Karma?
Offline Hello everyone!
OK. So here is a question that I would like to have some opinions on (or maybe even answers?)
I am sure all of you are aware of the saying about if you do good things then good things will happen to you. Of course, if you do bad things then bad things will happen to your sinful ass. Yes, I am talking about Earl’s worse enemy, karma. So whenever something “good” happens to me, I sometimes feel like it is because of something I did good in the past (vice versa as well).
I try to think rationally about this and say “hey, shit happens no matter how good or bad you are!” But I guess I am looking for a better answer than that. Could karma be really true? Have there been any studies done about this? Could it just be human instinct or the way we were raised when we think about karma?
I can see where “believers” can argue about this and say that this is proof of a, I hate to say this but, “supernatural” higher power being involved.
The reason why I am asking this is because I was screwed over by a girl (who was a really good friend of mine and a Mormon of all religions!) who I loaned $300 to. Now, a year has passed by with no money back and no way to contact her either. So I really do hope karma (if there is such a thing) bites her hard right in the ass cheek for what she did to me!
Could my feelings just be human instinct? Or could it be my rational and irrational thinking at war with one another? LOL I don’t know but I would love to read some input about this and what are rational thinking people’s beliefs or thoughts of karma?
Then of course there is the contradicting saying that nice guys always finish last…
Damn it, now I am even more confused!
Life can be hilariously cruel...
- Login to post comments
"I spoke with someone, do you believe me?"
Is speaking to someone unusual in some way that we would need hard evidence to accept it?
We know that people exist.
We know that we can speak to people.
"Karma is real, do you believe me?"
Is karma unusual in some way that we would need hard evidence to accept it?
Do we know that karma exists? That actions are mystically rewarded or punished by something outside a natural chain of events?
You are comparing something that can clearly be demonstrated in the real world, and you're comparing it to a religious idea based in wild speculation and coddled by willful ignorance. I don't really see how the example is relevant.
Why wouldn't a think crashing into something else under normal circumstances make a noise? Because there was no one there to hear it would suggest no one heard the noise. That's just silliness for the sake of being silly.
I actually agree with you completely on this one. I am definitely a slave to my conscience.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
I am guessing that peppermint was talking about an *outside* force.
While saying that we are a slave to our consciousness is poetic, it is not a meaningful statement. That is, of course, unless we are describing a consciousness as some kind of magical event existing outside of natural processes. Which would fall under the same heading as all of the other supernatural hogwash that has been thrown around in this thread.
Perhaps science hasn't yet caught up to the magic of the consciousness, eh? Science is sandbagging it.
Well said, Mr Fish.
Conscience and consciousness bear a passing resemblance - and we all know how little of that quality is needed for certain individuals to draw an inference and run with it. Luminon has been talking shite for so long now that he fails to realise how transparent his deceptions are, having largely succeeded in deceiving the true target of his bullshit, namely himself.
But that observation aside, one's conscience (and in particular a guilty one) is simply one facet of a very complex self-correction mechanism innate to any thinking animal. The notion that it modifies with age is a truism, but the inference that it functions better from being informed is by no means a truism at all. In fact the opposite is often the case - it all depends on the input and the ability of the recipient to assimilate it. Likewise the notion that one can feel guilty later about something which did not cost one a thought beforehand is a truism. But the opposite - that one abandons guilt over things which once induced self-remorse - is equally true.
To be a true "slave" to one's conscience therefore is as pathetic, passive and obsequious a manouevre as to devote one's intellect and time to the devotion of fallacies. To do so is an externalisation of one's own imperfect self-correction mechanism in the vain hope that by doing so it will ameliorate one's own stupidity when, in following one's conscience, one inevitably does stupid things.
Conscience is a function, not a thing. One is well advised to understand that function as well as possible. But one is a fool to blindly follow it.
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
I know she was referring to an outside observer. I am just pointing out that Luminon is correct in stating that people often feel regret and guilt for actions they once deemed morally good or acceptable.
I think you need to read between the lines on my response. Never once have a seriously alluded to the existence of a "magical event." I said that I often feel regret or guilt for past decisions I was once fine with. If you want to get technical on me, we are all slaves to the four forces. That is to say, our "choices"are almost entirely controlled by the electromagnetic interaction.
If you had read my response to Luminon when he claimed that same thing you would know better than to assume I feel as though science is somehow behind the magical claims. If you're looking for a theist who's arguments you can pick apart, I suggest you look elsewhere.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
You guy's are reading way to much into it.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
Your opinion, Spike.
Mine is that too few people read anything into it at all, if by "it" we both mean spouting nonsensical parodies of reason and compounding the stupidity by insisting they are as valid as, if not more valid than, intelligent behaviour. In that respect Luminon is as guilty as any more conventional religionist and advertises the fact with almost his every utterance.
Those who fail to see the anti-intellectual hypocrisy of such behaviour merely because they don't look closely enough at anything are worse than bad observers. The deluded accept their quiescence as validation.
Of course maybe I'm reading too much into your statement that I'm reading too much into it. Shame ...
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
Actually, the question should be "I spoke with someone, should I believe myself?"
I'm asking nobody to believe me. I only encourage people to try everything for themselves, if they care enough about the topic to make the effort. A possible answer is - 'I would believe myself in such a case, so I presume you should believe yourself.'
