Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in Abstract Thought's LiveJournal:

[ << Previous 20 ]

Thursday, November 19th, 2009
2:34 am [dierdrae]	The Necessity of Love? I have been pondering this for a few days, now. I seem to have found a contradiction, either that or I'm wrong in one of my premises. I recently went through a rather nasty breakup, and all I keep hearing from people is to become self-sufficient again, to rely on myself, to not depend on another person that much anymore or allow myself to be convinced that love can last forever. Relying on anyone outside of the self leads to certain disappointment, and certainty that a relationship will last the test of time is foolish. All of which, I can see the logic in. Yet, at the same time.. why be in a committed relationship, if you don't think it will last? If you don't rely on that person? Why build a life with someone if you 'know' it will almost inevitably fail? If the best thing is to be entirely self-sufficient, to not 'need' anyone, then why fall in love at all? What becomes the purpose of love? If you are wholly self-sufficient, does that mean you don't 'need' love? (23 Comments |Comment on this)
Monday, August 24th, 2009
12:09 am [owiz22]	Rabbler: The redemption of the rainman He will live his death labeled the lone voice of life ... the lukewarm lives of lackluster lip syncers have enthroned the lapses of some lying lame ducks. The once laughable struggle of an ugly little laborer has laddered to the limelight with no plans to leave. Laying in their lack, it was their lust that prompted greed, now he lives in vindication far across the largest sea. Raised in a rare realm of Rastafarian rebellion, He was forced to relinquish his roots from this reputable redemption. Obviously those roving rats classified as repulsive, what thy believed to be a radical message from a reclusive elite. They ridiculously assumed the writings on the wall to be random, while a rear rose from the renaissance rallied the right while righting their wrongs. He stood quiet while he was writing at dawn revealing race, reputation, and relevance have become the parameters to determine right from the wrong. He relaxes on a rock with a relatively rough surface, reflecting on the paradox of a nation reluctantly trying to remember the future. Reaffirming his resistance to any romantic rendezvous, "they are astonishingly shallow" he romantically concludes; thinking of the countless times that romance has been misused; He laughs very much on his own at that giant raft made out of stone. Current Music: mad world: gary jules (Comment on this)
Thursday, September 3rd, 2009
11:44 pm [escapingsummer]	Anyone feel this way? I am sure this has popped up in a post before but here I go. Anyone feel that we are moving into a Brave New World Society faster than we should be? Or that over reliance on technology has handicapped us as potential thinkers and scholars? I've people watched and have seen stupidity and a lack in common knowledge that I am becoming rather fearful of what the future holds for humans not technology. I feel that with the rate that information transfer is going we will not learn anything in schools things will not be taken to heart and embedded into our minds storage center, we will be a gateway for information to be passed from a central server through our brain (computer chips in the brain, headsets etc) and we will be a walking reference book.... (25 Comments |Comment on this)
Friday, August 28th, 2009
5:21 am [wethewindmills]	A Writing Exercise/Challenge This is nonsense, but it does lend to a loose sort of narrative. It tells a story. This story will be different to everybody that reads it. I would just like to hear that story, relative to every individual. If you've got the time at some point, and want a nice, little project to mess with and get your creativity flowing, take a stab at this. Read through it, give it some thought, and write a synopsis of any length detailing the events that you believe to be transpiring. It can be anything. It's only limited by your imagination and perception. I only have a few friends on here, though, so try to recommend this to people who you think would like to participate in this. If I get a few interpretations (or if people desperately need examples), I'll post both mine and my friends (which we wrote after writing said nonsense), and we can compare. If there are posts here, don't look at them! Don't let anything corrupt or sway your vision before you begin. There is no wrong way to do this, so have fun with it, but be serious. Craft the story! Interpret the symbols. Trust me, you'll be surprised at how different they'll all end up. Thanks, Jake A silhouetted ring shows in a display of endless velvet As the organ slowly descends down the river Ricocheting towards that old, gray mill It’s the shepherd of the sea’s southern waltz Distant photographs all covered in the wild Of the fields that spoke and barked only acclaim And the boy’s parade sighed balmily As they walked subtly along the Pilgrim’s mouth Marseille soon became a strange embankment in the sky And tangible islands crystallized into simple breaths A night of theatrics broke the void Leaving mines which can produce earlier colors To attempt to film meaning on church terraces With only the grandest of funerals unexplored The beret listened in solitude to its crafter As he meandered amongst the trees and dreamt of 1917 “Children discovered Braille as the lake fell, Recanting the stolen approach of the architect As sunlight was shone over tactile woods of silver”   Current Mood: creative Current Music: Sigur Ros - Glosoli (8 Comments |Comment on this)
Monday, July 27th, 2009
11:25 am [noir_draconid]	Keep Good Religion, Ban Bad Religion That was the sentence I heard a vicar say whilst listening to the local radio station on the morning of Sunday 26th...of course, this prompted me to call in with my question, 'how do you define a bad religion?' Unfortunately, it didn't get put through as there wasn't much time left. Seriously though, what does define a bad religion; in all honesty, there is no such thing...it is only the misguided beliefs and action of people that constitute to bad religion. We see it in fundementalist attitudes; it is because of this that we have this war...misguided people who believe so much in what they are doing is right and just, that it blinds them to all else. Needless to say these people are the ones that bring a bad name to the name religion. These are the people that need to be banned, not religion. (16 Comments |Comment on this)
