I had the most disturbing dream (disciples, religious leader, punishments, mercy)

[firstborn888]

Originally Posted by purplefig

We exist for a while - that is all we will ever know for certain, all else is futile conjecture.

This is an example of what I am saying in my previous post. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "We exist for a while - that is all I know right now for certain, all else seems like futile conjecture to me at this time." ?

The reason I ask this is it seems logical (to me) to leave the door OPEN for future personal discoveries and to the concept of future unknown possibilities.

What do you think about that?

[purplefig]

Originally Posted by Dotl

Earth to Mystic and Purplefig............

Wait---I think it's actually Mars that's calling.

ZOG, ZOG - BOOM BOOM - ZOG - DOTL...!!!

(translation: " Greetings, Earthling, nice to make your acquaintance, Dotl...!!)

[purplefig]

[quote]

Originally Posted by firstborn888

As a Panentheist I can totally agree with this statement. What is not logical (IMO) is atheists assuming that because they have had no contact with the spiritual side of the "unfathomable mystery" then no one else has either.

Firstly, firsborn, it may be an over-simplification to differentiate too rigidly between Atheists and Pantheists, because, as in my case, there is often a degree of overlap. To label oneself as an atheist is maybe more pragmatic than going into all the ins-and-outs of the finer points of metaphysics, I find, and there is less possibility of someone assuming that I believe in a Creator God, albeit in an abstract sense.

On to your first point, then, but on that understanding.

I'm not sure if it's advisable to use the word 'logic' (much as I love it) in this particular context, it tends not to be a valid tool to assess any kind of Spiritual experience, such as those you allude to. I would argue, then, that probably very few people manage to get through the whole of their lives without some experience of the transcendental, in the broadest sense of that ambiguous term.

It's probably the interpretation various folks put on the fairly common occurrence of, how shall I put it? ... Heightened States of Consciousness - that is interesting, because it very much depends on that person's world-view as to how they perceive such experiences. A believer and a non-believer could, arguably, be emotionally or mentally impressed by an identical insight, but the former might tend to put it down to something inherent in his brain chemistry, whereas the believer would instantly jump to the conclusion that he (or she) - had witnessed a vision from a more Divine origin. An internalised and an externalised response, respectively, to the same basic stimulus, if you like.

That, to me, negates any suggestion that atheists never have a feeling of the 'unfathomable mystery' you speak of; it's more of an internal thing for us.

I understand agnosticism to an extent - those who do 'not-know' and I understand some who feel that they cannot know based on their real life experiences, many times while and after seeking to know.

Perhaps they are looking for something too specific?

The Creator indeed is not contained within any religion but at the same time the nature of the Creator can be seen in the intangibles of the human experience - even written upon the consciences of atheists, and sometimes MORE apparent there (to me) than in religious creeds.

That is where we past company, firstborn...

To say that some 'Creator God' MUST have a role to play in our conscience is a leap too far, IMO, and can't (I put it to you) be substantiated with reference to anything more convincing than mere intuition, and intuition is highly unreliable as a determinant of anything, simply because it is so inextricably linked in with our cultural and other preconceptions. That doesn't convince me that there is, of necessity, a place for God in these speculations, although you are free to make that assumption, on a purely personal level, of course.

BTW, I DO understand atheism since I was one for several years. I had no evidence or inclination or intuition whatsoever that God existed so for all practical purposes, for me, God did not exist. I totally understand how that works.

What happened to convince you otherwise?

BTW, I do not believe the physical universe has what we humans term as morals, only physical laws/principles. The unseen (spiritual) universe is where morality emanates from. Occasionally that morality seeps through into the dense dark walls of religion, but mostly it is found in everyday people. I believe that was Jesus' original message before he was turned (by the spirit of religion) into a religious icon.