We, western people would perhaps understand the concept of karma better on an example of ecosystem. If we damage the ecologic balance, the ecologic balance in return damages us. Our understanding of the ecosystem may be so imperfect, that we really didn't see that coming. It is very complex system, yet it's completely interconnected. Sooner or later, it affects us in return somehow. You can argue that we have no evidence that the human society (where the karma is thought to be observed) works like a natural ecosystem balance. But these two things are actually very similar, if not the same. So from the western point of view, we can understand the karma as a kind of environmental awareness. (said with irony, a person with environmental awareness but without a detailed and evidence-supported knowledge of biology and ecology is historically called a savage)
As for the "natural chain of events", that's a nonsense. Anything we know is considered natural, and what we don't know, is called supernatural, anomalous, unusual and so on. It may become clear that what we knew originally, was actually less natural (in the sense of optimality) than the latter knowledge. You mentioned the adjective 'mystically', and by 'natural' you mean something non-mystical, which makes the answer always "no". The problem is, that you probably know very little about mysticism, and nothing about practicing it, thus you can't say if it's natural or not. For you, it may be not natural, but you're not talking with yourself, you're talking with me
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
... and you still don't spot your own hypocrisy in every post you make.
You do realise of course that you defend your "mysticism" (what a stupid concept) with every rhetorical device beloved of the religionist and his god, or any deluded fool and his favourite fantasy? Just read through this latest crap from yourself and see how many you can find.
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
The things we do generally affect various aspects of the world.
We live in the world and are generally affected by various aspects of it.
On this I think we agree. Is that what you're describing karma as? Or are you describing it as some kind of planned or intelligent type of non-natural process? I think one of us is INCREDIBLY confused about what exactly you are trying to say.
Man oh man, you'll just keep going round and round won't you? I see why some of these guys are getting so frustrated with you.
Yes, I understand what that riddle is. I was treating it as if you were actually trying to make a point since you included it in your post. I was going under the assumption that you intended to make some connection between that little riddle and the topic at hand.
From what I can tell you're talking about the learning process of the human mind. I only take issue with trying to color that as something one can be a slave to. Sure, we can learn wasy to relax, meditate, direct our thinking into more constructive paths... we can also travel down any number of possible emotional "paths" due to our experiences... I still don't see how we are translating that into something we can be a slave to.
That's all just small potatoes and I seriously doubt anyone cares about this part of the conversation. It just sounds like (again) you are painting something up as something other than what it is. Reality is interesting enough, we don't have to dress it up and pretend it's something that it isn't.
I'm just trying to encourage Luminon to think more rationally. That was the first post from him I've seen that didn't contain an allusion to any woo-woo mumbo jumbo. I think he made a valid point about guilt being in a sense, like karmic retribution. I.E. You do something bad and you feel bad about it, or you do something good and feel good about it. I often point out the fallacies of his posts, but I fail to see where that particular post contained any intellectual hypocrisy.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
You are being very altruistic, Spike.
However he did not make a valid point. The post you refer to demonstrates in fact a particular foible of the deluded when, in their stupidity, they think they can present an irrational deduction as a rational statement despite the fact that the morass of irrational crap in which they are immersed intellectually not only precludes sensible deduction but , through their own proselytisation of it, is blatantly apparent as the source for the so-called "knowledge" they impart.
Here's the pattern of dishonesty (and it's one you see Luminon doing on a very regular basis in his posts here);
For a start, as has been pointed out by marcusfish, he deliberately misinterprets and then misrepresents another person's quite sensible assertion in order to "answer" the point with his own insensible one. You or I might do the same without intention, however we would at least have the courtesy to acknowledge our mistake should it be pointed out. Since in Luminon's case the tactic was used with intent he simply ignores his offence against normal conversational ethics even when it has been pointed out and carries on regardless. Not only dishonest but rude. But then arrogance and delusion are bedfellows, as we all have seen every time we enter debate with Luminon's more conventionally deluded colleagues (if that's not two self-contradictions in succession!).
Secondly he then sets out his insensible assertion - this time being one which misrepresents the principle of "conscience" through emphasis on only one aspect to its functionality but which purports to define its primary purpose. This has also been pointed out to him by marcusfish by the way, and you will notice how this drew a response which merely restates the original assertion but makes no attempt to justify it. This is also a constant foible of the deluded person - the inability to understand that "I said it so it's so" does not make it so, no matter how many times it's repeated.
Finally, having said basically nothing, he then ends with a mildly accusatory remark against the person whose original statement he has misrepresented and had used simply as a convenient springboard for making his insensible assertion. The tenor of the accusation however implies that she had made her original statement with his warped definition of it in mind at the time. And this is where the delusional mind reveals itself - in its inability to account for the fact that one's own personal skewed perception of reality cannot simply be retrogressively assigned to one's interlocutors as if they share it. It is exactly this feature of such deluded minds which religionists are seen to employ when they fail to understand that a belief in the sanctity and infallibility of biblical scripture is not one shared by everyone, yet they feel entitled in ironically citing it to justify their adherence to their own particular fallacies when "arguing" their case.