Wednesday, July 8th, 2009
4:40 am [enders_shadow]	Choose your own adventure novel From the lost Erisian files: Page 32 You find the world meaningless and empty. The void of random chance has become the truth of the universe and you are hardly more than a temporary set-up of atoms and sub-atoms, molecules that follow a set path until they transform into something else, which it too follows a set path. The once felt freedom has vanished under the intellectual weight of the deterministic reality. The once green trees now seem grey and faded. The vibrant sunsets and skylines of majestic value are no longer worth gazing upon. The oceans soothing rhythmic beat is inaudible. Your ways out: Eschatology (turn to page 65) Anesthesiology (turn to page 42) To drift towards Nietzschean Nihilism turn to page 66 To drift towards Buddhist AnAtman turn to page 0 Page 0: Page 66: You accept the void; the color returns with a vengeance to the world. Suddenly each moment becomes a void, but a void that years to be filled. Even if it is impossible. You overcome the void by continuing on in it. You accept that the world is without meaning--so there is no reason to suffer; the world shall be viewed with an affirmative will, because it's just more fun. Amor Fati! So what if my will doesn't matter? (turn to page 100) Pages 100, 65 and 42 are still part of the lost files. Can any of you help me locate them? (2 Comments |Comment on this)
Monday, May 18th, 2009
11:59 am [penguin_dodger]	A little bit of humour. (Hope this is allowed. If not, sorry mods!) (6 Comments |Comment on this)
Monday, April 6th, 2009
2:10 am [ladycatherina]	Theano's Day - everyone (male or female) invited to blog June 24 to celebrate a woman philosopher! Everyone (of all genders) is invited to participate in Theano's Day, an event to celebrate and rediscover women's contributions to philosophy throughout the centuries. Blurb from the Pledge Bank signup site, which you may find here: http://www.pledgebank.com/theanosday "I will blog to spotlight a woman, living or dead, who has made an important contribution to philosophy but only if 100 other people will do the same." Also there's a Facebook group for Theano's Day to discuss the project with other participants: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=526821601&ref=profile#/group.php?gid=74564828672&ref=mf More information, from the website: http://www.pledgebank.com/theanosday Greek mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras' wife Theano was a scholar and intellectual in her own right. Along with helping him raise five children, she put together writings on mathematics, art, beauty, philosophy, and child raising. She is credited with developing the Golden Mean, a crucial idea in aesthetic theory. By taking this pledge, you sign up to honor and celebrate important women such as Theano by promising to create a blog post on June 24th concerning a female philosopher. As with Ada Lovelace Day, spotlighting women's contributions to technology, the woman you select may be from any nation, culture, or time period, living or dead...and you may blog in any style or format, using any software in any language. I selected Theano as a mascot as she represents a work/life balance, an apparently decent and loving wife and mother as well as a scholar and professional. Throughout history and on average women have worked very hard in the background keeping things going by raising children, cooking, maintaining households, helping to earn a living through day-jobs...all very respectable activities. And many have made contributions to philosophy or other fields which may have been overlooked because the women are primarily known for work they have done in their other roles. So Theano's Day celebrates the philosophical contributions of women and attempts to bring their ideas out in the open to help inform modern society. Also - when we think of philosophers, I've found that most people keep going back to the same list of the greats...Kant, Hume, Plato, Aristotle, etc. Of course not to say there isn't great wisdom from the greats...but honestly right now the world is facing a whole set of problems. Right here in the U.S. we're at war with three different countries with no end in sight, we're going down in a global economic crisis, etc. So - maybe looking at new ideas from any source might help us stumble on some which may be useful. And encouraging people to look at female philosophers will bring out lesser-known people and lesser-known ideas. You may define 'philosopher' as you choose - someone need not have specialized in the field to be discussed in a blog for Theano's Day. For example, a female novelist, businesswoman, teacher, politician, nun, homemaker may have created a philosophical outlook worth discussing that is apparent through the values that come out through her work in other fields. Some women to start with if you need help thinking of someone: Hypatia of Alexandria (mathematician and scholar), St. Catherine (mystic and humanitarian), Sor Juana (Mexican nun and intellectual) and Florence Nightingale and Jane Austen, each of whom developed a worldview and philosophy through their writings on various subjects. We encourage as many people as possible from around the world to participate this June 24th and will set up a system to link the blogs so you may read each other's blogs. Please also pass on the word about Theano's Day! (Comment on this)
Tuesday, May 26th, 2009
