Eloise

NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Eloise

  Eloise, your quite brilliant aren't you.  I haven't been able to find any posts of you describing what your belief system is.  I see you have over 1500 posts and so I'm sure you've done this before, but if you wouldn't mind.  Do you belong to any particualr religion, or is their a holy book you believe to be devinely inspired by a diety?  I respect your posts very much, and I see you are thiest, I was just wondering what that meant for you.  Do you just believe the universe was created and thats it, or is their more to it than that for you.  From the logic in your posts I would assume your are a rational theist (someone who believes the universe was created, but doesn't claim to know anything with certainty about this creator.)

 

Just curious... 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13652
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I like Eloise, but trying to

I like Eloise, but trying to get her to state what she believes is like trying to nail jello to the wall. I will give her credit though, she has hung in there for a long time, more than I can say for other theists of different labels. Most run screaming like we murdered their family.

She knows we think she is full of it, but she doesn't take it personally.

If you can get her to actually define what she believes, I'll put you up for  a Nobel prize. Look out Obama.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I like Eloise,

Brian37 wrote:

I like Eloise, but trying to get her to state what she believes is like trying to nail jello to the wall. I will give her credit though, she has hung in there for a long time, more than I can say for other theists of different labels. Most run screaming like we murdered their family.

She knows we think she is full of it, but she doesn't take it personally.

If you can get her to actually define what she believes, I'll put you up for  a Nobel prize. Look out Obama.

  She just seems to parrouse the threads and point out the errors/fallacies and bad logic used by both athiests and theists, she seems to be fairly indeferent.  I think she does a great job, but I know nothing of what her position is on god and I hope it is well thought out as I would assume it is and a climactic explanation to the mystery of her true beliefs.  I'm quite bored of average minded theists, Eloise seems to be a cut above, dependant ofcourse on what she believes, so far I can't see what that is other than that she doesn't like bad arguments and bad logic, which is great!!!  I'd like to know more. 

 

 

     


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5848
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 I quite like Eloise, but

 I quite like Eloise, but we have had few disagreements, one on interpretation/implications of Relativity and Time, more recently on what she saw as my 'falling for' Blake, who she thought was some sort of 'fake' that I refused to 'see through'.

I have learned it is not worth trying to argue with her for too long, she sticks to her position, and it is not worth it to me to earn her enmity, since I frequently find her responses on other things excellent.

I basically left both arguments at the implied position that we would just have to acknowledge that we disagree on this.

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


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3384
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
eloise, imo, is the most

eloise, imo, is the most analytically brilliant person on the whole website and i gave her the highest compliment i've ever given a person i've actually spoken to: i called her a theorist.  i've also compared her to hannah arendt and rosa luxemburg on two separate occasions.  i don't think i've ever praised a lady that much, even in college when i was very drunk and very horny.  if she wasn't a beautiful woman and downright nice i would probably harbor a black hatred for her out of pure jealousy. 

i respect her unwillingness to be pigeonholed.  anyone who will make even one assertion without qualification is in my book an imbecile, be they theist or atheist.  this discussion might shed some light, if you ignore the inane blathering of treat2, who could be almost as infuriating as Paisley, and who, thankfully, has not been seen here for quite a while.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/17718

 

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Eloise has several times

Eloise has several times discussed what she believes on this site. About a year and a half ago she had a debate with Kevin.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14402

In several other threads she has explained her parents or at least her father was atheist, and you can see at lot of that in her discussions.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Don't believe iv ever

Don't believe iv ever crossed paths with her. but isn't she the token panentheist? I got no problem with them. there just as right as the rest of us. Meaning that we are all wrong in our understanding of life, the universe and everything.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Eloise has several times discussed what she believes on this site. About a year and a half ago she had a debate with Kevin.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14402

In several other threads she has explained her parents or at least her father was atheist, and you can see at lot of that in her discussions.

  I read the debate, but it's so formal.  The content in her introduction is a little above my head but I can grasp it somewhat.  Everythings connected, our brain is to us as we are to the universe etc...  In the end it doesn't say anything about what that means to her.  Is the universe god?  Does it munipulate itself?  Or does something external manipulate it?  

  When it comes to this stuff I mean anything could be true.  Their could be galactical scientific entites that have evolved over trillions and trillions of years with brains the size of jupiter that travel from universe to universe at the speed of light just by thinking and can manipulate their environment.  Who knows.  I think if their is some kind of creator of the universe (or the universe is the creator, or we are the universe, or other variations) we should keep our mind open to the possibility it could be something we haven't even came up with yet or will be able to fathom for who knows how long if ever.  We should keep an open mind when investigating truths.  All I care about is that people are thinking clearly, and don't believe silly things that lead to dellusion or harmfull actions.     


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:  I

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

  I read the debate, but it's so formal.  The content in her introduction is a little above my head but I can grasp it somewhat.  Everythings connected, our brain is to us as we are to the universe etc...  In the end it doesn't say anything about what that means to her.  Is the universe god?  Does it munipulate itself?  Or does something external manipulate it?  

  When it comes to this stuff I mean anything could be true.  Their could be galactical scientific entites that have evolved over trillions and trillions of years with brains the size of jupiter that travel from universe to universe at the speed of light just by thinking and can manipulate their environment.  Who knows.  I think if their is some kind of creator of the universe (or the universe is the creator, or we are the universe, or other variations) we should keep our mind open to the possibility it could be something we haven't even came up with yet or will be able to fathom for who knows how long if ever.  We should keep an open mind when investigating truths.  All I care about is that people are thinking clearly, and don't believe silly things that lead to dellusion or harmfull actions.     

 

While speculation is good, you need to be careful.  Our universe has only existed for ~13 billion years, not trillions and trillions.  (that may be the case in some other 'area' of reality, but not one that we can even begin to talk about, at least not yet).

 

I remember Eloise saying she was a neutral monist.  As I understand it, neutral monism reconciles the supposed separation of mind and body.  In naturalism/materialism/physicalism mind and body are both natural/material/physical.  In dualism (typical in theism), mind is supernatural while the body is natural.  In neutral monism, mind (mental states) and body (physical states) are both some form of the same, neutral, 'substance' underlying reality.  I believe that that is what is deified in her panentheism.  (I am by no means certain about this, but that's how I understood it).


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
For Eloise, or anyone who

For Eloise, or anyone who knows what she would say:  If the universe is a conscious God, are we part of that god or are we somehow separate?  I guess that would be a question about the idea of free will in the Panetheistic universe.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist

v4ultingbassist wrote:

While speculation is good, you need to be careful.  Our universe has only existed for ~13 billion years, not trillions and trillions.  (that may be the case in some other 'area' of reality, but not one that we can even begin to talk about, at least not yet).