However, having said all that, I do not actually argue with Luminon any more in a manner which involves itemising his foibles, lies and arrogant assertions. For one thing he makes too many of them. For another it simply encourages him to exercise yet another regular foible - that of simply ignoring those criticisms which truly highlight the level of his delusion. So when I accuse him of intellectual dishonesty it is a reference to all his assertions so far expressed here. They compete with each other for the accolade of dumbest utterance, but as a body of assertions they advertise his intellectual dishonesty and little else, so it requires to be said.
Taking a "less dumb" comment uttered with no overt reference to the crapology which spawned it is therefore not encouraging him to think rationally, unfortunately. Instead the guy is so far immersed in his own particular delusion that in fact it has the opposite effect. To be commended for one's rationality is fine, but one must first demonstrate that one at least attempts to think rationally first and this is something Luminon is incapable of achieving (though he thinks he does it on a regular basis, so stupid have his delusions led him to be). Otherwise such encouragement has all the character and effect of praising a chimpanzee with diarrhea for accidentally producing a Jackson Pollock, and in Luminon's case, a particularly inferior one.
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
I see your point. I guess it really depends on weather or not he actually thought about it rationally. I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt. Past behavior does not dictate future behavior. Although it is certainly a good way to predict it. In the very likely event that he is thinking irrationally my encouragement may full well serve to exacerbate the issue.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
If I thought the subject responded to a "good cop/bad cop" approach I'd suggest a double-act Spike. But unfortunately pseuds, morons and inveterate liars are notoriously unresponsive to such techniques since they involve the subject having at least a tentative sense of reality left in them.
Or as a professional psychologist might put it; someone gone that far up his ass in his pursuit of enlightenment has obviously taken a wrong turn - the question is, who's bothered going in after him to retrieve him?
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
- people with this altered perception are actually common, maybe one per several thousands, some of them are such naturally, some by training.
- such a phenomena are very closely described by books from the area of occultism and esoterics.
Thus I only do what anyone in my situation would do. I read an available books, I communicate with available people and I make conclusions based on that. Indeed, I would like to get my brain under scanners and sensors some day to see what's happening in there in scientific terms, but until then, I work with what I have, where I am. You already showed your misjudgement, when you consider this as a problem of delusion, though it's a problem of apperception.
I've got to go sleep now. The hassle orgies called 'work' hinders me from responding to all who I'd like to. Don't buy Hyundai cars!
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
I hate to add more to the shit pile, but why are you always so vague? You always speak of these theories, phenomena, and experiments, but you never give any detail. It's bad enough to not have evidence, but I don't recall a time where you've stated your point in a clear and concise manner. Trust me, I know what it's like to have ridiculously long work weeks (84 hours not including travel), but you seem to avoid giving any sense of definition in your arguments even taking into consideration a lack of time.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
Secondly, my perception is so unlike anything anyone here had ever seen or heard of, that the description is very diffcult. It can be more easily described using terms of esoterics, but again, no-one here is familiar with esoterics. They only have a superficial knowledge of some primitive, usually commercialized forms of that, but a real familiarity with the topic requires to study it systematically.
So to actually tell you, it feels exactly like I have chakras and etheric body and that it all seems to correlate with [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_(metaphysics)]plance cosmology[/url].That's it, basically, what my senses are telling me about the world. In the esoteric community, such a knowledge and some degree of extra-sensoric perception is very common, I'm just one of many of such people, and certainly not the most gifted. A popular belief among the community is, that in decades and centuries to come, this will develop into a common human features and it will be considered completely natural among the population.
(Btw, esoterics is not about development of ESP, it's about a serving the world in many ways for the good of all. Or it should be, because most of the groups has some degree of glamour and they pursue informations or power.)
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
My previous girlfriend believed that stuff. She use to tell me that I had an overactive Vishuddh. I used to tell her she thought that because her Sahasrarawas (no idea how to pronounce that...) was undeveloped. I got a good laugh out of it, her not so much.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
As for overactive chakras, I have no idea by what method your former girlfriend came to her belief and how did she measured an overactive chakra and why it was overactive in her opinion. The only way I could tell is by feeling of my own chakras, nobody else's.
Yeah,we in this region also have some infestation with devotees of angels and communication with them, automatic writing, channeling, an insane stuff like "karmic codes", and so on. This is less or more either unreal, or untrue. But people likes also a books which feels good, like N. D. Walsch's Conversations with God. Not that it's a bad book, but it's weak. There's no system in there, just vague, generally uplifting messages, all unpleasant is avoided. It's good for uncritical beginners who can only handle a low density of information per page. Such a stuff is probably what your girlfriend liked, right?
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Of course it's a problem with apperception, luminon - namely that you subvert the process to draw delusional conclusions abut yourself. You're seriously screwed up in other words, man, and my judgement is just dandy, thanks!
Spike, your ex reminds me of another nutcase I worked with one time who (amongst other luminonic bullshit) claimed she could see "auras" around people's heads from which she could deduce their mood, personality, intellect and general goodness or badness. I had a beautiful aura apparently in the beginning (while she fancied me) and then, when I told her I'd rather go out with an amoeba since I'd have a better bet of intelligent conversation and it didn't stink of garlic all the time, for some reason my aura went all demonic and dangerous and fiery and generally rotten.
One of her self-perceived skills of course was telling the future.
Some years afterwards I heard she ended up married to a particularly vicious and nasty man. It all ended in tears but at least she managed to extricate herself and the kids she'd acquired out from under him eventually - no easy task in pre-divorce Ireland. All talk of auras and fortunes mysteriously ceased, I hear. I guess her apperception benefited enormously from the experience - if nothing else.