You are, then, what I would call a DUALIST to all intents and purposes, since you, unlike me, see a dichotomy between the physical and the spiritual: that, I would argue, is slightly contradictory to your claim to be a 'Pantheist' - the two concepts don't gel very well, on close analysis. Either 'morality' is a feature of our being that emanates from inside us, (as I believe) - or, if it is a feature that emanates from a different (undefined, invisible) dimension, as you suggest, you have to assume that there is a capacity in us physical humans that is receptive to this influence.

I don't really want to go into all that in any depth at this point; suffice to say that your dichotomy breaks down, because you can never show where the demarcation line between body and spirit lies, and probably, therefore, it doesn't really exist. It is a meaningless invention...

Jesus' 'original message' will almost certainly remain an enigma, like the man himself. All I know is, if St. Paul hadn't hijacked Jesus as an icon for his highly idiosyncratic Christology, he would be remembered today more for his teachings on compassion rather than as the hapless sacrificial victim of God's capricious plan for redemption via the cross. That pernicious doctrine of the 'Vicarious Atonement' that so riles me.

The picture we see of Christ in the various re-discovered Gnostic Gospels indicate that he was a far more complex character than what the somewhat contradictory portraits of him we find in the Synoptic Gospels and the rest of the canonical NT manage to convey...

[purplefig]

[quote]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

This is fascinating . . . I so much want to say yes . . . but I can and I can't. You are so close to my conceptions it is very intriguing. Many elements are in play here . . . except it isn't an indivisibility. I believe you are probably referencing something like Bohm's implicate order or as Bohm suggests the whole universe can be thought of as a kind of giant, flowing hologram, or holomovement, in which a total order is contained, in some implicit sense, in each region of space and time. But . . . I envision a unity in multiplicity. I do not believe our individuality is lost. (The Taoist universal brain concept did inform my speculations as well...

Bohm's ideas are truly fascinating, I agree, but on their own they will not be enough to answer your questions, they don't really focus directly, if at all, on the deeper ethical issues, as you know. But his overall concept is still useful for our purposes, probably, with the right modifications.

I try to relate to you, unsurprisingly, in a general Taoist sense, as you detected. (that, and a stiff gin-and-tonic!).

My impression, though, is that you try to push the basic Taoist concepts beyond what they are capable of sustaining, but I could be wrong... I don't always have the automatic insight I need to follow your argument, to be frank, Mystic, and I do hesitate to wade in too soon, when listening carefully, and allowing impressions to form gradually, is probably a better course to follow. So let's look at a straightforward definition of Tao, to start with, and take it from there:

The yin and yang symbolizes the duality in nature and all things in the Taoist religion.
Alternatively, dualism can mean the tendency of humans to perceive and understand the world as being divided into two overarching categories. However that definition is considered a tad controversial. In this sense, it is dualistic when one perceives a tree as a thing separate from everything surrounding it, or when one perceives a "self" that is distinct from the rest of the world. In mystic traditions such as Zen or Islamic Sufism, a key to enlightenment is "transcending" this sort of dualistic thinking, without merely substituting dualism with monism or pluralism.

On the basis of this admittedly simplistic starting point, you will be able to detect a similar unconcern for morality close to what we see in Bohm, and that's why I suggested that you over-complicate what is really a rather simple, supremely balanced theory of the cosmos.

Admittedly, Taoism does, (in ways almost directly comparable to Jung's work) postulate what you choose to call a 'universal brain', although this way of describing the concept is new to me. Nowhere, though, do I see justification for assuming that the Universal principle delineated in Tao concerns itself on the level of human morality, as such, even though it points to the desirability of eliminating the illusion of Duality from our thinking... You might infer from that a tenuous link to ethical behaviour, in the sense that we are encouraged to 'improve' ourselves by adopting a less divisive mindset - divisiveness being the basic source of all conflict.

More simply put - if we humans persist in regarding ourselves as distinct, isolated individuals, separated from everybody else, we are more likely to behave in selfish, anti-social ways and thus cause disharmony in the world. A realisation that my neighbour is, in fact, another aspect of myself (but unwittingly masquerading for the time being as yet another distinct individual) - comes pretty close to some of Jesus' teachings about love and empathy. Heaven and Hell, moreover, become redundant in this way of thinking, since there are no 'individuals' to punish or reward...