10:38 pm [turboswami]	Making A Place For The Modern Shaman Where did the spiritual man of the village go back then? There was always a place for him, as healer, counsel, ascetic, or shaman. Allowed for and, even while living in solitude, contained within the greater bounds of the society. In all of those most ancient social roles, solitude was a centermost defining characteristic, thought to facilitate their relationship with spirit. Even while the counselor or healer were to some extent social, the were sought and revered for that perspective gained through disciplined solitude. Where does the spiritual man of the city go now? A doctor? That's where Freud went. His isolation created the inward science of psychoanalysis, giving straggling psychology the academic exposure it needed in its struggle to be recognized as a science. An artist? God knows I was given opportunity as an artist, and all I needed to do was apply myself, become successful socially while forming a career in media. A madman? A schizophrenic? God knows I've heard the mystical things they'd say in the hospital. I would speak for hours with the paranoids, who were often able to stay clear, concise, and lucid in their expression, describing truly brilliant insights or intensely poetic emotions. This was due to their hypersensitivity, their lowered latent inhibition. The often overwhelming energetic intensity they feel both "resonates" and "radiates." The resonance can manifest as uncontrollable or fully-engaging empathy, which new research shows is not only evident in the schizophrenic, but also in those diagnosed with manic-depression and autism ( ). "Mad Pride!" is the catch phrase of the Icarus Project, a group composed of psychiatric patients who claim mental illnesses like schizophrenia exist along a spectrum of varying states of consciousness. The baseline state of each individual has a differing degree of both sensitivity and complexity. The complexity, the thoughts and mental constructs which result from sensitivity balance the degree of that sensitivity inwardly as blooming branches of cognitive association. The degree of this sensitivity could be thought of as a flood of attention, the priming capacity of branching out across Anderson's ACT-3 semantic network (Anderson, 2000). The semantic complex, this branch with greater or lesser degree of inward associative complexity, may develop in any direction subjectively; branch and bloom into any subject. Many subjects are spiritual, others are paranoid, some are mathematical, while others are delusional or pathological. Yet even these categories are not so clearly bound, but define a spectrum of incremental shades: vibrant brilliance to darkened malignancy. Many subjective categories develop together, spiritual peak experiences being followed by an often intense struggle to interpret the extra-ordinary or visionary perceptions of the experience. The resultant interpretive complex can be seen as either developing in the direction of spiritual insight or delusional religious preoccupation based on the relative degree and direction of subjective development in the person listening (or diagnosing). That is, the categorization of subjects has a subjective component, that of the listener in an interpersonal relationship, and the interpretive bias of culture which comes to aid his stereotypic categorizations. As much as the word has come to carry a negative connotation, to some degree or another stereotypes compose a very basic social function, one which allows for the immediate discernment of an individual into a category, a role, a group, a label. This function facilitates psychiatric diagnosis on one level of complexity as much as the basic ability to recognize a doctor on another, criminal profiling on one level as much as instinctual defenses and threat detection on another. (10 Comments |Comment on this)
Saturday, May 23rd, 2009
12:34 pm [catalyst123]	Losing our Humanities Classics, history, languages, law, literature, philosophy, religion, music, theater, dance, movies?, painting, sculpture, photography. Most of these things are not in our everyday life. Music is rampant, yet even considered globally, is becoming ever more generic. Literature: No one reads books. Not literally, of course, but for millennia only the best and brightest could read. For centuries, those who owned the most and best books were doing or would accomplish the most with there lives. Now we read blog posts (not necessarily a negative). Now we watch Jerry Springer.Now we have Danielle Steel. Except for Cirque Du Soleil, theater has almost completely vanished from society. Movies are filling in for some of that loss, but can it compensate for the loss of an art form that has been around since a country believed in Dionysus? Can it do so quickly? When we think of the law, we think of two things. We often think of the police, though they are not the law, just the enforcers of the law. If this were not true, then C-Span would get the ratings the T.V. show Cops received. Or we think of Judge Judy, that pantomime of Justice played out for our entertainment. They aren't even allowed lawyers. Or a jury. History is commonly seen as a bunch of dead people and dates. History is our heritage, and very much is a part of today, since if it weren't for yesterday, today wouldn't exist. Never mind the classics, we haven't worried about those in decades. What about philosophy? Where are our Aristotles? Our Pascals? Certain visual arts are progressing at a breathtaking rate, mostly to do with photography and computer graphics (compugraphy!), but the rest are relegated to scarce-visited art museums.   The majority of the humanities are disappearing from the public consciousness, and I see this as a bad thing. My questions are: Are we losing our Humanities? Is the loss of the humanities a negative thing? In what ways can we see changes in society, either the direct change of the humanities presence in society and/or the effects of such changes on society? (14 Comments |Comment on this)
Tuesday, May 19th, 2009
3:59 pm [the_mess]	If Socrates Had an iPod x-posted to /r/philosophy I was wondering about what’s wrong with philosophers of today, when it struck me what an interesting topic that is. The philosophers of then, now, back at the beginning… We often say that some things are ahead of their time. So rare is it, though. So much is a product of its time. This got me wondering, “What if Socrates had an iPod?” Would he have been a philosopher at all? With the limitless number of distractions today, I think it’s amazing any of us are. And maybe most of us aren’t even philosophers on the level that people in the time of Socrates were. That begs the question, “What are we, if not philosophers?” Are we patrons? Consumers of a grand philosophy we just add to? Are we, indeed, ever inventing something new? What else is different about us compared to them? We’re technologically advanced, yes, but we’re also participants in a global economy and a global civilization, more than ever before, and more and more every day. There are, seemingly, more demands placed on us as participants in this. We’re all something/philosophers. Auto-mechanic/philosopher. Movie theater assistant manager/philosopher. Student/waitress/philosopher. Professor/father/philosopher. Or maybe the slice of the pie that is ‘philosopher’ is much littler. 30%? 10%? Whatever the case, we’re not an ‘all-philosopher pie’ like they were in previous times. I guess what I’m saying is we shouldn’t feel as much pressure to be philosophers. We can’t be, if we want to make it in this world. We have to be what we are; auto-mechanic, movie theater assistant manager, student, waitress, professor… That is, if we’re convinced that this is what we want; this kind of global economy and civilization we have today. So, are we convinced? Do we, indeed, want this? Should we not feel contented in being what we are and not philosophers only? Or are we just being distracted from what’s important and there’s more progress and reform to be made to this wider system we find ourselves in? What makes us philosophize? Is it just a hobby, or as a result of something we are called to do on account of the conditions of the wider system we find ourselves in? No doubt we are all products of our time. Should things continue, is the philosopher slice of the pie destined to get smaller and smaller until it’s altogether gone? Is this a bad thing, or is there something good and inevitable about it? Current Mood: curious (16 Comments |Comment on this)
Monday, May 18th, 2009
2:43 am [owiz22]	from the tomb of an insane mad man From the perspectives of conventional thought, man is held to certain standards, certain expectations, certain requirements and obligations .... We are all the unfortunate victims of this brutal system of mass indoctrination. Walking zombies doing what we are told and believing what we are taught. There is no space for flexibility and time for real questions ..... Everybody is too busy sticking to the script to even take a second to look at it all ...... The fallacy of "experts" and "pundits", of "professionals" and "adept individuals" is one thing and one thing alone: They all think they know. The key operative word in the prior sentence is think, as history has vividly proved that what man often thought it was has usually been very far from what it actually is today. The great Socrates is often quoted as counseling his followers thus: "one thing alone do i know and that is that i know nothing" ............ I guess man has come a long way from that kind of beautiful wisdom to where we are today :) ........ Can we please have a moment of silence. The scheming of a "professional" schemer can never out scheme the schemes of a professional thinker, as the professional thinker will be wise enough to know that the state of professionalism can never be achieved, thus eliminating the element of comfort and relaxation that comes with the false territory. The professional thinker remains hungry and ready to learn as he has already thought through the concept of professionalism and knows it can actually only be achieved in the false system that celebrates nobodies and glorifies nothings. Current Mood: contemplative Current Music: Rakim: when i be on the Mic (8 Comments |Comment on this)
Friday, May 8th, 2009
1:19 am [owiz22]	no missed calls: in defence of a fallen soldier The vilification of his actions was thorough and precise: "that man fought the evil fight and died an evil death". "History is always written by the victor" said Niccolo Machiavelli. This explains why this man has been made into a beast. Touche oh victor, his memory has been been crushed. He is despised by most and there is not a single missed call on his phone. Now who will cry for this fallen soldier ? A man who fell for what he believed in. Who will shed a tear for the one that dared to unite and fight under a different type of ideology? . Who will remember his courage and innovation in the most difficult and trying times ?. Who will point out the fact that although he thought differently, His fight was exactly the same ? Who Will tell the youth that no single person can hold the monopoly of "Liberty" nor the definition of right and wrong?. "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently"- Nietzsche A true soldier never goes to war to fight but to win. however, in order to win, they are very often forced to fight. The same is the case with this fallen soldier as he has been forced to fight in a desperate bid to win the war. His enemies unfortunately gained the upper hand and he fell believing in the doctrine that he stood for. Who is he ? He is Mao, he is Karl Marx, He is Stanley "Tookie" Williams, He is Carlo Gambino, He is Fidel Castro, He Che Guevara, He is Michael McKevitt, He is Gideon Orkar, He is Attila the Hun, He is Maximilien Robespierre, He is Ayatollah Khomeini, He could be you and he very much could be me. Even if we dont understand these fallen soldiers, the least we can do is respect them. (29 Comments |Comment on this)
Tuesday, April 28th, 2009
4:28 pm [turboswami]	Meditative Preinclination And Religious Belief Meditation , I learn more and more, is a practice which can be interpreted very broadly. Any activity, it seems, can be called “meditation” – it seems the state is defined, not by that activity, itself, but by the state of mind one maintains while performing that activity. So walking or sweeping, for instance, may look identical while being performed by a both a bus driver and a Zen monk, yet one instance represents meditation while the other is merely the act of sweeping. This elusive frame of mind or transcendental focus held by that Zen monk during the seemingly mundane act of sweeping has many implications. One implication being that meditation has no universally representative appearance of physical pose – the stereotypical Indian-style appearance many associate with meditative practice, while may lending to the effectiveness of meditative practice, is not necessary to achieve the state and, on the flip side, holding those often painful physical poses does not guarantee that an individual is meditating. (Indeed, as gamma brainwave studies of Buddhist monks showed, many individuals continue holding these elaborate body postures for years without achieving meaningful states of deep meditation.) Another implication of the sweeping monk’s meditative internal state is the profound influence of an individual’s perception of the world and their activities in it. The state of mind with which a person interacts and with the external, or accesses the internal, is very personalized and, to one degree or another, genetically predetermined. While that word “genetic” has drifted to the verge of being as politically incorrect as the word “race” in modern socially-accepted dialogue, it is safe to assert that