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
I also have super powers, but they suck. I can't wield the universal forces of Karma, read minds, fortell the future, or grant wishes.
However, I can keep from losing my keys on a regular basis. Which, is bragable.
That answered my question, thanks. You're talking about magical woo-woo powers... awesome.
I don't know how either. I always assumed she read it in a book and said I want that to be true so it is true. She was into the whole Wicca thing. It seemed like a compilation of all the stuff omitted from the main religions. She was the type to believe without question. She wasn't much of a thinker.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
So tell me, what your interest really is? Are you curious about the topic, but only mildly, not enough to actually study it's sources? Or do you deny that there is anything to study? Are you so certain that all critical thought you need in your life is only to say "bullshit" about the right things?
I don't know how about other groups, but in ours we mostly focus on the awesome powers of purity and sensitivity of physical body, calmness of emotions, clarity of thought, abundance of intuition, and getting the life under control. Of course, we have many other areas of activity, like ecologic life style, for example. This is a super-power too, this is how the world is being saved from destruction!
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
I talk to you the same way I talk to all self-obsessed, arrogant, delusional bullshitters. It's nothing personal. Just don't confuse my tone in talking to you with anything else other than just what it is, least of all my personality in general. Thankfully modesty (the word whose meaning you don't seem to know) at least imparts a realisation on most of your sort that silence becomes them, so my tone which you object to is not as prevalent as you might have supposed.
By the way - can't you see the irony in denying that you're a self-obsessed, arrogant, delusional bullshitter in terms that are self-obsessed, arrogant, delusional and bullshit?
Now do the decent thing.
Shut up.
Go away and learn about life.
Come back if or when you realise your stupidity.
But above all stop inserting your pseudo-religious crap into other people's sensible discussions. It's rude.
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
I totally missed this post.
Any way, that's pretty much spot on. It's funny how the people who claim to have this "extra vision" seem to have sub-par judgment. I think it could be related to delusions of grandeur, just without the hallucination, or maybe with depending on how crazy they are...
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
Your explanations always seem incomplete and yet somehow overly complicated at the same time. I think you might benefit from trimming them with Occam's razor.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
My Name is Earl, Hickey that is.
Every gambler will tell you of times he was on a winning or losing streak. Our minds are not analytical. We see patterns as that is a very good survival strategy. If in the wilderness and you hear a low growl you do not calculate the probabilities, you run. Think another TV show, Big Bang Theory. The juxtaposition of reason over instinct is a long established joke.
We have developed analytic methods to test the patterns we see naturally. Some of the patterns we see are legitimate. Most of them are not.
Karma is one of those patterns gamblers see but analytically we know they are simply short term runs which average out in the long term. They are not predictable at any time.
I didn't suppose anything, I'm just asking. So basically, you use this personality of yours towards the bullshitters. DOES IT WORK? Does the verbal harshness of yours somehow magically pierce through their delusions and zap their fibrilating brain back into life? If not, and you're still doing so then I wouldn't be so sure if I'm the only one delusional here.
Like you, the personality I show to other people is very different. Everyone's OK with me now, except of my boss who only listens to slanderers, allows absolutely no difference in opinion, no discussion or talking back, so much that it's absurd. It has been said, that everyone we meet is like a mirror, showing to us of our own least favorite character traits. I had met people driven insane by someone else's imperfection, who got mad instead of being grateful that it's not their problem, which is what I would do instead.
I'm not sure if this is the right place to use Occam's razor, there are parts of theory which we can't currently verify so they're not worked with anyway, and parts of the theory we already have seen in practice. And above all, the razor should better be wielded by an external researcher, which I'm not.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
I honestly can't tell if you caught the meaning of my post or not. I meant you should try looking at it as thought the things you think you have experienced in the past may not be entirely real. That is to say, maybe you are supplying some of the "magical" effects by unconsciously imagining them. Maybe there is a reason science has not found any evidence for it.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
Thanks everyone for the awesome feedback!
LOL I feel better now...and I am glad that I found a place where I can get my questions answered rationally. Thanks again!
Life can be hilariously cruel...
Hi IamChappy.
Thanks to luminon you have also received a handy point of comparison in this thread between rationality and bullshit - the difference essentially between those who understand the full importance and actual methodology of impartial verification and those who reckon "proof" lies in subjective experience. So immersed are the bullshitters in that fallacy that they presume the same is true of rational people, in fact of all other people, so central are they and their personality to their concept of universe.
It's handy to see it in action because when the bullshitters are allowed decide the agenda socially (depressingly often) one of the first casualties is the ability for the rational voice to be heard, and then that comparison - so obviously proof in itself of human dependency on rationality to progress - becomes blurred to the point of invisibility. Piss artists like luminon think nothing of subverting the language of reason and science to their own selfish and essentially stupid ends, and think less of the potentially catastrophic damage it inflicts, so self-absorbed are they. When in numerical majority, as they are now globally, this folly becomes something far more dangerous, and the damage is directed against humanity itself. Not that many of them have the wit or inclination to understand this of course.
