P&S Alternative Theories thread v. orange tang

[phosphene_glow]

i think the closest thing to alien intelligence in this world is mescaline cacti

 

[rickolasnice]

Ninae.. you seemed to ignore the rest of that post of mine..

I know that enlightened can mean spiritually (whatever the fuck that actually means).. but I have not seen one post from you doing this.. Instead you post whacky shit that, for the most part, has nothing to do with spirituality or enlightenment.

Again.. Please link me to a post of yours that is promoting enlightenment.

I'd also like an example of being enlightened spiritually.. (not necessarily from you)

 

[Ninae]

You admit you don't even know what it is, but still you're sure I've given no examples of it, that's scientific.

Anyway, you're no intellectual, or someone who values ideas for their own sake or look deeply into them. It's all about how it emotionally effects you and your ego, or eventual loyalties/hostilities to others, I have never seen any other motivation for posting from you. The actual value or truth of an idea seems irrelevant.

That's not intellectualism, and especially shows you haven't been individualised or can function individually on most levels, so I can't see any way of conveying much of meaning to you that isn't part of the mass-mind that you're scared or unable to leave. You seem to be proud of your ignorance and inability to think for yourself, so I give up. Fine by me.

 

[rickolasnice]

I know what it's supposed to be.. the thing is.. I'd consider it more enlightening to point out the many flaws, errors, misconceptions and lies that these "ideas" are normally based on.

My motivation for posting as I do is helping others to become enlightened to the bullshit that this forum is swimming in.

You're talking complete crap in your last paragraph.

So.. where are these enlightening posts you have been posting? Here's one of mine:

Prime example of what me and others are talking about in the "Are we due for the landings" thread.

This kind of thinking is harmful to humanity. It doesn't work. Leading people to think it does is potentially stopping them from receiving actual treatment.

 

[sekio]

But how am I supposed to "run experiments" on things like time travel or civilisations within the Earth?

There is no such thing possible.

Then why waste your time musing about it?

Anyway, you're no intellectual, or someone who values ideas for their own sake or look deeply into them.

How are you supposed to look deeply into an issue when you can't observe it ever happening?

 

[Vurtual]

I agree with a lot/most of your viewpoints (ricko and psyduck), but i just don't like the idea of certain people/ideas being told they're not allowed here or something. If you don't like the ideas, argue against them (as much as you can be bothered) - it's for everyone else to do the same (or not), and it can't be decided for me that some ideas that people honestly (if maybe delusionally in some people's view) hold are dangerous to humanity and should be removed. I just don't like where that logic leads. I think lots of ideas are dangerous to humanity (like too much reductionism), but i'm maybe/probably wrong (possibly about everything (even this)) - i'll say why i think ideas are wrong, but anymore than that starts being dodgy to me.

It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice and people with ideas you dislike are more likely to hear you and temper or modify their ideas if you are (that doesn't mean not saying you think the ideas are batty, but you can do it nicely i think)

 

[ebola?]

A general reminder for discussants:

open criticism of ideas is great, indeed perhaps the most important necessary condition for good discussion here. However, meta-level discussion about the overall quality of others' posts, or in particular the value of a particular poster, tend to be counterproductive and often inflammatory. If we try to keep on-topic in a narrow sense, people are probably going to have a more pleasant and substantively fruitful time.

ebola

 

[Ninae]

Then why waste your time musing about it?

Because this is the Philosophy (musing) board Sekio!

Why don't you save those kind of arguments for the Science board?

Or what's even the point of having a board devoted to philosophy and spirituality?

I realise not everyone here are Spiritualists and more like Sceptics or Atheists, but that's fine by me, and I don't go around telling them how wrong they are to believe that way.

Everyone are given the freedom to live without God if the choose, that is a divine law, but so is the freedom to explore the spiritual realms (even if you can only do it philosophically at first). Even Science starts out that way at first. Some will only believe in something after it has been proven but there also needs to be some to do the work prior to that.

 

[Ninae]

A general reminder for discussants:

open criticism of ideas is great, indeed perhaps the most important necessary condition for good discussion here. However, meta-level discussion about the overall quality of others' posts, or in particular the value of a particular poster, tend to be counterproductive and often inflammatory. If we try to keep on-topic in a narrow sense, people are probably going to have a more pleasant and substantively fruitful time.

ebola

Indeed. But I think I'm generally very respectful considering how disrespectfully I'm spoken to.

I don't really get this board much anymore, anyway. It just seems to be full of anti-philosophers and anti-spiritualists these days. Where is Foreigner?

 

[mindseye888]

Due for landings? All things aside its possible that if other beings are out there than landings could happen at anytime, irrelevant of technology and whatever else. The more important question is, are we ready for landings?
I think it comes down to the intention of the visitors. If they come here to learn and help or just observe, then yes we are ready.
If they arrive with intentions of stealing resources, enslaving people or just killing civilizations, then no we are very far from ready for landings.
I think that sums it up.

 

[Ninae]

II'd consider it more enlightening to point out the many flaws, errors, misconceptions and lies that these "ideas" are normally based on.

That's DESTRUCTIVE rather than CONSTRUCTIVE and not considered a more enlightened approach to things. It's not offering anything, just tearing what others are trying to give down. If everyone had that attitude we'd have nothing. Maybe you could think of something to share yourself?

My motivation for posting as I do is helping others to become enlightened to the bullshit that this forum is swimming in.