That, then, is as far as I would go in defining anything resembling a Universal Morality. It comes down to an internally-generated awareness of the ideal way to behave, rather than being part of a larger system of accountability to a hypothetical higher, conscious, universal arbiter of morality. The world can be a better place if we make it so - and that's about it... no rewards, no punishments in any kind of afterlife... If you want a system of ethical accountability, you would have to look to Buddhism or Hinduism with their concept of 'Karma'.

On that note, I think I had better give my aching brain a short rest, since posts that go on for too long can be a bit taxing for all concerned. (I'll try to take up the remainder of your thoughts a little later, if I may).

Penrose will have to wait his turn for scutiny...

[Richio]

Originally Posted by purplefig

...

Jesus' 'original message' will almost certainly remain an enigma, like the man himself. All I know is, if St. Paul hadn't hijacked Jesus as an icon for his highly idiosyncratic Christology, he would be remembered today more for his teachings on compassion rather than as the hapless sacrificial victim of God's capricious plan for redemption via the cross. That pernicious doctrine of the 'Vicarious Atonement' that so riles me.

The picture we see of Christ in the various re-discovered Gnostic Gospels indicate that he was a far more complex character than what the somewhat contradictory portraits of him we find in the Synoptic Gospels and the rest of the canonical NT manage to convey...

Highjacked?!!!
Are you aware of Paul’s previous endeavors to kill off this threat to his belief system?

For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.
For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.
For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it;
and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions.
But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, was pleased
to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood,
nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus.
Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days.
But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother.
(Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.)
Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia.
I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ;
but only, they kept hearing, "He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy."
And they were glorifying God because of me.
Galatians 1:10-24

And what did he gain - in this life - by this "highjacking"?
Five times I received from the Jews thirty-nine lashes.
Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, a night and a day I have spent in the deep.
I have been on frequent journeys, in dangers from rivers, dangers from robbers, dangers from my countrymen, dangers from the Gentiles, dangers in the city, dangers in the wilderness, dangers on the sea, dangers among false brethren;
I have been in labor and hardship, through many sleepless nights, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure.
2Corinthians 11:24-27

Even martyrdom:
For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come.
2Timothy 4:6

Highjacked?!!!


Yes, Jesus was/is complex, but not in being conflicted.
His purpose was singular and His massage was simple at its core.

"For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost."
Luke 19:10

just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."
Matthew 20:28

Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies,
and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?"
John 11:25,26

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Matthew 22:37-39

Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.
And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.
Luke 9:22-24

[purplefig]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Richio

Highjacked?!!!
Are you aware of Paul’s previous endeavors to kill off this threat to his belief system? ---- see the OP for the full Biblical quotations ----

I appreciate you posting that, Richio, not to mention all the trouble you clearly went to to provide chapter and verse in such a copiously generous way... sorry for snipping it so severely for the purposes of this answer, but it is very easily referenced if need be.

Your indignation at my post is noted: I'm sorry if you felt that I was in any way disrespectful of scripture, but that was not my intention. I wouldn't presume to traduce Jesus in any way - I am not qualified to pronounce on who he was, or may have been - but I am entitled to express a view, even though it appears to conflict with your own.

Saint Paul, however, and his legacy to the Christian Church he initiated, may be seen in many different lights, depending on your religious convictions or lack thereof. I used the word 'highjacked' as being representative of the way, I, personally, tend to regard Paul's agenda, and I don't think you need to view that as anything but a personal opinion, based on much careful research. No-one is disputing the Apostle's sincerity - he was very clearly a passionate believer in his own Christological vision: to the extent that he was, indeed, prepared to give his life for his beliefs, and the passages of scripture you quoted bear ample testimony to this.

Having said all that to set the record straight, I have always been inclined to regard St. Paul as a bit too individual (or slightly wayward, if you prefer) in his interpretation of the Christ. Again, this is another opinion, but one shared by many. Paul almost certainly never met Jesus in the flesh, and it has been often argued that Paul was also ignorant of the Gospels of the four evangelists. In which case, he may well have derived his information from alternative sources, and married that material with typically Greco-Roman traditions, much in evidence at that time in history. Paul's emphasis, therefore, falls on the Resurrection of Christ, much in keeping with similar beliefs then current regarding other popular gods such as Osiris, Dionysus or Mithras, all of whom were killed and resurrected. Indeed, such is St. Paul's absorption in the Iconic status he created for Christ, as opposed to the man Jesus, that the latter (or his actual life and teachings) gets barely a mention in any of Paul's writings.

What Paul achieved with his fervour is undeniably remarkable, and the Christian church as we know it would probably not exist without him: but IMO, there is plenty of justification for supposing that Jesus himself would have survived in legend purely on his merits as a remarkable teacher, regardless of St. Paul's highly ideological 'makeover'. Whether Jesus would recognise himself in this particular guise, however, is open to debate.

[Richio]

Originally Posted by purplefig

I appreciate you posting that, Richio, not to mention all the trouble you clearly went to to provide chapter and verse in such a copiously generous way... sorry for snipping it so severely for the purposes of this answer, but it is very easily referenced if need be.

Your indignation at my post is noted: I'm sorry if you felt that I was in any way disrespectful of scripture, but that was not my intention. I wouldn't presume to traduce Jesus in any way - I am not qualified to pronounce on who he was, or may have been - but I am entitled to express a view, even though it appears to conflict with your own.

...

No need to apologize, purplefig.
And the snipping – I do all the time (to save virtual paper ).
I snipped your reply too. I figure people can always go and read the original - as long as there is something to indicate what is being replied to or some specific point.

I wasn’t indignant.
I've seen all sorts of views on this board, and if I was easily offended, I wouldn't still be here.
Your post was not an attack on my Lord anyway, but I wanted to make sure the general reader and you were aware of just who Paul had been and what he went through.

I was just pointing out that highjackers do what they do, for some sort of gain for themselves or for a cause.
Paul gained nothing for himself or his original cause, and so the idea that he highjacked “Jesus” does not make sense.

There must have been some other reason, for what he did and his writings are a good indication of his intent.
Not having personally been there at the time, I can only go back to Scripture as a reference.

Even from the pulpit, I’ve heard it said that Paul went and learned the gospel from the disciples.
(No. I don’t go to that church any more – as it wasn’t the only error)

Your contention that he merged Jesus into his beliefs is somewhat understandable, in that Paul was an expert in Old Testament Scripture.
He recognized the continuity of God’s word and sought to validate his teaching by showing how God had already told us of these things.

In the letter to the Galatians, Paul claimed that he received the message he preached through direct revelation.
For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

He met with James once, after three years of preaching.
I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood,
nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus.
Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days.
But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother.

Then after fourteen years, the Lord sent him to Jerusalem to confirm that what he had been preaching was in agreement with them and was even fearful that he had not been teaching correctly.
Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also.
It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.

It was confirmed that he was in agreement.
But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised
(for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles),
and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

He was upfront about his later disagreement on some issue, but it seems to me that his basic message was in full agreement with those who had been with Jesus.

Considering the way in which Paul received the message he taught, I suppose God would have confronted him concerning errors.

'Just my point of view.

Richio

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by purplefig

On the basis of this admittedly simplistic starting point, you will be able to detect a similar unconcern for morality close to what we see in Bohm, and that's why I suggested that you over-complicate what is really a rather simple, supremely balanced theory of the cosmos.

Admittedly, Taoism does, (in ways almost directly comparable to Jung's work) postulate what you choose to call a 'universal brain', although this way of describing the concept is new to me. Nowhere, though, do I see justification for assuming that the Universal principle delineated in Tao concerns itself on the level of human morality, as such, even though it points to the desirability of eliminating the illusion of Duality from our thinking... You might infer from that a tenuous link to ethical behaviour, in the sense that we are encouraged to 'improve' ourselves by adopting a less divisive mindset - divisiveness being the basic source of all conflict.