I would suggest in future however, and I mean this in the spirit of helpful advice, that if you wish to open a discussion conducted by rational people you should not begin with one of those knee-jerk phrases which the bullshitters are primed to respond to (in this case "karma" ). The notion of pre-programmed causality in human affairs which defies casual analysis but which can be ontologically proposed is not in itself devoid of rational input per-se. But when you raise such a subject in the imperfect language which bullshitters and non-thinkers have themselves phrased, you're asking for trouble.
Or at least you're asking for bullshit. And luminon has shown here that you'll always get it too.
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
As for the science, my information is that it's merely in it's beginnings, relatively to what lies ahead. It is indeed true, that the matter is empty, vacuum is full and time is unreal. This so-called "real" world is only an illusion constructed by the brain, and we're destined to look through illusions, eventually.
I'm surprised that Nordmann didn't include me eating babies or cursing of cows, but I'm surprised even more that he didn't answer any of my most serious questions. Anyway, it's almost funny how people accuses each other of being the root of all evil in the world. If only the world would be that simple.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
I don't accuse you of being evil. I call you stupid, which is very different.
Two fools of equal propensity to being deluded, by the way, is still a far cry short of impartial verification according to the required standards of scientific research. Grow up.
In fact, shut up.
Go off and acquaint yourself with reality.
Then come back if or when you've managed it.
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
By the way, you didn't ask "most serious questions". You did however ask me questions which, to spare your blushes (assuming you have a modicum of modesty remaining, which is unlikely) I refrained from answering.
But if you insist:
It depends on how thick they are. If extremely stupid it rarely happens that way, but at least others are alerted to their stupidity who might otherwise have missed it.
No.
They're not asking you to expound on your stupid theories, you fool. They're trying, by questioning your devotion to fallacy, to encourage you to do the same. You will notice also that it is relative newcomers to your stupidity who take this diplomatic line. The rest of us, who have learnt from wading through crap after crap posted by you that you are stupid, either call you a fool or ignore you completely. Honestly, your vanity knows no bounds!
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
What you said about the "reality" we perceive being a construct of our minds is entirely true. That's why repeatable and quantifiable results are so important in science. That's how we determine the difference between the "reality" we observe and actuality. Groups of people can and often do have similar delusions, especially when it is what the group wants to be true. If you want a more appropriate test, take along a skeptic. Of course it won't help much. In the off chance the skeptic sees what you see, I would still say it's not evidence. If the skeptic does not see what you see, you will probably claim a lack of training or perceptiveness to be at fault.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
Btw, I surely already mentioned it somewhere, but I had one neutral, unconvinced friend. (a classmate on high school) I told him once, rather briefly about etheric perception and he surprised me, when he learned it by himself in a few months and then he agreed with me.
The point is, that every person is potentially capable of that. Indeed, skeptics may have it more diffcult to learn than a neutral, open-minded person if they let the skeptical mind to interfere and sabotage the effort, but this is a question of their discipline and here I really can't speak for other people than me. I was born like that, what about others, I don't know.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Luminon, I neither get "stressed" reading your crap nor object to you as a person. As stupidity goes your own expression of it is quite benign compared to some others I can think of. All I object to is your stupid insinuation of crap in a little internet forum supposedly reserved for people as unlike you as one can get - and a telling indication of your stupidity is that you fail to see that fact for yourself.
Your emotive and off the point response - the assumption that your mention of who can make friends with whom is something that's relevant here, or indeed that we should be interested in your "controlled experiments" which examine nothing and signify less - simply underlines how stupid you are and why your contributions here represent interference more than contribution.
Let me explain "stupid", since you are oviously too stupid to understand the reference.
"Stupid" is rarely what the vernacular use of the term assumes. It is not an intellectual deficit represented by an innate inability to think. In fact many stupid people think obsessively and to a great extent. But if they think about the right things it is inevitably for the wrong reasons. Or, more likely, they will think about the wrong things for obvious reasons. Or, as is often the case, they will think about nothing important and for no reason except that it excites them. What they abjectly fail to do is think about anything which is relevant and communicable - commonly referred to as "the right things for the right reasons". By "right" of course we are talking here about pertinent, and pertinent in the context of the forum in which we are having this debate is rationality.
That is where you have been stupid, continue to be stupid and, if the evidence is anything to go by, have little hope of ever not being stupid.
You have been told that your methodology sucks. You have been told that your views are acquired through obedience to third-party suggestion and subjectively maintained to the point of being a joke. You have been told that your "findings" mean as much to any rational person as the weirdest assertion made by any "believer" in supernatural, second-hand, non-intellectual, irrational fallacies like your own (just dressed up differently to conventional religionists when "presented" to an audience).
You have been asked to be precise about your claims. You failed - because you stupidly assumed you were being asked to be more verbose about them. You have been asked to desist in pretending (even to yourself) that you have a scientific bone in your body. You failed - because you stupidly think you have and considered the demand therefore an impertinent challenge which can be defeated by even more verrbosity. You have been asked to get to the point regarding how you think your supernatural and irrational beliefs qualify you to gainsay anyone else, except of course similarly deluded fools. You failed - because, just like any religionist, you believe assertion enough.
Now, realising that I am talking to one of the stupidest people I have ever come across and for whom English is not a first language, I will tell therefore you in simple English;
If something is unscientific (check what that really means) then it is a potential fallacy UNLESS through scientific means it can be proven otherwise. Proof in this context does not mean "a mate of mine who is a bit sceptical thinks he saw it too". This is a demand that the phenomenon be examined, analysed and explained, and through scientific means.