 

Ofcourse I'm aware our universe is only 14 billion years old, I wasn't stating this jupiter brain thing was true it was just a rediculous overegarerated example what could be true given what we know.  Are you arguing it's not possible for their to have been multiple universes that have begun and ended for a period of who knows how long and a being could not have existed/survived and evovled for longer than how long our universe has existed into something we could never understand with our current brains.  That's fairly close minded. 

v4ultingbassist wrote:

I remember Eloise saying she was a neutral monist.  As I understand it, neutral monism reconciles the supposed separation of mind and body.  In naturalism/materialism/physicalism mind and body are both natural/material/physical.  In dualism (typical in theism), mind is supernatural while the body is natural.  In neutral monism, mind (mental states) and body (physical states) are both some form of the same, neutral, 'substance' underlying reality.  I believe that that is what is deified in her panentheism.  (I am by no means certain about this, but that's how I understood it).

I hate quoting people as "something."  Neutral monist:

Neutral monism is a monistic metaphysics. It holds that ultimate reality is all of one kind. To this extent neutral monism is in agreement with idealism and materialism. What distinguishes neutral monism from its better known monistic rivals is the claim that the intrinsic nature of ultimate reality is neither mental nor physical. This negative claim also captures the idea of neutrality: being intrinsically neither mental nor physical in nature ultimate reality is said to be neutral between the two. 

 

Ok.  So what would a Neutral monist  say about conciousness after death?  Or the afterlife?


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Ofcourse I'm aware our universe is only 14 billion years old, I wasn't stating this jupiter brain thing was true it was just a rediculous overegarerated example what could be true given what we know.  Are you arguing it's not possible for their to have been multiple universes that have begun and ended for a period of who knows how long and a being could not have existed/survived and evovled for longer than how long our universe has existed into something we could never understand with our current brains.  That's fairly close minded.

 

The issue is that those would be OTHER universes.  If something interacts, it is a part of our universe, otherwise (this includes universes outside of ours), it does not interact.  Without interaction, there can be no way of gathering truth about these universes.  Consequently, while entirely possible, there is (as of yet) no way to establish any positive knowledge about them.  Maybe they will be necessitated by a theory in physics down the road, but I don't see how truths about another universe are attainable, let alone applicable to our own universe, right now.


 

Quote:

I hate quoting people as "something."  Neutral monist:

Neutral monism is a monistic metaphysics. It holds that ultimate reality is all of one kind. To this extent neutral monism is in agreement with idealism and materialism. What distinguishes neutral monism from its better known monistic rivals is the claim that the intrinsic nature of ultimate reality is neither mental nor physical. This negative claim also captures the idea of neutrality: being intrinsically neither mental nor physical in nature ultimate reality is said to be neutral between the two. 

 

Ok.  So what would a Neutral monist  say about conciousness after death?  Or the afterlife?

 

  I don't think that either of those are required aspects of neutral monism, i.e. those are not beliefs inherent to the metaphysical position.


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist wrote:The

v4ultingbassist wrote:

The issue is that those would be OTHER universes.  If something interacts, it is a part of our universe, otherwise (this includes universes outside of ours), it does not interact.  Without interaction, there can be no way of gathering truth about these universes.  Consequently, while entirely possible, there is (as of yet) no way to establish any positive knowledge about them.  Maybe they will be necessitated by a theory in physics down the road, but I don't see how truths about another universe are attainable, let alone applicable to our own universe, right now.

Ofcourse theirs not, I was just using it as an exmaple as a  way to look at a creator (or munipulator) in a reasonable and natural way, instead of this poof miracle god that doesn't like gays type silliness.  I'm  trying to figure out what kind of god a reasonale/rational theist believes in who doesn't adhere to any man-made holy books and bases their belief in logic and science.   

 

 

 

 

v4ultingbassist wrote:

  I don't think that either of those are required aspects of neutral monism, i.e. those are not beliefs inherent to the metaphysical position.

 

I know, that's the point, that's why I aksed it, I wish she would awnser these.  This neutral monism doesn't explain these issues, I'm trying to engage her informally about what her beliefs are.  If you asked I would say I am an athiest, but that's not where the discussion ends, its the beggining of large amount of experiences, beliefs, and other interesting things that make up me. 

Eloise=Theist/neutral monist

BBBoring!  What does that mean?  Who is god to her?  And how does this "god" affect us?


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:Who

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Who is god to her?  And how does this "god" affect us?

Every theist has the same god, namely whatever is convenient. IMHO, Eloise is no different.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Every theist has

EXC wrote:

Every theist has the same god, namely whatever is convenient. IMHO, Eloise is no different.

 

You probably just said it about as well as it could be said.

 

People like Eliose, Deepak Chopra, and Kent Hovind- these nutty pseudoscientific types- tend to irritate me more on an intellectual level because they pretend to be respectful of scientific rationality, and then attempt to manipulate it to serve their ends.

Eloise has only ever been rational and consistent to the extent that she is not emotionally invested in the subject- like any theist- when emotion comes into play, all bets are off and the convenient reality distortion comes into play.

The only difference between Eloise and Paisley is the placement of that line.

 

It's sad, though- if she stopped being delusional, she might actually be intelligent enough to have something to offer the world (that goes for many of these religious leaders, perhaps swapping out charisma and leadership skills for intelligence).  She is (like all of the rest are) just too stubbornly invested into her emotional whims for that to happen.

 

 

To the OP:  It's not a good idea to argue with her if you don't want her to hate you.  I can understand that Bob wants to keep the peace by not arguing with her about such things- it wouldn't serve to change her mind anyway.

 

Case in point, a fun fact:  According to Eloise,  I'm a Christian spy participating in some grad conspiracy.

 


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:  I

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

  I read the debate, but it's so formal.  The content in her introduction is a little above my head but I can grasp it somewhat.  Everythings connected, our brain is to us as we are to the universe etc...  In the end it doesn't say anything about what that means to her. 

I've explained that aspect of it, more in depth, in discussions with DG and HisWillness on the nature of the mind. Usually in the philosophy psychology forum. Essentially my position, what it means to me, is that the common notion of human sentience being above and superior to the natural universe is unsupported in the leading theories of physical science. We are not "as distinct" from the universe in having the capacity to think and reason, such a degree organisation is common to the whole of things, we, frankly, aren't that special. 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Is the universe god? 

Yes.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Does it munipulate itself?  

It has the semblance of will precisely as do we. I suggest the issue we have with percieving this identity in action is simply the orders of magnitude and numbers of dimensions in which it must necessarily express its self.

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

  When it comes to this stuff I mean anything could be true. 

That is definitely a misconception, "this stuff" is physics and its a very precise and disciplined field - there is a lot that can certainly be ruled out by what is known and understood.  It's not like pure philosophy where you can posit any random thing and have it taken seriously for the sake of hypothesis.

 

 

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote: more

BobSpence1 wrote:

 more recently on what she saw as my 'falling for' Blake, who she thought was some sort of 'fake' that I refused to 'see through'.

