugs up.  I felt the pressure attempting to push out inside the ears but was impeded.

I couldn't give a rat's ass  what I experienced can be objectively proven or not.  In my situation, I don't have the luxury to wait for science to 'catch' up on the mentioned subjects - which were *negatively, indirectly influencing my life.  I've indirectly experienced these phenomenons but never had the tools to analyzed the 'afflictions' until now.

My premise: I want results, not beliefs.

At this point, I still have no clue what this healer is telling me.  All these applied concepts are are just new to me in real-time.  Afterall, I am like you.  I need to fully "see" the path to the origins.  But credence I will give her.  Moreso, I will apply what she has taught me, eventually - instead giving onus on certain people to provide *results* for me. 

Direct evidence is the jolly green giant.  Be great if all that I had observed through the years can be *really* objectified.  That's wishful thinking.  You know it.  We know it.  You must be making the rounds again with "Validate your beliefs and win 1 million dollars". :wink: Anyhow, good luck finding it. 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Calen]
    #1048135 -

you don't trust your own perceptions so you pigeon-hole everyone of us in the same category.
Who is the "us" and what is the pidegeon-hole? Once again, how many shroomery spokesmen are there? Can no one speak for themselves?

I supposed I'll chalk up my patterned (for the last 6 years) indirect experiences of past lives, souls, disincarnates, subconscious programming as delusional or perception errors because I can't objectively prove them.
Now you are finally making some progress!

Or maybe its your 30 years of exploration turning up zilch. Perhaps, the word "jaded" fits the issue.
Jaded is your emotional assessment. I suppose someone who researches Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and comes up empty-handed is just a bitter, old skeptic - or maybe it's just all make-believe.

Irritation dropped to 0.... This continue for days until.. I lost my temper.
Classic bipolar?

Answer these questions if you please before your comments:

Have other people ever been completely wrong about something that they were certain of?

Have you ever had one single feeling about something that turned out not to be so?








--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Calen]
    #1048144 -

Be great if all that I had observed through the years can be *really* objectified. That's wishful thinking.

What is so terribly hard to understand? If a person says they have some extraordinary talent and I ask them to display it, that is wishful thinking?

If I claim to be a concert pianist and when you say, "Hey, play something for me." I should respond:

A. I don't need to prove anything to you.

B. Do you really need me to enjoy music?

C. I could, but I am not up to it right now.

D. I would, but you wouldn't appreciate it.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: FreakQlibrium]
    #1048170 -

that 100 years ago, in SOME country SOMEWHERE EVERY living person was using opium and heroin?

Yep pretty much - maybe not "every living person" but not far off. Babies were given it to sleep, workers used it to relax from the living hell of their working conditions, soldiers used it, the upper classes used it to relax. It was available over the counter and was used far more regularly than aspirin in the US, UK and pretty much every country on earth. Read up on the history of opium and heroin.

i don't know that i would call taking any drug to alleviate unpleasant mental/physiological symptoms of their slavery to that drug as taking it by choice.....

This can of course be applied to every aspect of life. Stopping work results in withdrawal symptoms - you don't have any money. Stopping seeing your wife and your children result in withdrawal symptoms. I think you'll find the withdrawal effects of opiates have been exaggerated, they are unpleasant but certainly not as unpleasant as never seeing your children again. If the drug is available and you find life more enjoyable using it then why withdraw anyway? It causes no dangerous physical side effects, as long as you are getting a pure source, you can live until you are 100 injecting heroin every day. If you can get a prescribed source it is no different to a diabetic injecting insulin every day. Don't confuse the dangers of prohibition with the dangers of the drug. Once again, are you a slave to your children? A "slave" to your wife? Then why are you a "slave" to a drug?

on a daily basis, maybe even several times a day, by IV, i would say(imo) that the person described above, is a Slave to their habit.....

Once again, IV seems to push an emotional button in you. (Incidentally Ketamine is used IM NOT IV) The simple fact is Ketamine is best administered by intra-muscular injection.

I'm struggling with your logic. If Lilly takes LSD regularly he isn't an addict, but if he takes Ketamine regularly he is? This sounds like war on drugs logic.

Alex, i will only say this one last time.....listening? I never said he WAS a self admitted addict!