Your "get-out" clause when you make your stupid claims is that your personally experienced phenomena (with sceptic by your side) defy this anlaysis. And this despite several such claims having been brought to this forum (where they don't belong actually) and easily shot down by people who DO take such a rigorous approach to verification and explanation. You don't even indicate any suspicion regarding the frequency of these "phenomena" peculiarly experiential only to yourself (and friend), but instead hope that the assertion this "proves" you are "more open to them" will be accepted as a valid scientific criterion in itself. You are so way off the mark when it comes to understanding scientific criteria that it defies all present understanding of the word "stupid", let alone experiential observation.
So now, listen good. You like where you are in life. You get off on the excitement of thinking that you are on the vanguard of a discovery which defies and outstrips conventional wisdom. Fine. Have a ball. But don't for a moment think that the majority of us here do not know exactly the trap you have fallen into, or indeed that you increasingly show the lack of intellectual aptitude or motivation to extricate yourself from. Your sort are legion, and what unites your sort as a common mentality is that particular mentality's inability to realise that conventional wisdom is not arrived at subjectively, makes no secret about where its inadequacies lie, but keeps faith (in the true meaning) with its methodology for accruing even more. It has not failed yet. You have.
Think about that while you take a sojourn away from this little internet forum reserved for rational minds engaged in free debate. Then come back (after what I assume will be a long period) if only to verify the fact that stupidity is not innate and can be conquered.
Or, as is more likely, do not come back. You are tedious to the extent that you have single-handedly dissuaded too many exciting intellectual and rational minds, who arrived with great promise of interesting debate, from participating on a forum which you infest. The longer you stay here with the limitations you advertise and in the ignorantly verbose style you adopt the greater damage to debate amongst your intellectual superiors you will achieve.
That is not only stupid. It is pettily vindictive and - as I have said more times than ever will impinge on your sensibilities - it is just plain rude.
Good luck and goodbye. See you in the "general humour" forum.
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
Quick English lesson. The suffix S pertains to quantities not equal to 1, and the article A pertains to quantities equal to 1. The first half should look like this:
I don't usually have a skeptic nearby. Or alternatively, I don't usually have skeptics nearby.
The appearance of the word "how" in the second half is awkward and redundant. The meaning defined for "how" has already been established by "but there's a way to" Also, we are referring to a quantity of delusions not equal to 1. These are referred to as plurals and will usually (not in all cases) include the S suffix, and will always exclude the article A. The second half should look like this:
but there's a way to rule out delusions from wishful thinking. Or, but I know how to rule out delusions from wishful thinking.
Any way, conversion of a high school kid is not evidence either. There could be any number of ways to explain this. He could be trying to impress you. He could be delusional. There could be something to it, however unlikely I think it is. My point is that it would be near impossible to determine why he is now a believer in the "etheric" reality. Even if you could pin point the reason, it is still not evidence.
Let me ask you a question, and I ask with all seriousness. I am asking this in relation to a post I read about some sort of "psychic energy" projectile that if I recall correctly you wrote. Is it your opinion that because I have "shut my mind" to the possibility of the etheric realm, that I am unable to experience it and by extension invulnerable to it? If so, how do you explain my apparent invulnerability? Am I some sort of etheric bad-ass?
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
However, it's necessary to say, that the friend wasn't able to touch the etheric mass plentifully produced by me, his perception was also weaker towards his own products. I attributed that to his short, ocassional practice, just a few months, while I had a lifetime of everyday practice. Or, it could be his very unhealthy life style, which is also possible.
Last year in the spring I had met a clairvoyant man, who was disturbed by the sight of me manipulating with etheric "energy" around hands for no obvious reason. I was just playing with it idly as always, not really giving much thought to it. I had no idea he has an etheric vision and I was surprised when he asked what the hell am I doing, so I had to start explaining. Then we did some experiments with it, but that would take longer to tell.
I have more of experiences like that, and as for the unverified internet sources, my fellow luckier psychics (those in like-minded groups) takes them as a routine. Only you rational guys here make a big deal out of it
The theory on this is of course enormous, but the conclusion is clear - you'll have to try, if you want to know. The development of antahkarana and all what is most important in human self-development is done by combination of meditation and service. If you want to train somehow, you can, but the meditation and service is the most important training.
I personally meditate in a special way which is also a form of service, and besides that I send some money every month to African children through Unicef charity program.
As for you being etheric bad-ass, projectiles and invulnerability, that's another complicated technical problem. Yes, it is possible to get hurt on etheric level, but it works a bit differently than you imagine. Technically, we get etherically "hurt" every time we feel drained by a drunk old neighbour who picked you to complain on his completely ruined life. Really, I could gladly go on with examples on my favorite subject, I'm such a tutoring type, but I don't know how deeply you're interested and I don't want to stretch your patience or anyone else's who bothers to read the heaps of text. There are many "important" technical details coming to my mind and I'm already curious which of these already written ones will trigger a rationality crusade against me. (I'll probably place some warning clarification to my signature or avatar soon)
So please, dear crusaders, this is just an answer to Spike.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
I don't know exactly what you were doing, but if I saw you waving your hands around strangely I'd probably ask "what the hell are you doing?" too.