Blake's a turd who touts himself as having some kind of expertise in physics after taking a couple of first year courses, he chased me around the forum preaching his woo woo at me as though he was "correcting" my knowledge. If you can't see he's a waste of time and a quack, that's your problem. 

You'll probably not notice how he came here to throw his weight around some more, as you did before, frankly I don't care what he says as he's got no credibility in my eyes, but I would prefer you didn't try to antagonise the situation since my respect for you remains.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
I'm not sure if 

I'm not sure if  'fundamentalist christian spy' -> 'woo woo quack turd' is a promotion or a demotion.  Hmm...

 

Boy howdy, Eloise, you sure do know how to bring up the hard questions.


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote: 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

  When it comes to this stuff I mean anything could be true. 

Eloise wrote:

That is definitely a misconception, "this stuff" is physics and its a very precise and disciplined field - there is a lot that can certainly be ruled out by what is known and understood.  It's not like pure philosophy where you can posit any random thing and have it taken seriously for the sake of hypothesis.

 

This tolerates addressing, if only to defend NoMoreCrazyPeople.

 

Any interpretation that is itself internally consistent could be the case (that is, not anything, but at least anything that isn't demonstrably self-contradictory; he probably didn't mean square circles and the like)- although it becomes exceedingly unlikely as it diverges from known physics because our failed analysis must also be explained (Occam's razor would simply prefer what we have determined, rather than un-explaining and re-explaining things in a different way).

 

I am the first one to count something as impossible when it expresses internal inconsistency or logical impossibility, but Eloise is far too conservative with her adherence to current observation and Empiricism in calling things that disagree with it inherently impossible- which is a bit ironic from my perspective, since she readily accepts a number of logical impossibilities at the foundation of her beliefs just because, conveniently, there may be small empirical gaps there.

I guess that's an empiricist for you.  Accept everything you see and feel as dogmatic fact, and then make up whatever suits your fancy beyond that despite the logical absurdity.

 

--

 

As to the rest of what Eloise said- I may have made some assumptions before on scant evidence that she was a nutter (based only on her sig and a few other things), but I'm glad at least to have solid proof positive now without having to look for old conversations or read walls of text [vindication ++].

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad that an otherwise intelligent and educated person (if not still a temperamental poopy-head) actually believes such absurdities.

Sometimes I wish I could just laugh at this stuff, but I could only do that If I cared about the future of society significantly less, and I can't give up that concern.  Here's to trying to do both:

 

To Eloise's hostage rational mind:  You have my sympathies.  And here's a pie. *psst* I hid some logic in it- use it to file the bars and make a break for freedom.


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Sorry to everyone who has

Sorry to everyone who has asked a question and might be thinking right now that I haven't given them a fair answer, my head's a bit not right at the moment as I am getting over a nasty flu (not a nice way to spend the holidays). I'm doing my best but its taking me a long time to muster up the concentration for composing thoughtful replies. In the course of half a day I have managed to concentrate long enough for about three passable sentences which is a pretty poor effort, but I should be back to feeling my best soon, if you can be patient. 

mellestad wrote:

For Eloise, or anyone who knows what she would say:  If the universe is a conscious God, are we part of that god or are we somehow separate?

All that we might assume as our own identity is essentially a function of the universe so in that sense my belief is that we are strictly just a part of it, but also there is a uniqueness to our identities in that they are relational and the relationships are individual.  

So in short, it is both, such that my belief is, by definition, panentheistic, God is all and is within all individuated also.

Mellestad wrote:

 I guess that would be a question about the idea of free will in the Panetheistic universe.

The semblance of will that we have in terms of our familiar ego, in my belief, is somewhat like the reflection of a greater will which is also our own and can be known as such through practices of mystic or ancient tradition.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Ok.  So what would a Neutral monist  say about conciousness after death? 

I would suggest that we will discover the nature of consciousness is that it is not interned within our skulls, that all coordinates of reality experience such a sense of organisation on its own terms, as we do in the position behind our faces. Death, I would submit, is an alternate organisation of the information about that point. While alive our identity is the bombardment of a coordinate in space and time with high energy data, light and vibration, amplified through our biological senses, focusing a centre around which the data can organise. In death we lose this amplification, and the signularly focussed identity, which arose from the intensity of the data it created, fades. Yet the essential components of the identity remain, its location and fundamental interactions with the universe still exist and these, I believe, are the basic units of consciousness - since they remain I believe so does some form of consciousness continue after death.

Quote:

Or the afterlife?

As per what I have talked about above, the afterlife would be inhabited by a consciousness which arises from more subtle 'stimulations' than the intensely amplified data which characterises our presently conscious existence. So an afterlife would be much slower in pace than the life we know. And it would lack the focus that is characteristic of the magnitude of our sense interactions, so it would be more spontaneous and less constrained than our biological existence.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:In death we

Eloise wrote:
In death we lose this amplification, and the signularly focussed identity, which arose from the intensity of the data it created, fades. Yet the essential components of the identity remain, its location and fundamental interactions with the universe still exist and these, I believe, are the basic units of consciousness - since they remain I believe so does some form of consciousness continue after death.

 

Interesting. This aligns with the core tenets of certain (pagan) mystery religions of old.

Essentially a claim that death is somewhat akin to your consciousness of self while you're asleep and dreaming (which to most people is a really rather disorganised state of 'unconsciousness' with little to no agency). For instance, the various "Books of the Dead" (Egyptian or Tibetan) focuses a lot on 'guiding' the attention of the subject through a series of 'gates' without losing your cohesive sense of self, thus remaining 'alive' in a sense even after leaving this world of physicality behind. Quite a different idea than the 'submissive' principle of monotheistic slave-religions, where the essential idea seems to be that you return to the nothingness of pre-birth. The latter also seems to be the most common atheistic belief; to the extent that atheists are comfortable about discussing eschatological metaphysics, that is.

Panentheism seems to differ greatly from monotheism - but how is it different from animism?

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:insert wall of

Eloise wrote:
insert wall of woo woo

 

Blake wrote:
It would be funny if it wasn't so sad that an otherwise intelligent and educated person (if not still a temperamental poopy-head) actually believes such absurdities.

 

I just want to say that I formally recant the part of this assertion that expressed belief in Eloise's intelligence- after that splurge of intense woo, I have lost respect for any intelligence that I previously thought Eloise had.

 

The woo above is as idiotic as or worse than any apologetics or Deepak new-age shtick I've seen- particularly as those individuals are at least redeemed by profound scientific ignorance.

Unless otherwise demonstrated, in the presence of even half of the education Eloise claims (and has demonstrated knowledge of), I can not believe that any other than an imbicile would actually espouse those beliefs.  I can't see how any amount of compartmentalization could overwhelm anything approaching intelligence that strongly to result in... that kind of belief.

