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

thoughts on the 'indigo' phenomena?

P A said:
And you know what the punchline is, for people like you and I wrt PK? When we, the very people on whose behalf he has attempted (unsuccessfully and wrongly) to speak, back him into a rhetorical corner merely by offering our our own personal experiences to the contrary, we are the bullies, the closed-minded ones, and the boring rationalists smoking their tobacco-only pipes in their oak-furnished studies. Not that PK has actually said as much, but, IME, that is most often the lamentable case when phony New Agers make a critical attempt at philosophy of science, etc.
Click to expand...

I was merely saying that labels are useless, in the end the individual decides how to use a label, for instance you guys were labelled ADHD, it can set up some for failure and some for growth, the same for calling someone an indigo child.

I also don't feel backed into a corner, I love science, most of my family have a science background (microbiologist, neurobiologist, geneticist.)

Feel free to retire back to your oak-furnished study filled with many leather-bound books and smoke your tobacco-only pipe (not that it is very rational to smoke tobacco.) =)
 
I was merely saying that labels are useless
Click to expand...

Uh, yup, and we were contending that, both in principle and in fact, they are not. Labels were not invented solely to stratify and debase, you know. Semiotic devices have been used for so many purposes over the course of human history that to compose an exhaustive list would make for a lifetime of effort. I have a hard time believing that someone whose (immediate?) family is so densely populated by physical scientists would be so reluctant to entertain the notion that diagnostic criteria can, more often than not, serve to foster understanding and promote effective treatment of people who would otherwise suffer, sometimes horribly, in the absence of such definite 'labels.'
 
"Small knowledge does not reach to large knowledge, and small years do not reach to large years. How do I know this is so? The dawn-to-dusk fungus does not know the compass of a single month, the one-season cicada cannot know both spring and fall. They have small years. South of the state of Chu there is the Dark Spiritual Responsiveness, which takes five hundred years to be its spring, and five hundred years to be its fall. In high antiquity there was a great chwun tree that took eight thousand years for its spring and eight thousand years for its autumn. These are great years. Lately, Peng Zu has become well known for longevity, and hordes seeks to match him at it, is that not just pitiful?"
 
I'm an individual, we just happen to share similar ideas =)
 
Yes, idea.

The subforum is termed philosophy and spirituality.

It's hard to lessen the ego in modern times.
 
I was under the impression that spirituality as a topic could be discussed in a coherent, straightforward manner much like any other subject.

But perhaps you know something that I don't, Oh Passive-Aggressive Condescending One.
 
It's alright, this is meant to happen, everything is perfect. The beautiful decay =)

The problem describing my views is that it cannot be said explicitly in human language, except in parables, symbolism, allegory - beyond dualisms and seeing the Oneness in life, using your sub-conscious as-well-as your conscious...
 
P A said:
But perhaps you know something that I don't, Oh Passive-Aggressive Condescending One.
Click to expand...

Funny you mention that, considering that you are unwilling to hear the other side of things and have told another forum user that you are ignoring them from now on....
 
:|:|:|:|

you are unwilling to hear the other side of things
Click to expand...

What other side of things? Care to share [in a direct, targeted, coherent, grammatically-correct manner]?

told another forum user that you are ignoring them from now on
Click to expand...

I explicitly stated my reasons for doing so. Twice. And you just keep on spluttering...
 
P A said:
:|:|:|:|



What other side of things? Care to share [in a direct, targeted, coherent, grammatically-correct manner]?



I explicitly stated my reasons for doing so. Twice. And you just keep on spluttering...
Click to expand...

That logic isn't everything to understanding the universe. Have to love the condescending tone in the brackets, nice way to represent me as a fool.

Your reasons being "I don't agree with you".
 
While I agree that PiP uses difficult language, and can be completely irrelevant (or it's just not accessible enough for me), I can see meaning in what they say like 60% of the time still. And I completely agree that logic can't explain it all. Besides, coherency isn't absent just because the words don't speak to you specifically.
This is my favorite subforum, but it seems pretty full of "I only accept science and you better not be poetic or vague" lately.
I thought this was the specific place for abstractness in thought, aside from maybe the Lounge, because none of the other boards' topics are really suitable and are full of kick-em-outers.
 
That logic isn't everything to understanding the universe
Click to expand...

No, I agree, it may not be. But, in this subforum (of which I am moderator), informal logic is an absolutely necessary ingredient of a meaningful, viable discussion. End of story. If you don't like it, move on and peddle your nonsense somewhere else. This is not a matter on which I will compromise. [cf. Rule #3 of the Philosophy and Spirituality Forum Guidelines]

nice way to represent me as a fool
Click to expand...

I think you've got that one sufficiently covered on your own merit.
 
This is my favorite subforum, but it seems pretty full of "I only accept science and you better not be poetic or vague" lately.
Click to expand...

Poeticism, lyricism, and eloquence walk hand in hand. They are, almost without exception, the utter antitheses of the kind of inchoate blabbering that predominates in posts like PiP's or PK's.

If you don't 'accept' science, that is certainly your prerogative. To my knowledge, overt abuse of the superstitious, the true believers, the religious, etc. is being kept at an acceptable minimum around here. If you have a specific complaint, feel free to PM me, and I'll see what I can do. Otherwise, I implore you to quit the griping (and this goes to the other two or three discontents populating this forum - you know who you are).
 
P A said:
No, I agree, it may not be. But, in this subforum (of which I am moderator), informal logic is an absolutely necessary ingredient of a meaningful, viable discussion. End of story.


I think you've got that one sufficiently covered on your own merit.
Click to expand...

Very tyrant-like of you. Informal logic was presented, perhaps it wasn't to your liking; the term is very loose in definition.

So I'm a fool for presenting my own ideas?

I can't understand why you decided to moderate this forum, considering how closed off you are to discussion regarding spiritual matters and the fact that if it doesn't suit your ideals you start reacting the way that you do. :|

It is titled philosophy and spirituality after all.
 
Personally, when I read the posts like that (that actually reach me), I find them more stimulating than a lot of the other posts that are concise. It speaks on multiple levels and people interpret the words in accordance to their experience and perspective. I like it, except when it's nonsense. (; Lol, get it? Ahaha.. But seriously, I think there's a benefit to being abstract that you can't get anywhere else on these forums, except maybe sometimes is the Psychedelics Discussion. You don't gotta change rules to allow that type of conversation, and it's only a select few who take issue with it..

I also can't for the life of me figure out how your posts always end up in the past. I looked at this thread before I commented again, and post #173 wasn't even there when I made my this one..
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top