This Antahkarana that you speak of, why has it not evolved over time? Surely the ability to see things like auras and energies would be beneficial to a species. The other senses have evolved fairly well over time, especially well in certain animals. What I mean to say is cats, birds, and shrimp have incredible eyesight. Bats, wales, and moths have extremely large hearing ranges. If the Antahkaranais so useful why is it so poorly developed?
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
Please, those not interested in high level esoteric theory please skip the text. Only those who actually asked about this information should receive it. The information is for free, but the time is not, and mainly yours.
I'm glad to answer your questions, but this needs some organized form. Every question touches several topics, which takes years to study in wholeness. The easiest and most interesting thing you can do is to read the glossary of terms. You can also have a good laugh at some terms there if you want, I just say this is the most simple way to have it. Anyway, they're necessarily less or more out of context. For example, the esoteric term of "God" means mainly (and this is a paraphrased quote from one book): sum of all energy of the universe, manifested and unmanifested, and a sum of laws governing that energy.
You can either find some answers in the glossary or read my extensive answers, whatever you like and have a time for.
They (animals and early animal people) developed physical and emotional body, not mental body or the contact with soul.
The development of antahkarana is related to bringing the two centres of human being into integration, to the so-called spiritual evolution. Animal senses can't be compared to that. Animal evolution results in human evolution, and antahkarana is a result of development from human evolution to spiritual. Technically, it takes about 4-5 lifetimes of personality fully devoted to meditation and service, before it fully develops. This doesn't happen in the long period of development, when a person lives a relatively primitive life. But there is nobody to remind a person who died and then got reincarnated, that he wanted in his previous life to work on antahkarana systematically. So there's rarely any organized effort, just bit by bit, small fractions of the integration being added ocassionally during our lifetimes, in final stages of our development. Hundreds of thousands of lifetimes before we were busy with survival, only in the last hundreds or tenths there is a more significant development to integrate with the higher self.
As for the ability to see auras and energies as such, that's a different problem. Human species had this ability more common in the past, and some still have it to some degree, but that was a clairvoyance not based on a contact with soul. It was based on an usage of astral (emotional) body, to see and know events on astral level of existence. Animals shares some degree of this clairvoyance, it's possibly a remnant of animal evolution in humans.
However, the astral realm is typical by it's glamour and illusion. All information or perception going through there is less or more distorted. Indeed, the astral clairvoyance served our kind well in times of tribal shamans and witches many millenia ago, but this is not a correct method of astral body usage. It puts us into a disadvantage in the astral realm. If we act as a soul, we are in an advantage over everything mental, astral and physical, thus immune to the illusions, but until then, the original astrality is an obstacle. It's remains can be found among various mediums, spiritists, and so on. The Roma people are notoriously known by affinity with this. (you know, cards, crystal balls, chiromancy, etc) The modern man however sacrificed the astral mediumship to pursue higher goals. This means a period of development when any kind of clairvoyance is relatively rare. (and generally not believed in) This is a period of developing a lower, concrete mind, powerful at it's materialistic sciences and indeed very important for our future. But then again other natural abilities of humankind will start to appear among people on a higher, more perfect level than before, and some will become a worldwide standard. This period already begun, I believe. Of course it's not strictly defined, the majority is average, and the more are some advanced or left behind in development, the less of them there is.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Another quick lesson. This is an extension of the first. It's partially my fault for neglecting to mention this. Plurality applies to verbs also, as can plainly be seem by my use of the word apply in this sentence. In the case of a singular noun, a verb generally uses an S (or ES in this case) suffix. And in the case of a plural noun, a verb generally does not. For example:
He does stuff. We do stuff.
This is not generally true of time specific cases. For example:
He jumped. We jumped. He jumps. We jump. All are valid, yet indicate separate time frames and quantities.
In such cases a time inflection is required. In this case the suffix ED (which indicates a past tense) was added. The past tense version of do is done. Don't let me catch you typing doed!
It is sometimes necessary to indicate separate time frames in the same sentence. It gets a little hairy at this point for people who are not native to the language. For example:
I recall a time my brother and I had scaled the the shed in an attempt to reach the nearby garage roof. In the the process of jumping, my brother's foot missed it's mark and he fell onto a stack of old tires (I still don't know why those tires were there, but it made for a some what softer landing
).
In the example the suffix ED is added to the word miss to indicate a past tense. The suffix ING is added to the word jump to indicate a present tense. So the sentence may be read as: During his past attempt to jump the gap he misplaced his foot. Again you see, even in my reiteration, the use of both past and present tense. Having said that, the two sentences are both past tense. The present tense suffixes in this case are used to force an understanding that some event happened in the past while some other event in the past was currently happening.
Let me know if you have any questions. If you have free time and wish to pursue a better command of the English language, you should look up inflection (sometimes spelled inflexion) and affixes. Inflection is usually the hang up for any body trying to learn or use a new language. I don't want to come off as though I look down on you for your lack of knowledge on the subject. I only know English and I make mistakes from time to time as well. I forgot the H in whales in my previous post
.
I think I might have a good laugh.
I don't think the word theory is appropriate here. I think the word you're looking for is myth. As far as souls go, what makes you think we need one now? I would argue that we don't even have a soul, and therefore definitively don't need it.
