We are Lost in Thought

[WTF]

Originally Posted by John Bull

I'll have you know, WTF, that my tongue is off limits to you.

Allright, I'll have to go git my decoder ring then!

[John Bull]

Lauren can fix it for you.

[ClairJordan]

This thread is reminding me of a video I own called What the Bleep are We Here For? It addresses many of these issues, esp. the power of the present mind, quieting the chatter and manifestation. What it means to live in the realm of possbility. Scientists, philosophers and relgious leaders are interveiwed and share their lifes' work and findings. Fascinating, IMO.

There is also an Adobe PDF download 'What the Bleep Study Guide' which I found very intriguing. If anyone is interested I have it on my desktop. PM me w/ your email address and I will attach it for you.

Another thought, and forgive me if it was previously addressed: the biggest problem with (most) religion is it teaches separation. My way is right and your way is wrong, so you must be eliminated or supressed.
Unite and control the masses and send them to war in the name of God/Allah etc. Don't forget to bring home their riches!

[Bebe Le Strange]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

LOL. It is man's arrogance that thinks that science provides explanations.

5,000 years from now they will laugh at our primitive beliefs of our knowledge of science...much like we laugh at the flat earth folks of centuries ago. And 5,000 years after that...the people of that time will be laughing at them.

While man mainpulates religion for his own purposes over the ages...most of the major religions fundamentals have perseviered much longer than scientifc "facts" as discovered by man.

I think as time goes by and science begins to unravel so many of the mysteries that hold people to such beliefs, it will indeed be a time when people look back at history and come to the realization that the religious ideas and dogmatic thinking was as primitive as the thought that the world was flat and everyone would fall off the earth should they venture too far.

[NinaBrooke]

I think Lauren, sorry to say , you missed the point. You really and profoundly misunderstood the articles essence. I think you should read Ken Wilber. You will benefit immensely from it, since you are already interested in the topic to a great deal!
The guy did not state to have all the answers he made a point that religions have one thing in common - which is experience of contemplation. Yet then he states that said experience is INTERPRETED differently according to the core beliefs of the various religions. The point he makes is that said people have ALL the same experience and not that religions are false, he did not state that. The INTERPRETATIONS of said experiences lead to a kind of bigot believe- which BeBe states , and makes religions per se dangerous. Please read more carefully. He is criticising religious bigotry, not the mystical experience - which comes before interpretation. The interpretation sucks.

At the same point you state you are wary of people having all the answers - yet you state at another point that you seem to have all of them ("all men having problems with orgasms... can`t find peace in mind" and "As Clair pointed out Meditation and Yoga do ultimately work to achieve the silence of the mind he speaks of" AND "if you lead a successful career, you'd better be able to focus" (what if i have ADHD and three successful careers, because i use on career to distract me from the other :-).....) -
darling , if science was that easy we would not need universities....:-)....what for have i tortured myself thru university if building a cause-effect-related proposal was THAT easy?) . The point you seem to make - "Religions ultimately focus on ethics, morality and personal fulfillment when they aren't being manipulated" - is very similar to the point he(the author) makes. It only differs that thru manipulations the outcome of ethics, morality and personal fulfilment turns into bigotry! I mean do you know any religions where being gay is accepted? When mormons knock on my door i tell them i am gay and when jehovas whitnesses knock on my door i tell them i am mormon. When someone wants to make me a buddhist, i say i am jewish (Karma is fascist...very much so) which keeps them all from my door! So - talk again about what was it you meant with ethics? Every religion spreads ethics - that is about true, but go to Utah and you will find some certainly different ethic and moral then when you go to israel. That said all religions limit people. Mystical experiences don`t. They unite people.

Darling , you have to learn to read more carefully! I don`t know how you do it at your universities, but in Austria we used to study texts to an excess before posting an opinion or critizising the text. The "manipulation" you are so fond of speaking IS exactly the INTERPRETATION of said "experience" ( a mystical one , contemplative experiences are always mystical) into a religious background (which is one particular religion as he was pointing out with making references to various religions). There are no "religious scientists" that is another shortcoming of your side, sorry at my attempt to lecture you, but i have not studied religion and religious experience to let this go unanswered :-). "God" in a scientific matter is something COMPLETELY different than god in a religious matter. God as a person vs. God as an interpretation of a state of inherent mind. Speaking of which makes me come to the next point.

That means - and i arrogantly state so :-) - bash me please (and WTF agree with me please :-)....) ALL OTHERS (bebe except) MISS THE POINT TOO ;-)..., Science and religions are not natural enemies. Qualitative studies have shown that religious experiences (like any other experience) can be scientifically evaluated. The only thing science can`t do is evaluating "feelings" (like love or hate or whatnot) in terms of quantitative statistics. You can`t measure. But you can compare experiences. Science and PSychology/Religion has made its big fat brother-rimming and sister-fuck with something called "Transpersonal Psychology" or anything transpersonal , which is unifying mystical experiences into "detachment" from religious interpretations. So that stated, the diverse religions itself ARE obsolete, since they are all based on mystical experiences. And bebe was right with the bigotry and disastrous results that had.

All - and i mean ALL of the world religions are patriarchal. it favours men and their consciousness and disfavours women. In the - oh so fashionable buddhism are states of consciousnesses that females cannot reach, they can only assist men to reach that. So , as a woman i would be particularly careful to be a buddhist. That said, many people have anyway no clue about buddhism and just think its cool and different because its another culture. As my religious psychology instructor once said : If you have two pairs of shoes that hurt at different parts - then its always good to switch from one to the other - If you dive into religious mystics of catholicism then you will also find a lot of meditations - almost similar to buddhism. That said the belief in a system of cast - like hinduism - and Karma is not exactly free of flaws either (Karma - is almost fascist in itself -because it states that the jews deserved concentration camps because somehow they had it coming? What up is down and what is down is up? All these new agey philosophies bear almost any form of reality - even westernized Tantra has nothing to do with Tantra anymore? )

Wilber has written about it.