Well that's kinda what the argument has been about for the last 6 pages. I said Swami was wrong to call Lilly a "self-confessed ketamine junkie" you jumped in and defended him and insisted I was wrong. If Lilly says he wasn't a junkie then according to you this must mean he WAS a junkie because he must be in "denial". It sounds like the old "If you say you are a witch you must drown and if you say you arn't you drown anyway". If you arn't arguing this then what is your point?

to compare IV'ing Ketamine for an extended period of time to someone seeing their children everyday is ludicrous

Only to someone raised with the war on drugs propaganda. Lilly used LSD to map areas of the brain, he did the same with Ketamine. Out of his experiences he wrote two books that are still in print 25 years later. Apart from his LSD and Ketamine use he never moved onto other drugs and he lived into his eighties. That doesn't sound much like a junkie to me.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Calen]
    #1048566 -

If fuzzy logic is applied to beliefs rather than simple Yes/No logic surely this whole issue would be resolved?

When discussing most of the topics that get covered on these boards I dont think anyone can have any degree of certitude at either end of the spectrum..

Calen mentions chalking up his experiences to delusion etc but is obviuosly being flippant. However Calen, are you 100% positive that this isnt the case?

Swami, Doi you honestly believe that just because something cannot be demonstrated to you it is 100% false?

I do think we should be striving to bring these experiences in to the consensual arena and I believe at around 75% that this will happen as a by product of increased connectivity between the human race and evolution itself. I have had a few experiences myself which are hard to write off as coincidence/delusion etc but I am not convinced that this is not the case.





--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Xlea321]
    #1048594 -

imo, that was your best response yet, Alex....you seemed more aloof and detatched and what I pervieved to be hosility as exhibited in some of your other posts(not JUST in this thread) seemed to be under control.........having said THAT.....

Read up on the history of opium and heroin.

No need to, you have given me a brief synopsis and i'm willing to take you at your word. Even if what you said WASN"T true, it makes no difference to my life experience in the present moment......

This can of course be applied to every aspect of life. Stopping work results in withdrawal symptoms - you don't have any money. Stopping seeing your wife and your children result in withdrawal symptoms

Can it now? This  Is  an interesting statement Alex. Perhaps if the person in question had enough forsight to see a day when he either:A was summarily dissmised from his chosen line of endeavour or..........................:B  He simply got tired of dealing with all the BS associated with it*, that person would not have to undego any sort of negative "withdrawl symptoms"  normally  associated with job termination.as he would have saved some money up for such a time...in fact THAT person might even feel  Liberated

as far as your run down on withdrawing from opiates, again i shall take you at your word......

Stopping seeing your wife and your children result in withdrawal symptoms.

Really Alex? i don't know that, never having been in that posiition. What if the person genuinely needed to get away from them, what you describe as painful(to WHATEVER degree) might in fact feel/seem like  Liberation  to THAT person.....

If the drug is available and you find life more enjoyable using it then why withdraw anyway?

Whatever floats your boat.....

Incidentally Ketamine is used IM NOT IV) The simple fact is Ketamine is best administered by intra-muscular injection

Okay

I'm struggling with your logic. If Lilly takes LSD regularly he isn't an addict, but if he takes Ketamine regularly he is?

Where did i say(imo) that he wasn't an DSL addict?

I said Swami was wrong to call Lilly a "self-confessed ketamine junkie" you jumped in and defended him and insisted I was wrong

i think most of the people here on this message board can take care of themselves without any assistance from me.........where did i "insist" you were wrong?

It sounds like the old "If you say you are a witch you must drown and if you say you arn't you drown anyway".

That's an excellent analogy Alex, except in THIS particular instance i don't think it holds a whole lot of water  :grin:

to compare IV'ing Ketamine for an extended period of time to someone seeing their children everyday is ludicrous

I'll stand by that statement....

Only to someone raised with the war on drugs propaganda.

i may have been "raised" with that but i would hardly describe myself as poster boy for the DEA  :cool:


Edit:* i admit it, for personal reasons i just HAD to put that line in Kaps :grin:













 


--------------------
"Being crazier than a shithouse rat is not sufficient grounds for banishment"


Edited by FreakQlibrium (11/13/02 05:39 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Xlea321]
    #1048611 -

Once again, IV seems to push an emotional button in you.
That was very perceptive Alex, and i don't mean to imply sarcasm in that statement.....

I understand that this is totally irrational on my part. i've seen a guy out on 2 week meth binge while his wife was in the hospital giving birth to his offspring who was going to go to bed hungry when they got home because their "father" had to spend all the food money on meth, due to his addiction.....mommy wasn't in any kind of an emotional/mental/spirtual frame of mind to raise the child in a loving nurturing environment cauz cause daddy would beat the crap out of her when he would fly into a rage cauz mommy had spent his drug money on FOOD........see where i'm coming from just a little bit even Alex?

i could fill this entire thread up with several REAL LIFE horror stories that i witnessed firat hand, but you probably wouldn't believe me anyway......i can ASSURE you Alex, any emotive response you detect in me Re IV/IM injection is rooted in my life experience, even if this aspect of my life was terminated circa 72/73.......i always considered the "propaganda" war on drugs to be a farce...in many aspects i still do, BUT when you have seen some of the s....crap go down that i have, THEN you tell me it's harmless :mad:<=======emotive friggen response



But, THAT was all in the past  :grin: :wink: 


--------------------
"Being crazier than a shithouse rat is not sufficient grounds for banishment"


Edited by FreakQlibrium (11/13/02 03:31 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: GazzBut]
    #1048685 -

Swami, Doi you honestly believe that just because something cannot be demonstrated to you it is 100% false?

Never once stated this. My stance is quite simple. If:

A. It cannot be demonstrated
B. Evidence is relegated to storytelling
C. I cannot or have not experienced it myself

then I choose not to believe it until one of those conditions has changed.



--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: FreakQlibrium]
    #1048690 -

Change Iv'ing meth to drinking bottles of whisky. The bottle isnt evil and nor is the needle its the mind thafs using it thats the problem.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Swami]
    #1048691 -

Similar criterion to the ones I myself would apply.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: GazzBut]
    #1048697 -

Change Iv'ing meth to drinking bottles of whisky. The bottle isnt evil and nor is the needle its the mind thafs using it thats the problem.

That's a very good point, it's just that in my own life experience, i have never PERSONALLY witnesed the atrocities i have witness re IV users of meth associated with any other substance including alcohol, not to the degree anyway. Someone else's life experience my be exactly the opposite....and yes i realize atrocites is a strong word....the story i related in my post was one of the few i could think of that really had any place on a public message board...most of the others would have been(imo) too grotesque in comparison....


--------------------
"Being crazier than a shithouse rat is not sufficient grounds for banishment"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: FreakQlibrium]
    #1048968 -

I think we've discussed ourselves to a standstill Freak Q.

Nice talking to you - you're a class act. It got a bit heated at one point but we let the steam out and finished up being civil with one another :laugh: 


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief revisited... [Re: Xlea321]
    #1048974 -

Nice talking to you - you're a class act. It got a bit heated at one point but we let the steam out and finished up being civil with one another 

Check......mate  :smile:  :wink: 


--------------------
"Being crazier than a shithouse rat is not sufficient grounds for banishment"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7  [ show all ]

Shop: Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   North Spore Injection Grain Bag   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Mushroom-Hut Liquid Cultures

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Disbelief revisited... Nomad 535 2 11/12/02 01:06 PM
by Adamist
* Faith vs Belief ZenGecko 1,166 8 07/02/04 03:27 PM
by Swami
* can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )		 Anonymous 22,379 157 12/21/04 06:31 AM
by deafpanda
* Firewalking revisited
( 1 2 all )		 Swami 1,498 25 08/21/04 07:22 PM
by Mushmonkey
* Sleep paralysis revisited, or How real is real? Anonymous 1,129 7 05/08/04 02:54 PM
by Redo
* Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs
( 1 2 all )		 Swami 10,714 39 01/14/05 05:58 PM
by Alan Stone
* The Unprovable Nature of Faith and Belief
( 1 2 all )		 DoctorJ 3,020 33 08/11/03 07:13 AM
by fireworks_god
* Unproven Beliefs Silversoul 2,177 15 02/16/05 10:11 AM
by moog

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
9,977 topic views. 1 members, 22 guests and 9 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.097 seconds spending 0.014 seconds on 16 queries.