 

It would seem that, lacking intelligence, anything that she has produced that has had the semblance of insight has probably been the product of hard work and memorization.  I suppose that's not surprising from a "math" person- no offense to the rare genuinely intelligent math people (not saying there aren't exceptions).  If she actually understood any of it, this train-wreck of pseudoscience wouldn't be possible.  This actually explains quite a bit about her behavior.

 

Now that Eloise doesn't represent lost or repressed potential to me, and she probably remains too incomprehensible to do any harm by confusing other people, this is now officially hilarious.

 

I can has lolz.  Thanks Eloise Smiling


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Il y a un truc trés

Il y a un truc trés spécial qui se dégage d'elle. Elle a l'air sérieuse et pensive, mais très douce, très très douce. Peut-être qu'elle ne sait pas trouver les bons mots pour te faire comprendre.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3384
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:In death we

Eloise wrote:
In death we lose this amplification, and the signularly focussed identity, which arose from the intensity of the data it created, fades. Yet the essential components of the identity remain, its location and fundamental interactions with the universe still exist and these, I believe, are the basic units of consciousness - since they remain I believe so does some form of consciousness continue after death.

do you think there is something eternal beneath it all?  an atman?

the idea that something remains of our egos after we pass on ultimately leads back to subjective experiences and the records of subjective experiences, so i don't subscribe to it.  i think in the end the indian sages, the buddha included, would say it doesn't have any real effect on me if i subscribe to it or not, and that if i don't feel like subscribing to it i probably shouldn't, but that's beside the point.  i'm more than happy to deal with it in the theoretical realm, hence my question.

i personally would be inclined to lean heavily toward the buddhist concepts of anatta and dependent arising.  i don't think there is anything underneath it all.  sunyata always made a great deal of sense to me theoretically.  some pluralists--modern-day gurus like eknath easwaren, for example--would say that brahman and sunyata are just positive and negative images of the same thing.  i don't find that very satisfying, however.  

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3384
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Eloise

Eloise wrote:

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Is the universe god? 

Yes.

also, el, i've never quite understood why you feel the need to use the qualifier "god" at all.  it seems to me that in current usage "god" inevitably connotes an anthropomorphism, which seems to me to run counter to your thinking.  also, "god" can easily connote ideas of sacred space, a la mircea eliade et al, and i would hope this notion also runs counter to your thinking.

one of the reasons i've always admired zen, even though i'm not a practitioner, is that it seems to me to give the only outline of an antinomianism that works.  as i hear you use the word "god," i can't help but recall a passage i read of d.t. suzuki several years ago--it was either in mysticism: christian and buddhist or his dialogue with thomas merton in merton's zen and the birds of appetite--in which he examine tennyson's "flower in a crannied wall."  in the poem, tennyson speaks of pulling a beautiful flower from a wall, examining it, and fancying he can see god in it.  in suzuki's mind, this represented everything wrong with the western view of spirituality.  i personally think he is a little harsh (i always get the impression suzuki was a bit of a curmudgeon), but he has a point.  why pluck the flower from the wall and destroy it, not only literally but also philosophically by applying terms like "god"?  why is it necessary to bring "god" into the equation at all?  isn't the flower in its "suchness" (tathata) quite enough?

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist wrote:In

v4ultingbassist wrote:
In neutral monism, mind (mental states) and body (physical states) are both some form of the same, neutral, 'substance' underlying reality. 

The quotes around the term substance are appropriate VB, the underlying fabric of reality per my beliefs is not what could rightly be labelled a substance of any kind.

VaultingBassist wrote:

I believe that that is what is deified in her panentheism.  (I am by no means certain about this, but that's how I understood it).

Actually, no, the neutral units of reality are not the deity, itself, that I believe, rather it is through understanding the universe we experience and perceive as arising through these units of relationship that it can be shown the universe is no less a conscious and willful being than the set of relationships we assume as our own identity, and that it is such in the sense that is claimed by the ancient stories and mystics, moreover. 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:Il y a un truc

Gauche wrote:

Il y a un truc trés spécial qui se dégage d'elle. Elle a l'air sérieuse et pensive, mais très douce, très très douce. Peut-être qu'elle ne sait pas trouver les bons mots pour te faire comprendre.

My french is rusty

He has a special trick, she something very soft, very very soft.  Maybe she can't find the right words to explain so we can undertand.

 

?????


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Eloise wrote:In

iwbiek wrote:

Eloise wrote:
In death we lose this amplification, and the signularly focussed identity, which arose from the intensity of the data it created, fades. Yet the essential components of the identity remain, its location and fundamental interactions with the universe still exist and these, I believe, are the basic units of consciousness - since they remain I believe so does some form of consciousness continue after death.

do you think there is something eternal beneath it all?  an atman?

Yeah, no.. E.K., what I think is more informed by the fundamental sameness of our sensory interactions with the universe and the basic interactions of the universe, I think the basic interactions that make up our physical being are always a part of our consciusness - you could say they are beneath it all, but I would consider that deceptive. I'd say they are integral to a human consciousness as much as the more energetic data is, and in equal measure. Certain aspects of the human condition, then, are specific to the influx of intensely focussed information streams, but generally the human condition is to be poised on a conjunction of both subtle and intense inputs. ie there is some integral part of our familiar identity which is most strongly contingent on the interactions which are as eternal as the universe itself.  I would suggest that more subtle part of our identity is the atmavedi.

Iwbiek wrote:

the idea that something remains of our egos after we pass on

No, nothing remains of the ego, E.K. . The ego, as I would define it, is the organisation formed about the "centre' created via the "amplified input". It is a structure wholly dependent on information density, so it would be lost in death.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Eloise:  Touching on

Eloise:

  Touching on something iwbiek  wrote that I agree with, why do you hold on to that word "god" and theism.  I guess the universe being a god is a "god" in a sense but it's not any kind of god classically attributed to theism.  I mean your beliefs do not include this universe "god" caring, or affect our lives day to day, and making behavioral rules for us, so is that theism?  And is that a theistic god? 

  On this afterlife thing, does the conciousness who's body is now dead know that its itself? If you believe all life is equal, then do animals and other forms of life enjoy this consiousness after death, and do they (the self-aware animals) know they are themselves.  Does the universe think?  Does it have feelings, or does it just DO? 

  


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:Il y a un truc

Gauche wrote:

Il y a un truc trés spécial qui se dégage d'elle. Elle a l'air sérieuse et pensive, mais très douce, très très douce. Peut-être qu'elle ne sait pas trouver les bons mots pour te faire comprendre.

 

Peut-être, mon ami...  Honi soit qui mal y pense!

 

 

 


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Gauche wrote:

Il y a un truc trés spécial qui se dégage d'elle. Elle a l'air sérieuse et pensive, mais très douce, très très douce. Peut-être qu'elle ne sait pas trouver les bons mots pour te faire comprendre.

My french is rusty

He has a special trick, she something very soft, very very soft.  Maybe she can't find the right words to explain so we can undertand.

 

?????

Sorry, I was half not thinking. I meant some things are difficult to explain in such a way that people can easily understand. She's obviously a thoughtful, intelligent, sweet  person. 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:Gauche wrote:Il

Blake wrote:

Gauche wrote:

Il y a un truc trés spécial qui se dégage d'elle. Elle a l'air sérieuse et pensive, mais très douce, très très douce. Peut-être qu'elle ne sait pas trouver les bons mots pour te faire comprendre.

 

Peut-être, mon ami...  Honi soit qui mal y pense

Je n'y vois aucun mal.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3384
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Yeah, no..

Eloise wrote:

Yeah, no.. E.K., what I think is more informed by the fundamental sameness of our sensory interactions with the universe and the basic interactions of the universe, I think the basic interactions that make up our physical being are always a part of our consciusness - you could say they are beneath it all, but I would consider that deceptive. I'd say they are integral to a human consciousness as much as the more energetic data is, and in equal measure. Certain aspects of the human condition, then, are specific to the influx of intensely focussed information streams, but generally the human condition is to be poised on a conjunction of both subtle and intense inputs. ie there is some integral part of our familiar identity which is most strongly contingent on the interactions which are as eternal as the universe itself.  I would suggest that more subtle part of our identity is the atmavedi.

el, i'm beginning to suspect that in our theoretical approaches to consciousness we're coming from two different angles.  if i grasp your model correctly, i would guess you're a bit more informed by neoplatonism and vedanta and i usually approach from a buddhist perspective.  while buddhism uses similar terminology as vedanta, i honestly think vedanta has more in common philosophcally with neoplatonism and gnosticism than buddhism.

but no matter.  essentially i can't see anything in your model significantly different from the buddhist idea of the five skandhas.  i'm assuming this "more subtle part" you speak of, while resilient, is ultimately as subject to annihilation as any other part of our identity.  in other words, a convention, which has no independent "existence" (very sloppy term but my mind refuses to retrieve a better one this evening, hence the inverted commas). 

Eloise wrote:

No, nothing remains of the ego, E.K. . The ego, as I would define it, is the organisation formed about the "centre' created via the "amplified input". It is a structure wholly dependent on information density, so it would be lost in death.

"ego" was a poor choice of words.  basically i was trying to find out if you see our "selves" as containing a kernel of "god," an atman that is reunited with brahman at the moment of liberation, or if your views are closer to the buddhist conception of peeling away the onion until there's nothng there.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:The quotes

Eloise wrote:

The quotes around the term substance are appropriate VB, the underlying fabric of reality per my beliefs is not what could rightly be labelled a substance of any kind.

 

Yeah, I learned quickly that in any type of philosophical discussion quotation marks are necessary for certain words like substance.  lol

 

Eloise wrote:

Actually, no, the neutral units of reality are not the deity, itself, that I believe, rather it is through understanding the universe we experience and perceive as arising through these units of relationship that it can be shown the universe is no less a conscious and willful being than the set of relationships we assume as our own identity, and that it is such in the sense that is claimed by the ancient stories and mystics, moreover. 

 

Ah, sorry to misrepresent. 


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Eloise

iwbiek wrote:

Eloise wrote:

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Is the universe god? 

Yes.

also, el, i've never quite understood why you feel the need to use the qualifier "god" at all. 

Well, I would rather not in many respects, but I feel it's more honest to answer the question of whether my beliefs are theistic, ie whether my beliefs are consistent with the existence of deities, plainly as yes.

I don't consider the qualification itself important at all, and I frequently say as much, but presumably for the most in the context of predominantly western interlocution especially, "god" is the only mutually familiar symbol and I just figure it would be confusing or otherwise deceptive of me to shy away from it.

 

Iwbiek wrote:

why is it necessary to bring "god" into the equation at all?  isn't the flower in its "suchness" (tathata) quite enough?

It's not necessary, I much rather that only the suchness was considered, and I virtually always say so at the beginning of every discussion on my beliefs as you may have noticed.

That said, I think, east kentucky, you've just made the first argument of anyone here that really compels me to reconsider my changing my theist label to atheist. Or perhaps its because I don't need to use the word "god' in discussion with you, thanks to your extensive knowledge... either way, I feel more closely aligned with atheism than ever now.....

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist

v4ultingbassist wrote:

 

Eloise wrote:

Actually, no, the neutral units of reality are not the deity, itself, that I believe, rather it is through understanding the universe we experience and perceive as arising through these units of relationship that it can be shown the universe is no less a conscious and willful being than the set of relationships we assume as our own identity, and that it is such in the sense that is claimed by the ancient stories and mystics, moreover. 

 

Ah, sorry to misrepresent. 

Why are you apologising, VB? I didn't expect you to be a mind-reader, you have nothing to apologise for.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Why are you

Eloise wrote:

Why are you apologising, VB? I didn't expect you to be a mind-reader, you have nothing to apologise for.

 

Courtesy/proper manners, I suppose... lol 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Mmmmm

 

I mostly follow what you're saying Eloise - and don't have any problem with it bar the part where (I think) you suggest consciousness might continue after our particular makings go back into the system. I agree the universe is an entity (I don't mean this in a spiritual sense) of some sort and we're all part of that big thingy. I tend to think of the universe as an inanimate thingy but given we're part of the universe, and are alive, this assumption is open to significant debate. I read an interesting article about the subconscious recently that suggested what we might call free will - a separate and otherly executive function - does exist and is in fact the sub conscious, which makes complex decisions with great accuracy without conscious intervention of any kind. The reason I raise this here is that background processes like those conducted by the subconscious call into question the elevation of the conscious mind to the position of aggrandisement it currently holds. Things do function in the background - minds, systems, universes, with no conscious intelligence needed to guide them. And if we are governed by the universe's particular reality then you'd assume we and all other matter, in all ways, mirror the way the whole universe functions. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
I found a song about you

I found a song about you Eloise Smiling It is very cheesy and from Sweden.

 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3384
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:It's not

Eloise wrote:

It's not necessary, I much rather that only the suchness was considered, and I virtually always say so at the beginning of every discussion on my beliefs as you may have noticed.

yes, i have noticed, but unfortunately i think most haven't.  many here have trained themselves to release the hounds as soon as their eye catches the word "god."  perhaps this is even justifiable to a degree, but it's ultimately why i would do away with the troublesome word altogether.

THAT being said, el, i would appreciate it if you would be so kind as to clarify something for me.  it's my understanding that some forms of panentheism--particularly the variety that makes itself apparent in the ismailis, as well as perhaps the hasidim--embrace the idea of "godhead" which is somehow "more transcendent" than the rest of the universe.  i suppose it's an unsullied concentration of divinity, perhaps even where what amounts to the "consciousness" of the divinity sits, that has not been made directly imminent in the observable universe.  what are your thoughts on this?  if you embrace this idea in some form or another, perhaps your theistic terminology is more warranted than i thought.

Eloise wrote:
 

That said, I think, east kentucky, you've just made the first argument of anyone here that really compels me to reconsider my changing my theist label to atheist. Or perhaps its because I don't need to use the word "god' in discussion with you, thanks to your extensive knowledge... either way, I feel more closely aligned with atheism than ever now.....

lol, i wonder what others will think this says about me?  are you in reality a more atheistic theist or have i just been unmasked as an atheist with dangerous theistic tendencies?  i'm sure there are a few with-hunters who will decide.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
  El, I was hoping you

  El, I was hoping you would loosen up, set down the techno-talk (which we all know your a rockstar at) and just chat like were having a beer.  Everyone here seems to respect you alote, I don't think anyone on this thread is looking to argue with you, I'm certainly not, just trying to figure out what your all about.  What you believe is one thing  and it's obviously not simple to describe, but what that means to you and how it effects your life is more interesting to me.  A buddhist monk for example has a set of beliefs about the value of life, those beliefs then effect his day to day life and behavior by reminding him for instance to avoid stepping on insects.  This is the effect of his belief system.  The effect of a belief system can be "good" or "bad" or both.  A die hard Christian believes homosexuals are an abomonation, the belief is one thing but the effect of that belief in the real world, my world, my childrens world, our world is that they protest gay marriage and show hatred towards gays.

  So i guess my question is, how does your belief system effect your life.  Are you a vegetarian?    Do you drink? Do you live everyday in this world as if you will allways exist?  Is their any group you meet with who have the same beliefs?  Do you do any form of praying or maditation (or any exercise) as practice to enlighten yourself, connect or get closer to the "devine" or this universe "god" conciousness?  Like my Falun Gong friend at work, every day he does 2 hours of tai chi style exercises for physical and mental improvement.  He also use to meditate infront of the Chinese embacy in Vancouver every Thursday and Saturday in protest of the treatment of Falung Gong practioners in China and the general dooscheness of their government.  He also continuously envisioned an intensly powerful basketball sized ball of pure energy spinning in his stomach constanstly 24/7.  His teachings from what I understand say that thoughts are energy, they exist in the real world and can effect it, and if you concentrate on something long enough it will exist in another dimension.  So If he is disaplinned enough to continiously envision this extremely powerful ball of energy (thorughout the day, at work, everywhere) that could move an apartment building spinning in his stomach everyday, then eventualy he would focuse enough energy to actualise this energy in another dimension and access it.

   Just some examples of what a belief system means to someone, how it effects their day to day life.     


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote: 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

  El, I was hoping you would loosen up, set down the techno-talk (which we all know your a rockstar at) and just chat like were having a beer.  Everyone here seems to respect you alote, I don't think anyone on this thread is looking to argue with you, I'm certainly not, just trying to figure out what your all about.  What you believe is one thing  and it's obviously not simple to describe, but what that means to you and how it effects your life is more interesting to me.  A buddhist monk for example has a set of beliefs about the value of life, those beliefs then effect his day to day life and behavior by reminding him for instance to avoid stepping on insects.  This is the effect of his belief system.  The effect of a belief system can be "good" or "bad" or both.  A die hard Christian believes homosexuals are an abomonation, the belief is one thing but the effect of that belief in the real world, my world, my childrens world, our world is that they protest gay marriage and show hatred towards gays.

  So i guess my question is, how does your belief system effect your life.  Are you a vegetarian?    Do you drink? Do you live everyday in this world as if you will allways exist?  Is their any group you meet with who have the same beliefs?  Do you do any form of praying or maditation (or any exercise) as practice to enlighten yourself, connect or get closer to the "devine" or this universe "god" conciousness?  Like my Falun Gong friend at work, every day he does 2 hours of tai chi style exercises for physical and mental improvement.  He also use to meditate infront of the Chinese embacy in Vancouver every Thursday and Saturday in protest of the treatment of Falung Gong practioners in China and the general dooscheness of their government.  He also continuously envisioned an intensly powerful basketball sized ball of pure energy spinning in his stomach constanstly 24/7.  His teachings from what I understand say that thoughts are energy, they exist in the real world and can effect it, and if you concentrate on something long enough it will exist in another dimension.  So If he is disaplinned enough to continiously envision this extremely powerful ball of energy (thorughout the day, at work, everywhere) that could move an apartment building spinning in his stomach everyday, then eventualy he would focuse enough energy to actualise this energy in another dimension and access it.

   Just some examples of what a belief system means to someone, how it effects their day to day life.     

 

Good question crazy.  "Does her theism impact her decision making in everyday life, and if so how?"

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote: 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

  El, I was hoping you would loosen up, set down the techno-talk (which we all know your a rockstar at) and just chat like were having a beer. 

And I haven't because this is not a subject I generally would chat about over a beer, lol. Deep philosophical and political questions are too intense for casual conversation in my experience, but I'm open to a more relaxed format at your request.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

  So i guess my question is, how does your belief system effect your life. 

I don't think I have been ever directly asked that before. Nice question, thanks for taking an interest

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Are you a vegetarian? 

No, but my beliefs do affect my attitude towards our taking life from other entities in order to sustain our own. Essentially the effect is indiscernible from basic humanitarianism but the underlying philosophy is probably quite unique. In a nutshell I believe active attempts to resist the natural cycles of destruction and rebirth which characterise our world are silly and futile, this life traverses time and space, that's just how it is and what we are, death can not be inherently bad since absolutely all life is totally dependent on its existence, everything that lives does so because something else dies. 

Thus it comes down to, for me, that life is a shared quantity, its always handed on at some point. In that, I am accepting of the fact that we kill for nourishment and simply qualify this acceptance with the belief that it should always be done with the deepest reverence and respect for the life that is being sacrificed.

I believe in being thankful to the entities that have had their life laid down for the betterment of our own and that we serve ourselves best by showing it in practice.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

  Do you drink?

Yep. I don't have any prejudice about intoxicating substances.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Do you live everyday in this world as if you will allways exist? 

Yeah, in some ways, like, I fear less, but mostly, since I don't fully understand existence beyond my present life and since what I do know is that it will not be this life, I seek to do the most with this that I can

NoMorecrazyPeople wrote:

Is their any group you meet with who have the same beliefs? 

No, not really.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Do you do any form of praying or maditation (or any exercise) as practice to enlighten yourself, connect or get closer to the "devine" or this universe "god" conciousness? 

Yes, I do meditate and have made personal appeals for insight but I do neither regularly as I'm not really ritualistic by nature.

Since you asked so nicely I'll divulge for you that, as for communion with divine consciousness, it is my belief that I have already acheived a degree of this. I live in awareness of what you could think of as an extension of my personal  agency beyond my physical limitations. I believe that physical connection to this agency is universal and primarily subconscious and that we could study it but I would like to better understand it myself before I consider proposing how.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Very good, see darlin that

Very good, see darlin that wasn't so bad.