How would you know the differerence?

So.. where are these enlightening posts you have been posting?

Nothing I say is obviously of any value to you, so I'd say nothing. But there are others who might have found some value in things I've directed their attention to, like Peter Deunov, personal experiences with Jesus, different states of consciousness, etc.

 

[Ninae]

Due for landings? All things aside its possible that if other beings are out there than landings could happen at anytime, irrelevant of technology and whatever else. The more important question is, are we ready for landings?
I think it comes down to the intention of the visitors. If they come here to learn and help or just observe, then yes we are ready.
If they arrive with intentions of stealing resources, enslaving people or just killing civilizations, then no we are very far from ready for landings.
I think that sums it up.

It's not such an urgent issue anymore, anyway, as it seems the outcome was the landings have been delayed. I never expected anything else anyway, really, as that's what has always happened.

The only thing I've been able to make out is that we're supposed to have managed to "jump" to a more spiritual or positive timeline (like when we managed to avoid the end-of-the-world timeline) and it has been decided our ascencion will happen more naturally and gradually and not in such a dramatic way, as it's not needed any more, or we are considered more self-sufficient now.

And if even I can tolerate rickolasnice's ramblings without going for the jugular, there might be something to it.

 

[rickolasnice]

That's DESTRUCTIVE rather than CONSTRUCTIVE and not considered a more enlightened approach to things. It's not offering anything, just tearing what others are trying to give down. If everyone had that attitude we'd have nothing. Maybe you could think of something to share yourself?

Such as my The New Testament - What I Now Know thread?

Or is that destructive? If your idea of constructive is going along with whatever anyone says and merely adding extra shite to them then ok.. For the most part.. I am not constructive. However; I see things differently than you do. If there is an idea, or belief system in which i feel is wrong, harming or down right stupid i feel it is more constructive to be the "voice of reason" and argue against what is being proposed than it is to either sit back and watch or jump on the band wagon and go along for the ride.

How would you know the differerence?

Between?

Nothing I say is obviously of any value to you, so I'd say nothing. But there are others who might have found some value in things I've directed their attention to, like Peter Deunov, personal experiences with Jesus, different states of consciousness, etc.

Now come on.. If you can't find a post to help your point then just admit it :/

 

[ebola?]

Because this is the Philosophy (musing) board Sekio!

I think of philosophy as something quite a bit more specific than musing, something dependent crucially on critical thought.

I don't go around telling them how wrong they are to believe that way.

Perhaps you misunderstood my earlier post. A key portion of discussion here rests on open debate over various views, so this activity is actually welcomed and even encouraged. We want people to tell each other how wrong they are, but more importantly why. This is pretty different from saying, "You suck," or, "Your posts suck."

full of anti-philosophers

Beyond taking an explicit position (eg, "Philosophy is useless!"), what is it to be an anti-philosopher?

That's DESTRUCTIVE rather than CONSTRUCTIVE and not considered a more enlightened approach to things. It's not offering anything, just tearing what others are trying to give down.

Not really. Critical activity's 'destruction' actually clears ground for the formation of newer, better ideas.

ebola

 

[Just A Guy]

The limits of my language are the limits of my world and vice versa?

Yes and no. Fluoresca diminni nacho. Sounds like a tasty Italian nacho or something; but it means something so expansive that it beggars the existential question.

 

[Bagseed]

I think of philosophy as something quite a bit more specific than musing, something dependent crucially on critical thought.

this. esotericism has shit to do with philosophy in my opinion. to be honest, all these threads recently undermine the quality of this subforum.

 

[Ninae]

Moments of spiritual enlightenment have nothing to do with critical thought, though. It's more like brief, inexplicable moments of inspiration. From my perspective this is more valuable.

Anyone can engage in critical thought at any time. A lot of spiritual growth has to do with learning to disengage critical thought. But you can still get ideas of higher intelligence or value. They just arrive more as flashes of insight.

I know there are many creative or more inspiration-driven people who feel the same and don't think you can really say one is better than another. It's just a different process that leads to different results. Philosophy can work in both ways, anyway, but I've found the ones with the highest ideas tend to work more through individual inspiration than logical thought.

By that I mean someone like Peter Deunov who just seems to communicate spiritual truths from an internal source - he even says "God doesn't think - he already knows everything so there is no need to think".

I think he means when you're really enlightened that need just disappears as you can receive knowledge in other ways, or more directly from God, and this can be more reliable than flawed human reasoning.

 

[Bagseed]

well I think, "enlightenment" is just a term coined by humans, similar to "god". very vague and without any real substance. I personally believe in the things I see and percieve, and I don't really have the need to believe in anything behind that (anymore). That's not to say, that I am entirely sure that there is nothing else, but if it is, it way too incomprehensible to really matter in my daily life. I have enough trouble coming to terms with actual reality, to be bothered thinking about stuff which I cannot even wrap my mind around.

In my opinion, thnking too much about "god", "the truth", "what is beyond" is just a way of escapism from the things we can actually feel.

I see myself as a spiritual person, but I don't have a need for "god", "enlightenment", and certainly not for esoteric crap.

 

[ebola?]

Moments of spiritual enlightenment have nothing to do with critical thought, though.

It can though. No experience presents itself purely; each demands one attempt to answer the question, what does this mean? In this way, as one engages past experiences, critical thought has a place in spiritual matters.

ebola

 

[Noodle]

"WE" aren't due. You are babe.