More simply put - if we humans persist in regarding ourselves as distinct, isolated individuals, separated from everybody else, we are more likely to behave in selfish, anti-social ways and thus cause disharmony in the world. A realisation that my neighbour is, in fact, another aspect of myself (but unwittingly masquerading for the time being as yet another distinct individual) - comes pretty close to some of Jesus' teachings about love and empathy. Heaven and Hell, moreover, become redundant in this way of thinking, since there are no 'individuals' to punish or reward...

That, then, is as far as I would go in defining anything resembling a Universal Morality. It comes down to an internally-generated awareness of the ideal way to behave, rather than being part of a larger system of accountability to a hypothetical higher, conscious, universal arbiter of morality. The world can be a better place if we make it so - and that's about it... no rewards, no punishments in any kind of afterlife... If you want a system of ethical accountability, you would have to look to Buddhism or Hinduism with their concept of 'Karma'.

As you correctly detect, the almost universal focus on the physical (even by supremely spiritual philosophers, Taoist, Buddhist, Vedic, etc.) ultimately leads to the dismissal of the very impetus that drives them to seek the spiritual answers in the first place . . . the Self. You are correct . . I have developed my cosmology well beyond Taoist thought . . . but without breaking it . . refining and advancing it (humility is my strong suit)Why are we so overly wed to the physical and material (the physical reactions and relations, our carnal drives and motivations, etc.) to the exclusion of those that are more kin with the very non-physical nature of our consciousness, itself . . . that is seeking the answers among the confusion?

As Plato suggested "our Soul is dragged by the body into the region of the changeable and wanders and is confused." Our soul exists as spirit . . . not of the timespace of the body. The flame does not reside with the combustibles that produce it . . . or if you prefer . . . the music does not remain in the instrument that produces it. Nevertheless . . . it is connected irretrievably to the instrument while the symphony is still playing. This is what produces all the confusion. I will try to keep the chunks smaller so it will ease digestion . . and not upset your enjoyment of that gin and tonic. We can tie Penrose back in later.

Each brain wave is its own ripple in the holomovement of God consciousness. The individual brain waves exist at the speed of light. The composite "instantaneous lumps of awareness" (consciousness) exist at the square of the speed of the brain waves that comprise them (created “molecules” of awareness), in this case, the square of the speed of light or of holomovement. It is our ability to create these sequential links with universal becoming (to think) that enables us to apprehend changes or abstract a sequencing of becomings subordinate to or superior to our current level of becoming. In this manner, we can recognize our own incompleteness (and the very notion of incompleteness itself!).

Unfortunately, the sequential nature of the creation of these "lumps of awareness" continuously creates new reference points for the perception and experiencing of our reality. "Before" is a stimulus grouping that was comprehended by an earlier "lump of awareness' or previous thought, and "after" is a grouping concomitant with subsequent thought. William James referred to it as the "stream of consciousness" (sort of like a holomovement). It is the "accelerated" frame of reference constituting our awareness that makes possible, as well as creates, all the confusion. Essentially, our bodies retain a "sub-light existence" while our consciousness attains a light-squared level of awareness . . . hence the Plato quote.

[firstborn888]

Originally Posted by purplefig

I'm not sure if it's advisable to use the word 'logic' (much as I love it) in this particular context, it tends not to be a valid tool to assess any kind of Spiritual experience,

The only thing that I considered illogical was the assumption that "ALL we will EVER know for certain is" because in that statement you are leaving out any possibility of future discovery.

Originally Posted by purplefig

Perhaps they are looking for something too specific?

Generally people look or something beyond what they know but sense may be. What do you think?

Originally Posted by purplefig

To say that some 'Creator God' MUST have a role to play in our conscience is a leap too far, IMO, and can't (I put it to you) be substantiated with reference to anything more convincing than mere intuition, and intuition is highly unreliable as a determinant of anything, simply because it is so inextricably linked in with our cultural and other preconceptions. That doesn't convince me that there is, of necessity, a place for God in these speculations, although you are free to make that assumption, on a purely personal level, of course.