 

Eloise wrote:

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

  El, I was hoping you would loosen up, set down the techno-talk (which we all know your a rockstar at) and just chat like were having a beer. 

And I haven't because this is not a subject I generally would chat about over a beer, lol. Deep philosophical and political questions are too intense for casual conversation in my experience,

For most I guess, I tend to attract the "drinking philosopher" type and so my inner group often has intense converstaions over many drinks.  When my outer group is around we keep it light though.  You should try it, having a deep conversation after 9 or 10 double vodka's that is, it's fun, you just need the right people.

Eloise wrote:

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

  So I guess my question is, how does your belief system effect your life. 

I don't think I have been ever directly asked that before. Nice question, thanks for taking an interest

That's the most important stuff.

 

Eloise wrote:

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Are you a vegetarian? 

No, but my beliefs do affect my attitude towards our taking life from other entities in order to sustain our own. Essentially the effect is indiscernible from basic humanitarianism but the underlying philosophy is probably quite unique. In a nutshell I believe active attempts to resist the natural cycles of destruction and rebirth which characterise our world are silly and futile, this life traverses time and space, that's just how it is and what we are, death can not be inherently bad since absolutely all life is totally dependent on its existence, everything that lives does so because something else dies. 

I agree with your beliefs on the use on of life to sustain other life, and how is it a natural part of the circle.  I wonder though, do you have any unique perceptions on the value of inteligence and self-awareness in an entity when deciding when it's crossing the line.  For example I had a problem with eating black bear when I was offered.  I don't really know why exactly, I guess because I naturally consider bears to be more self-aware than cows and chickens.  So is their any distinction to you between the value of the life of a mouse and a baboon?

Eloise wrote:

Thus it comes down to, for me, that life is a shared quantity, its always handed on at some point.

So how do you escape this fate of passing your "life force" on for new life to exist.  Or is it that when you are talking of an afterlife you are refering to something much more abstract than "El" always being "El."

Eloise wrote:

Since you asked so nicely I'll divulge for you that, as for communion with divine consciousness, it is my belief that I have already acheived a degree of this. I live in awareness of what you could think of as an extension of my personal  agency beyond my physical limitations. I believe that physical connection to this agency is universal and primarily subconscious and that we could study it but I would like to better understand it myself before I consider proposing how.

 

I appreciate your openess,  I'd love to hear more about this comunion with the devine you've experienced.  Could you elaborate?

 

It seems as though your position is more of a "I have found my hypothesis on this universal truth to be valid, and in merit of persuit and open minded investigation" type thing rather than a "my beliefs about the universe and god are correct and complete and therefor no more research on the issue is needed, I have all the awnsers" position that pisses me of so much and is so intellectually dis-honest.

 

So I applaude you, you are my favorite theist on the site, although I wouldn't personally consider you a thiest by my understanding of the term, and I think many would agree.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:In a nutshell I

Eloise wrote:

In a nutshell I believe active attempts to resist the natural cycles of destruction and rebirth which characterise our world are silly and futile, this life traverses time and space, that's just how it is and what we are, death can not be inherently bad since absolutely all life is totally dependent on its existence, everything that lives does so because something else dies. 

So you should be against healthcare of any kind? Against safty equipment? You do extreme sports?

My real questions is, why are you able to see this 'God' while so many others are unable? What is so unique and special about you? Why should you have this gift and not the rest of humanity? Is it genetics or environment that gave you this gift?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:So you should be

EXC wrote:

So you should be against healthcare of any kind? Against safty equipment? You do extreme sports?

 

Not necessarily any kind- just the kind that saves or extends lives.  She may not be against that which lessens suffering- I imagine she has nothing against morphine, being into drugs.

Though I doubt the hypocrite has a "do not resuscitate" bracelet, as she should (Please Eloise, if you don't, be consistent for us and get a DNR order). 

She probably won't fancy it silly at all when it comes to her own life- like most theists, these principles probably only apply to judgment of other people.

 

 

She seems pretty apathetic to suffering where it doesn't inconvenience her, though (I doubt she eats exclusively free-range meat, for example, no matter how much she may want to fancy herself empathetic or respectful).

 

 

Quote:
My real questions is, why are you able to see this 'God' while so many others are unable? What is so unique and special about you? Why should you have this gift and not the rest of humanity? Is it genetics or environment that gave you this gift?

 

I'd go with profoundly egotistical delusion. 

However, she'll probably say that all conscious beings have the ability to make the connection, because they're part of the same universal consciousness [insert pseudo-scientific techno-babble], so all of humanity "can", and that there's not a strict distinction between environment and universal cosmic free will... that is, she probably fancies that she/the universal consciousness chose it.

 

And for a limited time, you TOO can accept Jeebus/Allah/The universal conscious will into your heart and be just as enlightened as Ray Comfort/Osama Bin Laden/Eloise.

 

Crazy is crazy, it's just more insulting when idiots try to sugar coat it with science and pretend it's reasonable.

 

At least the ignorant have an excuse for believing this kind of nonsense- they don't know any better.  People with education have to go out of their ways to believe in it.  It takes a special kind of dishonesty and stupidity to pull off new-age belief systems like Eloise has. 

Congratulations Eloise, you had all of the cards stacked in your favor, and you still pulled off an epic fail.


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Eloise wrote:In a

EXC wrote:

Eloise wrote:

In a nutshell I believe active attempts to resist the natural cycles of destruction and rebirth which characterise our world are silly and futile, this life traverses time and space, that's just how it is and what we are, death can not be inherently bad since absolutely all life is totally dependent on its existence, everything that lives does so because something else dies. 

So you should be against healthcare of any kind?

No EXC, I believe that the only consistent collective ambition for humanity, a social group which claims a position of enormous privilege, is universal high living standards. We take voraciously from the energy available in our world for ourselves far, proportionally, more than we essentially need, it would be the ultimate irony for us to not be universally 'having it all' in result.

EXC wrote:

Against safty equipment?

I'm not superstitious about causes of death, EXC, I simply don't consider it an ill, in the universe, to die. Moreover, justification for having a concern about personal safety doesn't have to come from trying to avoid death, I believe the same about securing well-being through safety as I do about doing so through health care, collectively we'd be just plain tools to not have the best given that we take the most.

EXC wrote:

You do extreme sports?

Indeed I do. I am the perennial thrillseeker.

EXC wrote:

My real questions is, why are you able to see this 'God' while so many others are unable?

Committed seeking, EXC. I have put in a lot of concerted effort over the course of more than a decade.

I am, and always have been extremely interested in the ultimate questions of life- what is, what's possible and what's worth it - that's who I am and there's been a shitload of people through this common history of ours so statistically someone is gonna be me, right?

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:No EXC, I

Eloise wrote:

No EXC, I believe that the only consistent collective ambition for humanity, a social group which claims a position of enormous privilege, is universal high living standards.

 

I believe I did call that.  Making life more pleasurable seems to be a primary pursuit for hedonists like Eloise.

I'm guessing that's a no on the DNR order though- I did expect hypocrisy.

 

Eloise wrote:
We take voraciously from the energy available in our world for ourselves far, proportionally, more than we essentially need, it would be the ultimate irony for us to not be universally 'having it all' in result.

 

Even now I'm surprised at the level of pseudo-scientific granola she spouts to justify her nonsense.


Translation of Eloise wrote:

We should use what we take despite it being "futile" (useless), otherwise it would be "ironic" (Shock, Horror!), instead of stopping the taking- the taking which is supposedly "silly" anyway- even though if we stopped the taking it would no longer be "silly", "futile", or "ironic".

 

Apparently she doesn't understand supply and demand, and that demand for the use causes the "taking" (whatever are we taking from anyway?) in the first place.

Misunderstanding of economics is understandable- complete ignorance of it from a "math" person is idiocy.

 

Assuming she actually understands economics, there's only one conclusion I can see- her definition of "Irony" must be the ultimate evil in the universe.

So is this kind of "Irony" must be a really bad thing in her book.  It seems it *must* be infinitely worse than "futility" and "silliness", otherwise she wouldn't insist on continuing our "futile" and "silly" actions, since the stopping of them might cause a very brief moment of "irony" (her definition of it) where we weren't using the resources we were taking until supply got the memo that there was no longer demand.

 

 

 

Eloise wrote:

I'm not superstitious about causes of death, EXC, I simply don't consider it an ill, in the universe, to die.

 

Completely avoiding the question.

Why spend money on safety equipment when you can use it to shoot up instead?

 

Eloise wrote:
Moreover, justification for having a concern about personal safety doesn't have to come from trying to avoid death,

 

No, not unless it is guaranteed to be lethal.  In which case, where safety equipment would be difficult or expensive to install, we should hire firing squads instead to shoot people before they hit the ground.

Good ol' painless death- nothing wrong with that, right?

 

The only concern here seems to be avoiding injury that would inconvenience hedonistic practices.

 

Eloise wrote:
I believe the same about securing well-being through safety as I do about doing so through health care, collectively we'd be just plain tools to not have the best given that we take the most.

 

Riiiight... that magical "balance" which is necessary to avoid "toolness".

 

A series of arbitrary qualifications of taking and having the 'best'.

Somebody seems not to understand resource allocation or basic economics (it might be Eloise).

 

If hedonistic pleasure is the goal, those taken resources could be reallocated from silly things that prevent death like safety equipment and health care into things that create altered states of mind like weed, coke, and morphine.  And, of course, extreme sports!  Yay!

 


Eloise wrote:
Indeed I do. I am the perennial thrillseeker.

No surprise there.


 

Eloise wrote:

Committed seeking, EXC. I have put in a lot of concerted effort over the course of more than a decade.

I am, and always have been extremely interested in the ultimate questions of life- what is, what's possible and what's worth it - that's who I am and there's been a shitload of people through this common history of ours so statistically someone is gonna be me, right?

 

Hey, I had it right on the mark!

 

Ambiguous sense of free will and positive action.

 

The extent to which she makes it sound ever so difficult makes her sound like L. Ron Hubbard.  She just needs to add in some made up trips around the world in her pursuit of enlightenment.


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:  I

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

  I wonder though, do you have any unique perceptions on the value of inteligence and self-awareness in an entity when deciding when it's crossing the line. 

Yeah my perceptions on intelligence are probably very unique as I mentioned before. I don't consider intelligence special at all, I see it as common, a property of every coordinate of reality. So eating an animal is not essentially different from crushing a small sandstone rock under your feet, though it is clearly experientially different and experience is the essence of our existence thus we value the consequences differently according to what is consistent with our identity.

And just for the record, this means I do not believe it is wrong or pointless to value the integrity of an animals identity moreso than that of a hunk of sandstone, your identity is intractably connected to your relationship and interaction with other things around you, in the absence of unique values and relationships with the universe none of us would be so it's like saying the universe would be better if it was a single homogenous lump of sameness -- I am completely for being and individuality, therefore, in all its forms.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Thus it comes down to, for me, that life is a shared quantity, its always handed on at some point.

So how do you escape this fate of passing your "life force" on for new life to exist. 

Well you don't escape it. "You" adapt.

Consciousness is extremely flexible. Consider when you're having a dream and how you enter the role of your dreaming self - seemingly instantaneously you drop in on some arbitrary point in the continuum of some existence and you just are that individual. The experience comes equipped with rationale and history, intrinsic in the pseudo-ego of your dream identity. Do you agree this is how you experience yourself in a dream?

If you do, then you see, consciousness is incredibly flexible. In the instance of your passing the conciousness you have experienced is already well equipped with adaptive states formed on the intersection of more subtle "subconscious" interactions that you are in with the universe. Continuation of being can theoretically be very smooth through the simple fact of this adaptability of consciousness from self-image 1 to self-image 2 that you have already experienced during your life in your dreaming hours.

And finally, thanks for the rap, I appreciate it. Smiling

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:Why spend money

Blake wrote:

Why spend money on safety equipment when you can use it to shoot up instead?

 

Because skills are valuable and expensive and people are the vessels of their actualisation and of their longevity through generations. Protection is a utilitarian end.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote: I

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

I mostly follow what you're saying Eloise - and don't have any problem with it bar the part where (I think) you suggest consciousness might continue after our particular makings go back into the system. I agree the universe is an entity (I don't mean this in a spiritual sense) of some sort and we're all part of that big thingy. I tend to think of the universe as an inanimate thingy but given we're part of the universe, and are alive, this assumption is open to significant debate. I read an interesting article about the subconscious recently that suggested what we might call free will - a separate and otherly executive function - does exist and is in fact the sub conscious, which makes complex decisions with great accuracy without conscious intervention of any kind. The reason I raise this here is that background processes like those conducted by the subconscious call into question the elevation of the conscious mind to the position of aggrandisement it currently holds. Things do function in the background - minds, systems, universes, with no conscious intelligence needed to guide them. And if we are governed by the universe's particular reality then you'd assume we and all other matter, in all ways, mirror the way the whole universe functions. 

Oddly it seems to me you've talked your way out of your original objection via the rest of your post, AE. Would I be right in saying that?

You've mentioned that you are aware of studies confirming a subconscious executive function which is responsible for a great deal of the more extraordinary capabilities in human expression. So I would take from this that you can somewhat agree that there is a potent 'self' inherent in humans which is not dependent, as is the ego, on the common senses that characterise the awareness we generally associate with our identity. If you can agree that this self is not dependent on our (egotistical) identity then can you also agree such independence suggests the potential for existence in complete absence of the senses?

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com