one’s temperament, frame of mind, and behavioral inclinations are, to some degree, genetically defined. With this in mind, one could imagine specific frames of mind, like meditation, could be subject to the influence of one’s natural affinity. Certain families as well as certain ethnic groups are traditionally known to be quieter, calmer, and more reserved than others. While identifying these ethnic groups specifically treads along dangerous ground, politically, I don’t feel that, as scientists of mind, that we should be afraid of addressing the topic of diversity from this cognitive perspective. Non-Christian Group Therapies: Respecting Traditional Hindu Religious Practice Psychiatrists should be the next doctors with the ability to give Medical Marijuana Cards. To dispense them to whole psychiatric therapy group's for meditative therapy sessions. That's essentially a prescription granted for aid in Spiritual Practice, not for the treatment of an illness. It is not much of a jump to say each Group Therapy session would begin with a prayer. Many of the AA Group Meetings already do this. If that prayer ritual was made in the Hindu tradition instead of the Christian, for instance, we would invite spirits into the room from the four corners, to be with us during a ritual involving Soma (marijuana.) Mediumship or "divine inspiration" would be a central aspect in therapy tailored to practicing members of this differing but equally (if not more) valid religious tradition. In terms of therapy, it would seem the Hindu religious tradition would lend itself more easily to group work of this meditative type. I hope to explore the nature of meditative success, accounting for varying factors like genetic affinity, preinclinations, meditation type, and the aid of mind manifesting sacraments on aspects of self-focus, attention, and sensitivity: inward characteristics which seem universally central to that frame of mind which defines the meditative state. (Comment on this)
Friday, April 24th, 2009
11:06 pm [evolutions_son]	Freedom & Slavery When we are born into this physical and material realm as an infant we instantly begin to learn what seems to be universal rules. We learn that we need to drink and eat and then we have to excrete it out. We learn to express ourselves verbally and with body language. We learn the rules that our parents choose to govern us with. As we get older we begin to learn the rules of our neighborhood and eventually our country and our world. We are taught the rules of the religion that our families follow. Most rebel a little as a teenager, but then come to accept these rules as they move into adulthood. The mature human not only accepts the rules of his society but also joins the society to contribute to it. We believe we will do this, get married and have kids(if we want this), and then eventually get old and die. Laws and rules govern us from the beginning and they stay with us until our death. Some choose to rebel against traditional rules and laws and study the mystical and metaphysical. They soon transcend the common laws of humans and live a life by laws of a higher nature. If you read your horoscope in the newspaper you realize that it isn't accurate and is very generalistic. When one learns the true science of astrology one then begins to see how everything in time and space is obeying some type of law. A plan is in effect by the creator of not just the earth, but of the cosmos. Energy that is present in every second of our lives is accounted for and explained. Our individualities are accounted for and explained. We can look at a time in the future and a place where a person could be born and see the details of that yet to be born persons individuality. Laws are in place and govern us from the highest of levels. Are we a slave to this? Some will tell you no. That you have free choice how to experience these energies that are always present. In this respect you control your destiny. However they say that you don't control your fate and because of that you can't control whether this energy is going to present or not and the way it unfolds. You can't stop the sun from rising in the east every morning. Well if I can't control these things then I am subject to them. If I am a subject then I am a slave. A subject is not equal to what it is subject to. A subject is not a co-creator. A subject can create with what it is given, but can't create what is given. You can come to all these wonderful understandings of the plan that you are subject to, but you are still a slave. In the slave days of America there were two distinctions of slaves. The field negro and the house negro. The field negro did the manual labor and lived in harder conditions. The house negro had the ability to experience the culture of his master, to get an education of his masters knowledge, and to live in more comfortable surroundings. Both were slaves and both were often put against each other. The point of this analogy is that it doesn't matter if you are aware of the higher laws in place or ignorant of them. The higher laws can allow you to understand what is happening around you so you can navigate better through life, but what does that matter if you are still a slave. The higher laws can allow you to acquire wealth, material objects, and status within society. The higher laws can allow you to become a leader and controller of society. But what does any of that matter? You have the ignorant mass desiring what the few have. You have the few empowered with understanding seeking to dominate, control, or help the masses. Then of course you have those that just say screw it all and just do their best to enjoy life with what they have before they die. Slaves every last one of them, every last one of us. We do our best to refuse to look at life in this manner because we can't see a way out of our slavery. We deny our slavery. We focus on freedom and salvation in 'the next life'. We focus on gaining external things and external power to make us feel like we are not what we are; slaves. If you look around in nature which includes the earth and the cosmos you see these rules in effect. Planets and stars moving around in cycles that are governed by such and such laws. We see the mineral, plant, and animal kingdoms obeying laws. We look at ourselves, the human race, and we recognize that we are the most evolved life from that we have encountered. We are the top of the food chain as so many say. We dominate the earth and we have