I mean no offense, but do you realize that this all sounds made up? Maybe tarot cards, crystal balls, and alchemy are no longer used by the general populous because they simply don't work. The ex-girlfriend I mentioned tried all of those things and came up with nothing every time. If you try a light switch 5 or 6 times and nothing happens you don't try it again, you get a new light bulb. You can keep trying all you want, but I don't think your going to see the light any time soon. You'd be better off just swapping your tired, old, and worn out bulb for one with some life in it.
Alchemy and Chiromany are dead for good reason, they don't produce results. Wanting them to be true does not make them true. I know you'll probably say that you have seen things work, but until you have results that can be considered evidence (not very likely), a lot of people here will see you as being in the dark, just as you see us. It really is a matter of evidence, we haven't seen any (hearsay is not enough) and that's what it boils down to.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
As for the soul, the theory confirms, that indeed we don't have it, it has us, as a vehicles. Getting under an impression of the soul is the key to leading a very meaningful life, useful to yourself and others around. Not necessarily comfortable, though. The meaningfulness of life leads the person to areas of service, responsibility and diffculties. A person under the impression of soul should find his happiness in service to the world. So if that's correct, we're in a great need of such people, because the world is messy.
Secondly, you've got a wrong impression, that they don't produce any results. They do, and a lot of them. The problem is with a quality of these results, or rather with a lack of critical thinking and other delusions, on the side of practitioners. People learns channeling or automatic writing to get a spirit guide to tell them everything about everything. But they rarely question the results. For them everything "magically" coming to them, must be true, which is very rarely the case. And even if it would be, some of these people doesn't even walk out of their house without consulting it with their "spirit guide", instead of consulting it with their brain. The astral practices are for esoterics what a pseudoscience is for science.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this point. As for Ernest Muldasev, it is nothing more than an argument from authority. If Einstein or Newton told me what you are telling me, I would be just as skeptical.
The world is messy, but hanging on to tired old superstition is not going to help. Benevolent rational thought is what we need.
The definition that is circling around in the new-age/wiccan people is not all that different from what you profess. Training of the soul and manipulating energies are commonly mentioned. The original Alchemy was a kind of pseudo-chemistry.
I thought esoterics was a pseudoscience.
Nothing wrong with that at all. Reproducible results are the foundation of modern science. Give me a well defined experiment and expected result and I will conduct said experiment to the best of my ability. Give me the easiest and most reliable example of evidence for esoterics that you can come up with. If you can even construct a hypothesis and scientifically valid experiment around esoteric myth I will concede that it is a science.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
Just kidding
Really, I don't know where to start explaining you how much you're uninformed about it. I can rather answer questions and recommend an appropriate series of books to read for a better understanding. But basically, I think that the implications of esoterics are agreeable with any freethinker. For example, that we should be harmless to each other, we must not indoctrinate children, and that evolution is real. But there are also other aspects, like a deep understanding of human psychology (and of faults of contemporary psychology), then politics, economy, and basically all such aspects of life. It is because the 'spiritual' is everything, which is concerned with some sort of evolution or development. Thus, I think the esoterics allows oneself to have a better understanding of the world and life. But it's important to keep in mind that the good esoterics is either freely available online or through correspondence, or it's sold for a relatively cheap book price by non-profit organizations. The best things in life are for free. Someone should tell that to Xenu and his thetans.
Feel free to consult the glossary or me, if something is unclear.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
I've tended to think of the concept of 'karma' as another attempt, as with the idea of 'original sin', for people who believe that there is some sort of objective principle of justice and fairness in the Universe, to explain why 'bad things happen to good people'.
I think the reality is best summed up in the immortal phrase - "shit happens"...
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
I don't think this one has any esoteric root to it. Your body heats up naturally when you vibrate, that's why we shiver when we're cold. This example is just suggestion. You are told something will happen and then you make it happen. It's a self-fulfilling prediction and therefor not science.
This one however, I like. It is completely objective and quantifiable. I think I could get two friends to help me out with this. The test would go as follows:
A list of 52 randomly generated English letters will be given to the two friends. They will visualize and send me the image of each letter in the order of the list. I will attempt to guess each letter as they send it. I will record each letter as I guess. The two list will be compared for accuracy after the last test by on of the friends. To add an element of control a randomly selected letter will appear no less then 20 times in every list. I will have no knowledge of any of the list until after the completion of the last test. The tests will be conducted over a span of time to allow for possible development of telepathy.
If the example you've given is true, there should be an increase in accuracy over time along with a much better success rate than expected based on probability near the end of the experiment, and the control letter should be guessed substantially more than any other letter. There are 26 letters in the English language so the expected result without telepathy would be 2 correct guesses per session. How long should the experiment run to account for development of telepathy?
Does this sound like a reasonable test to you? I'd like other opinions as well.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
And if your test produces data indicating that thoughts cannot be transmitted? Luminon-type morons put it down to "tension". You're on a loser here Spike trying to get someone so mentally ill to see reason. Good luck.
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
I have already considered this possibility. My goal here is to show that I have put forth an honest effort. I am giving the idea of telepathy more respect than it deserves in order to express my willingness to except new information that is contrary to my world view. While it is possible in the strictest sense, the "theory" given here, is in my opinion, lacking in evidence. I will however suspend my disbelief in an attempt to lead by example. I know it has a high probability of failure, but at least I can say I tried. Thanks for the well wishes.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace