• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Enteties (The Archon/Djinn)

You need to expand your consciousness to be able to include more of reality to catch what is above the material plane. The human being is multi-dimensional and it's only an illusion that we're confined to this dimension.

It's also to do with waking up more more brain cells and creating more neural pathways in the brain. But it's really not impossible to explain for someone who hasn't studied or experimented for themselves. Just like with many other complex subjects.

You've either been down that path, or you haven't. When you reach Samadhi in meditation you know that there is such a thing. Prior to that, you might have your doubts. But they can also measure things like gamma waves in advanced yogis.
 
It felt like I may have experienced other dimensions when on dissociatives, but I'm pretty sure that was the illusion :)
 
I know I have multiple dimensions and instead of getting more weight my dimensions have expanded in space.

Also it seems like time dimension goes like a straight arrow as I can't get rid of these wrinkles I have.

So I live in a four dimensional world.
 
belligerent drunk said:
Well, to be fair, you can't observe a lot of the world with your bare eyes. You can't see individual molecules (tyres don't count!), you can't see atoms or sub-atomic particles. But we still know they most likely exist because we have been able to prove their existence through experiments in which the observer can be a macro object like human. Science has long ago become indirect (again, can't see that photon, but we know it's there 'cuz experiment).

Another thing I've wondered about, and Ninae actually said it in her last comment. Something along the lines of "you have to look and search for the spiritual to see it, it won't force itself on you". Which, to me, is another way of saying "it's not there, but you look hard enough, you can see things that are not there". Nature/material world is anything but that. No matter how hard you try not to believe in gravity, you'll still fall to a puddle of minced meat if you step out of a high window.
Click to expand...

Yes, primary self delusion is most certainly a problem. But the distinctions should be clear to an objective level headed person.

I think.
 
It doesn't mean it's not there. It means you have to go through a learning/development process to be able to perceive that it's there (if you're not born that way). Like learning to be an artist, or any education.

You can actually tell the difference in your own perception between something being "there" and "not there". You can tell the difference between having a working intuition and not, or being able to connect with God or not. These things are more subtle, but that's not to say they're imperceptable, and that's the challenge of it.

But if you haven't been through something like that, or even really looked into it, it's easy for people to persuade you with arguments like "There is no proof of human consciousness" or "If there is no solid material proof, it doesn't exist".
 
polymath said:
One thing that isn't obviously physical but still isn't completely ignored by all mainstream scientists is the human (or animal) conscious experience, in the sense of David Chalmers' "Hard Problem of Consciousness". It's difficult to think of conscious experience as something material, because we don't know how to describe it with raw numbers. Physical objects have temperature, mass, position and velocity, all of which can be measured and described with numerical data, but consciousness can't be described in the same way. Apparently consciousness is still able to affect the material world, because otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it with our physical mouth and tongue.

Consciousness has some properties that most people can agree about, which gives some support to the idea of it being something objective. For example, the way how we treat some "entity" is only morally relevant if that entity has consciousness. An engineer can build a toy mouse that will squeak if you step on it or throw it against the wall, but you won't be contacted by "Robot Welfare Officials" if you do that. Also, most scientifically minded people agree that consciousness doesn't have a memory of its own, it lives strictly in the present moment. It can access information about past events only if that information has been physically recorded in the brain. This is made obvious by the fact that memories can be erased by physical brain damage or alcohol/benzos/other drugs. Of course, some people claim they can recall events from past lives/incarnations, or something like that, but those are difficult to take seriously.
Click to expand...

As I explained somewhere else, I believe consciousness is a virtual entity based on the brain's wiring the same way a working computer is an entity based on its silicon wiring. This still doesn't answer the "hard questions", however.
 
Ninae said:
You can actually tell the difference in your own perception between something being "there" and "not there". You can tell the difference between having a working intuition and not, or being able to connect with God or not. These things are more subtle, but that's not to say they're imperceptable, and that's the challenge of it.
Click to expand...

Well maybe you can, but I think that would make you a rather special case. I am, and from what I know most people are, notoriously bad at this. We see patterns where there aren't any all the time (Pareidolia). I am not saying your claims aren't true, just that I find it very difficult to take religious/spiritual people serious who don't acknowledge the possibility that they are simply seeing what they want to see.

Many people have a very anthropomorphized image of god(s) for example. I would think this has a lot more to do with projecting known patterns onto the unknown than with having good intuition.
 
What makes you think I'm a special case?
That means you haven't looked at the millions of others special cases.

The meta-physics area is completely studied out. All possible experiments have been done to people, and the general principles are well known. It's just not common or mainstream knowledge and you actually have to work to get it. It took me a long time to "start seeing what I wanted to see". Just seeing what you want to see isn't a genuine spiritual experience.

But you know there's a difference between public opinion and truth, right? Even if public opinion is SO atheist/materialist it just can't seem to be wrong.
 
Last edited:
Ninae said:
What makes you think I'm a special case?
Click to expand...
I meant that if you were not affected by pareidolia at all, that would make you a special case. I can't really exclude the possibility that you (and possibly others) have never seen a pattern where there was none, but I find it rather hard to imagine.

Ninae said:
The meta-physics area is completely studied out. All possible experiments have been done to people, and the general principles are well known. It's just not common or mainstream knowledge and you actually have to work to get it.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what kind of studies and experiments you are referring to. Could you elaborate?

Ninae said:
It took me a long time to "start seeing what I wanted to see". Just seeing what you want to see isn't a genuine spiritual experience.
Click to expand...
Now this really confuses me. The first sentence seems to imply that after a long time of practice you had a spiritual experience, which validated the views you already had, what until then was only a hope or an assumption became knowledge. But the second sentence seems to imply that having your established views validated is a good sign that you didn't actually had a genuine spiritual experience.

Ninae said:
But you know there's a difference between public opinion and truth, right? Even if public opinion is SO atheist/materialist it just can't seem to be wrong.
Click to expand...
Maybe you misunderstood me? Again, I'm not saying your claims aren't true. I am not saying the "fundamentalist materialists" claims aren't true either. I am trying to encourage people to admit that they can't be really sure. Can you be sure? Can you be really sure? Does having a spiritual experience proof anything beyond the fact that humans have the psychological capability of having such an experience? If you never doubt your own beliefs at all, than you have created a situation where you've made it impossible for yourself to realize the errors in your thinking, even if the proof was right in front of you (Again people tend to see, what they want to see and to ignore what they don't want to see. And people are amazingly good at that). I was wondering if you agree that this is a great danger and if you feel you are capable to really believe, but still once in a while take a neutral standpoint and ask yourself if it's possible that you got it all wrong? Because IMO that seems like the only sensible approach to religion/spirituality, but I'm not sure if it can even work in reality.
 
I didn't say it can't just be something you imagine. It happens all the time. But at the same time you know when you're NOT imagining it.

What I meant is that it's a perceptible sensation. Like feeling anger, or happiness, or love. Or maybe to put it better, someone who can hear music and writes it down. Hard to imagine before you can hear music, but all the same there are some who can. With practice it gradually becomes as real as any other experience...

It can be what you expected, or not. Usually a combination of both. Truth is what it is and doesn't really cater to our preconceived notions.
 
In other words you have no doubt at all about your capability of knowing when you're just imagining it and when it is genuine? But if you don't allow doubt, how could you ever find out if you have been deluding yourself?
 
I didn't say I never have any doubts. Just there are certain experiences that leave no room for doubt. See, it doesn't have to be either or, or all black or white.

But I think you just want to talk around in circles until I slip up, rather than being interested in the truth.
 
Which truth? ;)

Seriously, I am interested in the question if scepticism can be retained after you had a spiritual experience and vice versa if a spiritual experience can retain it's value if it is met with scepticism. But we don't need to continue this, if you're not interested.
 
Ninae said:
You've either been down that path, or you haven't. When you reach Samadhi in meditation you know that there is such a thing. Prior to that, you might have your doubts. But they can also measure things like gamma waves in advanced yogis.
Click to expand...

It's not necessary to believe in any strange supernatural entities to be able to strive after samadhi/satori/kensho (it's called with different names in Hindu and Buddhist traditions). I sometimes go to a Zen meditation group that's active in my home town, and when that kind of groups arrange longer retreats (usually a week of intensive meditation), the teachers make sure that the students know not to take too seriously any strange mental states that may occur during extended meditation. Those phenomena are called makyo in Japanese Zen buddhism. People can see hallucinated images of all kinds of demons or deities, or feel like they are remembering events from "previous incarnations", or just about anything that can be produced by the imagination of the person in question. These are just products of the sensory deprivation that is associated with sitting facing the wall and meditating for a long time. The brain produces that kind of hallucinations when it's not getting enough real sensory information. It has nothing to do with "enlightenment".
 
I was thinking about the arising of Presence within you.

And I think getting a working third eye has something to do with enlightenment, by the way. I mostly get images of past stuff that is being cleared.

But that's a good example of how negatively people are taught to think and talk about spiritual work. There is no value/reality to anything and no such thing as "enlightenment". It's not very encouraging, is it.
 
Last edited:
tokezu said:
Seriously, I am interested in the question if scepticism can be retained after you had a spiritual experience and vice versa if a spiritual experience can retain it's value if it is met with scepticism. But we don't need to continue this, if you're not interested.
Click to expand...

I believe it is. There is a humility in the in-between space that is its own reward but it takes some getting used to. I think of it like astronauts getting conditioned to function in zero gravity. When neither belief nor disbelief completely shuts a door you are left with more possibilities for interesting thought.
 
This topic is not for everyone, but for those interested, this is the most relevant article on the matter I have encountered:

https://www.energeticsynthesis.com/index.php/archontic-spe

Also, Paul Levys book Dispelling Wetiko as learned about in this thread is particularly relevant. Archons, polytangles and wetiko are all the same thing. I am still digesting this material.

Finally, this is a very relevant technique to shutting down access to this parasite: http://www.atlasevolution.com
 
Are you back from vacationing levels? Nice to see your name again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top