the power to dictate whether plants, animals, or even minerals live or not. It is the development of our left brain, our logic, that we attribute to our being the most highly evolved. We have even created new forms of existence that did not exist before us. Since we know that our human forms have not always existed and yet were somehow created we see that above all other life forms that we have encountered that we can create in a manner close to that which created the cosmos. We can create not just more of us(reproduction), but also new inventions that never existed before. We have heard from the religious that "we are made in our creators image". Using our evolved logical left brains we can deduce that since humans can create that which didn't previously exist that we do hold a power unlike other life forms around us. We can also deduce that the creator of the cosmos is not subject to the laws of the cosmos. The creator can change the laws just as we can change the laws of our society that we live by. These deductions lead to one hypothesis that is relevant to this discussion. We can create new things that never existed and these things can, by mere existence, change the external physical material plane forever. We can shoot a rocket out into space where it can impact an asteroid and change its fated course. We can detonate an explosive that eliminates human beings from the face of the earth. We could even destroy the earth and explode it into millions of pieces that will travel throughout the cosmos impacting and changing the course of fated creation. We have the power to create and destroy on a level unlike any other life form that we know of with the exception of the creator of everything. This leads us to draw a conclusion that we have the potential to change the laws that govern creation. We, as humans, have the ability to move from slave to master. For the masses to truly believe this they will need empirical evidence. They need to see someone "break" the laws that govern life. They need to see someone fly and break gravity without any external help. They need to see someone heal and regenerate themselves. They need to see someone change the appearance of their form by choice and will. They need to see someone transcend death. When the telephone was invented if the masses were told about it but never saw it would they believe in it? If you traveled a couple hundred years into the past and told the masses about computers and modern technology would they believe you without seeing it for themselves? A few may always believe in what they don't see, but the masses need to see it. More then ever our society is dominated by the ideas of doing the impossible. Movies, books, comics, and anything that tells stories of humans living lives and experiencing things that seem impossible to us dominate our culture. Superhero and science fiction movies dominate the box office. Look at the television shows of the 1980's and look at the current shows. We as a species are begging to experience the impossible. We are begging for the end of our slavery. If we look at all the laws of the mundane and of the higher order we can see that they are all forms. All forms are created from the formless. The formless not only creates form but also pervades all form. Formlessness is both inside form and outside of form. This is science that our logical left brains can understand as we see the formless space around an object and we can see the space within any object/form. Since our birth our minds have been programmed to believe in form. Our closest programming of the formless comes in our faith of a form we are told existed and exists but which isn't objective for all to verify. To be objective there has to be an object. There has to be a form that we can all verify. The formless is subjective. Not because it isn't real for we know formlessness is real. It is not subjective because we make our own interpretations of it because an interpretation is a form. It is subjective because it is "sub" or beneath, that which we can't see. It is formless. Formlessness can be experienced though. All of reality is broken down into these two fundamental aspects. Formless and form. Subjective and objective. The life forms outside of humans that we have experienced are not as developed in regards to logic/left brain. Therefore these life forms follow the push and pull of instinct and the laws of creation. Humans do this as well. Humans are programmed from birth, as previously mentioned, to follow the laws(forms) around them. The term "awakening" is used when a human awaken to the formless within themselves and in all of life. The term "enlightened" is used when a human lives his/her life grounded in formlessness. An enlightened life is one where the laws(form), thoughts(form) and actions(form) one takes in every moment are conscious creations(choices) manifesting from the individuals spirit(formlessness). Understanding brings "Awakening". Realization of the understanding brings "Enlightenment" When one awakens the understanding that awakened them spreads throughout all aspects of their being until it reaches a critical mass that brings the realization. A understanding is of the mind and the mental faculties. When we realize an understanding we bring the understanding from concept to reality. Thus the "real" in realization. This realization moves throughout us and enlightens one aspect at a time which is why a person can appear enlightened in one area, but not another. When one lives an enlightened life the realization that enlightened them spreads until to permeates all aspects of the individuals life. Our physical material aspect of ourselves is the last area for this realization to spread to. By physical material aspect I am referring to our physical bodies, the actions we take with our physical bodies, and how we interact with the physical bodies of all other physical creations which include material objects like tables, walls, hammers, etc. When a persons reaches this level where the realization spreads totally throughout their being they are considered totally enlightened. Then we move to the next stage... After... Understanding brings "Awakening". Realization of the understanding brings "Enlightenment" Comes... Actualization of the realization brings "Ascension". Before I move into ascension let me first state the following. As the realization pervades(enlightens) our physical bodies we begin to manifest miracles. This is also where one can achieve what we currently call superpowers. As the realizations pervades our interaction with physical life we can teleport, walk through walls, fly, and other such impossible things. When this is complete and we are totally pervaded(enlightened) by the realization we move onto ascension. What is ascension? The American Heritage Dictionary says that ascension is the act or process of ascending; ascent. When applied to this subject ascension is our ascent from slave to master. It is our ascent into true freedom. When we exist in the ascended state we are no longer "stuck" in any form. We choose our form in any moment. We can look human or we can take the form of a tree. We can take the form of human and change the details(hair color, skin color, size, shape, etc) by will. We can choose to exist as pure energy shaped in human like form. We can leave the planet and go anywhere. We can create new life forms by will or even go out and create our own galaxy if we so choose. Biblically speaking we live a life that is fully realized as "made in the image of the creator". One could even choose to take the form of and become a universe or dimension until themselves. The possibilities are endless because we are truly rooted in our formless nature. One can even choose to still exist on this earth or go to other planets where life is similar to earth and become a teacher to those life forms. A native to Baltimore wrote a song and the lyrics are often mixed into the local club music. The part of the lyrics that have resonated with me the most and are like my personal theme music goes like this... "Follow me...why don't you follow me...to a place where we can all be free..." My life's purpose is to provide the empirical evidence of all that I have written here. It is to be and show the way to freedom, bliss, happiness, and the fulfillment of the human potential. Some of you may believe, but the masses need to see. This is not information that I have been programmed with. I have not been taught these things. This is the truth that has been with me since my birth and I now have learned the vocabulary that allows me to express it to all of you. I am not a messiah or a prophet. I am just a soul who has done this before and who has come back to show the way to all of you now that the time is right for this planet. (16 Comments |Comment on this)
Friday, April 17th, 2009
8:06 am [take_276]	In reading through the community's older posts, I couldn't help but notice just how much the words "happy" and "depressed" appear. It seems that many of us are deeply interested in these topics. Perhaps we "abstract thinkers" have arrived at the conclusion, whether actually voiced or simply accepted subconsciously, that emotion is the most important aspect of our existence. If I take a hard look at my actions, I think I've been operating under that assumption for many years now. Anyway... Here are some of my thoughts on happiness and depression. I would welcome your comments on any of them: 1. "Happiness" isn't a specific emotion, but rather a catch-all term for the many internal feelings and/or states of minds that we view as desirable. 2. Many people fail to recognize the broad spectrum of emotions represented by the term "happiness", and therefore spend much of their time chasing "euphoria", the most temporary and fleeting of these desirable emotions. I'm defining euphoria as the rush a person gets when he or she rides a roller coaster, has sex, takes certain recreational drugs, etc. 3. What most of us really want are emotions like contentment, familial love, the knowledge that we are accepted by our friends for who we are (faults and all), etc. These fall under the umbrella of "happiness", too, although some people fail to realize this. 4. Attempts to substitute euphoria for these more deep-seated desires are doomed to failure. Tragically, many people never come to this realization and are left with permanent feelings of emptiness and misery. 5. Some of us, even those who can differentiate between the various shades of "happiness", are still miserable because we simply aren't conditioned to misery. Let me explain a bit here. What I mean is that we in the modern world have become good at eliminating small annoyances and tedious chores from our lives. We haven't been able to completely eliminate those problems, however, and therefore exist in a constant state of irritation. If we were forced to endure greater irritations and hardships (as our ancestors were), we'd probably be better at coping with undesirable feelings. But as it is, we simply haven't learned to deal very well with those emotions. 6. Humans are social animals, and many of the feelings we view as positive were once satisfied by helping and receiving help from other humans. Modern living has all but destroyed traditional forms of community, though, making it more difficult than ever to shake our feelings of misery and depression. Volunteering would probably help, but most of us are forced to work long hours and long weeks now, and we're simply too tired to help strangers in the few hours we're given for leisure. Your thoughts? (25 Comments |Comment on this)
Wednesday, April 15th, 2009
3:29 pm [poisongirlxv]	Reality A conversation I had with a friend a while back has really stirred up a certain number of ambiguities in my mind. Reality. Both word and concept taken for granted these days. A human product, in fact. It exists standing over and against us, nearly independent (but still of course, very much dependent) of human interaction.If a person were to die, reality is unharmed. It still exists with or without the presence of an individual or a number of them. But what if all human beings were to die all of a sudden by a plague, or anything your imagination can evoke. Would the world as we physically know it still exist? How can it stand there with no one or nothing to recognize it? With no one there to define it as being, operating, alive? With no consciousness there to question it, provoke, experience it. Surely, animals and all other organisms on this planet with a consciousness will remain as evidence of it being there. But then, who/what is there to recognize them?..and say that they even exist. As for religion, it already presumes that this world does exist, and that there is a transcendental latter world. And those two exist dialectically. I don't consider this argument seriously. Religion is also a human product. I am highly skeptical of it. As for dreams, I think most of us can agree that it is another reality in which we experience sensory perception, just as in this one. Only dreams are of course transitory, vague, and not as solid as what I call the 'dominant reality'(i.e.this world). Is it truly a reality? Or just a result of our neurological functions as science tells us? If so, isn't this reality, then, a result of the same? I maintain that if subjectivity is not there to encounter or create an objective world, it is not there. However, Ayn Rand's "Objectivism" may destroy all what I'm saying. I'm really interested in what you guys think. If this has already been discussed in here, let me know where. (53 Comments |Comment on this)
Saturday, April 11th, 2009
6:03 am [turboswami]	The Baggy-Eyed Finn And His Late-Night Visions Today I saw a study from the late 1800's confirming what I've been saying for years -- certain people (in the case of the study, MY people, the Finnish) descend into the delta sleep state at an unusually slow rate. While a typical person will enter into a full sleep state less than 10 minutes after laying down, the typical Finnish person will drift slowly inbetween the waking and sleeping states. For myself, this "in between" state may be an hour or more as I enter sleep, or many long minutes as I awaken. It is that unusually long waking transition that can be most traumatic; being semi-awake physiologically with eyes open, aware of the bedroom, but also, to some degree, still dreaming and perceiving the remnants of that dream in the room. This state of transition into waking consciousness is called the "hypnapompic state." The descent into sleep, while related to the hypnapompic, differs in several distinct ways and is called the hypnagogic state - although both are referred to generally as "hypnagogia." The rate of this transition differs from individual to individual and appears to be constant, that is we seem to ascending and descend at the same speed. This rate, according to the study, has a strong genetic component. The experimenter even made it a point to mention, essentially: No wonder Finnish people are always so sad - they haven't slept for years! So we have never been a cheery people, this is known. And apparently we are all born insomniacs - yea, I'm over here munching sleeping pills as we speak. These are the weaknesses of this genetic predisposition to a slow hypnogogic rate. But what are the strengths, if any? Being able to gradually descend through the perceptual states beneath full waking conscious, as opposed to dropping like a stone immediately into sleep, allows the Finlander to notice those subtle subconscious perceptual changes while maintaining an awareness of self, place, and context. It could be thought of as a sort of subconscious buoyant density, deciding if one floats or sinks and how quickly. But are the subtle perceptions of the hypnagogic state legitimate? Are those most common hypnagogic perceptions of hearing one's own name, or "coming into" a conversation in progress, based an interaction with some entity or entities external from ourself? I would say the fact that we "drift" into a fully-active conversation, mid-sentence, implies that the conversation existed before our arrival - much like "drifting" onto a talk radio station, mid show. That station and its talk show existed before we even got into the car and will continue to exist, whether we are perceiving it or not! (19 Comments |Comment on this)
Thursday, April 2nd, 2009
5:03 pm [rawmr]	How's your mirror neurons doing? With things here slow lately, I thought I'd spice it up with a little something from my own journal. Those who even pretend interest in psychology shouldn't miss it: http://rawmr.livejournal.com/77783.html (2 Comments |Comment on this)
Tuesday, March 31st, 2009
9:36 am [frostwulf]	An Answer to Homer Simpson I'd like to try out an answer to a question posed by one of the greatest philosophical minds of our time, Homer Simpson, who asked, "Can God make a corn dog so big that even God couldn't eat it all?" The conundrum presented here is fairly obvious. If he was able to make said corn dog, then his omnipotence is disproved because he wouldn't be able to eat it. However, if he is powerful enough to eat said corn dog, then he failed to make a corn dog that that even he could not eat, and again his omnipotence is disproved. My answer is that yes, God could make a corn dog so big that even he could not eat it. This of course as I said leads to the observation by many that this would mean that God was not omnipotent, since he would not be able to eat said corn dog. To which I reply that at the same time as being able to make said hypothetical corn dog that he could not eat, he would also be able to eat it. Please hear me out before you accuse me of cheating. If God is truly omnipotent, then he can both make a corn dog so big that even he could not eat it AND he would be able to eat it. This defies our most basic ideas of possibility until you consider the definition of omnipotence. Omnipotence, by definition, means all powerful. To be all powerful simply put means to be able to do anything, even the impossible. ESPECIALLY the impossible. If you are bound and forced to follow the rules of physics and reality, then there are things that you simply can not do, which means that you are not omnipotent. If you believe that God is truly omnipotent, then you have to believe that he can break the basic laws of reality and possibility. Furthermore, if you follow the Judeo-Christian idea of God or something similar, you believe that God in his infinite wisdom and power set all the laws that govern our reality and universe in place to begin with. Since he created the laws of reality and defined them to what they are today, he has the ability to change what is possible and impossible and therefore is not bound to the set rules we all know in this reality. Therefore, while it would be impossible for a being bound by the rules in our reality to both make something so big that he could not eat it AND be able to eat it at the same time, it would not be impossible for the God who created those rules in the first place. Simply put, the rules of our reality do not apply to Him who created them in the first place. Hence, God could make a corn dog so big that he couldn't eat it (and yes, he would be able to eat it at the same time), and no that question doesn't inherently diminish or disprove his omnipotence. (38 Comments |Comment on this)