This is where I come to an impasse with many atheists. Generally though, if we spend enough time together and they get a good read on my state of sanity and reasonableness then my testimony into the unseen has been occasionally accepted. It's quite a process though!

Originally Posted by purplefig

What happened to convince you otherwise?

An (apparently) rare case of an impossibility happening. Then a personal transformation that defies non-spiritual logic.

Originally Posted by purplefig

You are, then, what I would call a DUALIST to all intents and purposes, since you, unlike me, see a dichotomy between the physical and the spiritual:

Yes, saying that the physical falls under one classification of things which exist (the material universe) and that the spiritual is another classification of things which exist (a spiritual non-physical reality) would be dualism (2) but there actually are an infinite number of classifications of reality which we have little (or no) comprehension of. This (of course) cannot be proven by physical science.

Originally Posted by purplefig

that, I would argue, is slightly contradictory to your claim to be a 'Pantheist' - the two concepts don't gel very well, on close analysis.

Oooops - you missed one syllable "Panentheist".

Originally Posted by purplefig

Either 'morality' is a feature of our being that emanates from inside us, (as I believe) - or, if it is a feature that emanates from a different (undefined, invisible) dimension, as you suggest, you have to assume that there is a capacity in us physical humans that is receptive to this influence.

I agree that it comes from inside us - but (to me) it is obviously not physical. Clearly morality IS invisible (until you act on it )

Originally Posted by purplefig

I don't really want to go into all that in any depth at this point; suffice to say that your dichotomy breaks down, because you can never show where the demarcation line between body and spirit lies, and probably, therefore, it doesn't really exist. It is a meaningless invention...

Thoughts and emotions cannot be seen but they do exist. Same with ideas, right? The results of them can be seen, but not the thoughts, ideas, and emotions themselves.

Originally Posted by purplefig

Jesus' 'original message' will almost certainly remain an enigma, like the man himself. All I know is, if St. Paul hadn't hijacked Jesus as an icon for his highly idiosyncratic Christology, he would be remembered today more for his teachings on compassion rather than as the hapless sacrificial victim of God's capricious plan for redemption via the cross. That pernicious doctrine of the 'Vicarious Atonement' that so riles me.

Yes, that's a rough one there. here's my objection: If the 'price is paid' then there is no need for forgiveness

Originally Posted by purplefig

The picture we see of Christ in the various re-discovered Gnostic Gospels indicate that he was a far more complex character than what the somewhat contradictory portraits of him we find in the Synoptic Gospels and the rest of the canonical NT manage to convey...

I do think His message was hijacked by religion but is imprinted upon the human conscience. Many (at this point in time) don't listen or understand what there conscience is telling them though.

What do you think?

[firstborn888]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Unfortunately, the sequential nature of the creation of these "lumps of awareness" continuously creates new reference points for the perception and experiencing of our reality. "Before" is a stimulus grouping that was comprehended by an earlier "lump of awareness' or previous thought, and "after" is a grouping concomitant with subsequent thought. William James referred to it as the "stream of consciousness" (sort of like a holomovement). It is the "accelerated" frame of reference constituting our awareness that makes possible, as well as creates, all the confusion. Essentially, our bodies retain a "sub-light existence" while our consciousness attains a light-squared level of awareness . . . hence the Plato quote.

Now I know why the PhD is there

Actually, as an artist and abstract thinker - I'm 'down with' (read: into) what you are saying here. I see that our human consciousness has purposeful designed limitations (think matrix style programming) and being aware of things 'outside the program' brings that sense of awe that we all experience from time to time. If someone goes way beyond the program then they may be called 'mystics'.

If someone THINKS they are going way beyond the program but are actually just dabbling in fringe or outer dark areas of the program then they may be called 'delusional'.

And of COURSE, without a doubt, positively - I am in the first group. Mostly.