I fill out this post further later - i have to find the guy who actually made the religious experience and science buddies and let them have sex with each other (real kinky believe me...;-)...), his name is Thomas Kuhn and he was widely used by soul searchers and mystics and spiritualists and such (Terence Mc Kenna - "The food of gods", Stanislav Grof ("was the founding father of transpersonal psychology", Ken Wilber "Eros Kosmos Logos" and almost anything in science that is social science aka qualitative research....)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Str...ic_Revolutions - note:the basic approach

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(science) an introduction into the scientific methods of qualitative resaerch (phenomenology only a base of it). My thesis was a qualitative research.

[Bebe Le Strange]

Originally Posted by ninasastri

I think Lauren, sorry to say , you missed the point. You really and profoundly misunderstood the articles essence. I think you should read Ken Wilber. You will benefit immensely from it, since you are already interested in the topic to a great deal!
The guy did not state to have all the answers he made a point that religions have one thing in common - which is experience of contemplation. Yet then he states that said experience is INTERPRETED differently according to the core beliefs of the various religions. The point he makes is that said people have ALL the same experience and not that religions are false, he did not state that. Please read more carefully. He is criticising religious bigotry, not the religious experience. At the same point you state you are wary of people having all the answers - yet you state at another point that you seem to have all of them ("all men having problems with orgasms... can`t find peace in mind" - darling , if science was that easy we would not need universities....:-)....what for have i tortured myself thru university if building a cause-effect-related proposal was THAT easy?) . The point you seem to make - "Religions ultimately focus on ethics, morality and personal fulfillment when they aren't being manipulated" - is very similar to the point he(the author) makes. Darling , you have to learn to read more carefully! I don`t know how you do it at your universities, but in Austria we used to study texts to an excess before posting an opinion or critizising the text. The "manipulation" you are so fond of speaking IS exactly the INTERPRETATION of said "experience" ( a mystical one , contemplative experiences are always mystical) into a religious background (which is one particular religion as he was pointing out with making references to various religions). There are no "religious scientists" that is another shortcoming of your site, sorry to be so lecturing you, but i have not studied religion and religious experience to let this go unanswered :-). "God" in a scientific matter is something COMPLETELY different than god in a religious matter. God as a person vs. God as an interpretation of a state of inherent mind. Speaking of which makes me come to the next point.

That means - and i arrogantly state so :-) - bash me please (and WTF agree with me please :-)....) all other missed the point too, Science and religions are not natural enemies. Qualitative studies have shown that religious experiences (like any other experience) can be scientifically evaluated. The only thing science can`t do is evaluating "feelings" (like love or hate or whatnot) in terms of quantitative statistics. You can`t measure. But you can compare experiences. Science and PSychology/Religion has made its big fat brother hood and sister-fuck with something calle "Transpersonal Psychology" or anything transpersonal , which is unifying mystical experiences into "detachment" from religious interpretations. So that stated, the diverse religions itself ARE obsolete, since they are all based on mystical experiences. Wilber has written about it.

I fill out this post further later - i have to find the guy who actually made the religious experience and science buddies and let them have sex with each other (real kinky believe me...;-)...), his name is Thomas Kuhn and he was widely used by soul searchers and mystics and spiritualists and such (Terence Mc Kenna - "The food of gods", Stanislav Grof ("was the founding father of transpersonal psychology", Ken Wilber "Eros Kosmos Logos" and almost anything in science that is social science aka qualitative research....)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Str...ic_Revolutions - note:the basic approach

Nina your awesome..

[NinaBrooke]

Originally Posted by Bebe Le Strange

Nina your awesome..

Thanks!! you too!! I loved that text actually, very very nicely written!

[NinaBrooke]

Originally Posted by Tiffani Jameson

I do believe that spirituality transcends all religions. These spiritual teachings help us to be better Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, or whatever our belief system. I'm definitely on this path, and I hope we can encourage others to discover the true essence of themselves.

Thanks for the cool topic!

Hi Tiffani,
What you said is the essence of all transpersonal approaches towards contemplative (or spiritual) experiences. I do think - however - that being capable of transforming from past experiences (and using that experiences) to be better able to live in the "here and now" and to not make the same mistakes over and over again is better than just living in the "here and now". I heard one religious instructor (a highly spiritual person) tell me that there is a likelihood that someone who is obsessed with things happened in the past that prevent him from fully indulging in the "here and now" needs that "attachment" or "obsession" to interprete it in so many many many different forms (every day you talk about it it tends to get different meanings) that you detach yourself with the power of the here and now. I myself had such attachments that made me unable to live in the here and now and overanalyzing them, focusing on them made me - at one point really overcome said past and become anew like the Phoenix out of the fire flame.

I have known people that wipe off experiences too easy and are throwing themselves into the same mistakes over and over again, opening up past wounds again and again. I think there are no real ways on what approach is better - to make an experience again and again , or too overindulge in the past.

But i agree with you, that - generally speaking - we have to live in the here and now to be able to overcome a past with reprinting memories of different experiences :-) Some do so by reprinting one experience with different meanings and explorations til they actually get overindulged and tired of it - and it falls of like the crust of a healed wound :-)

[NinaBrooke]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

LOL. It is man's arrogance that thinks that science provides explanations.

and i always thought religions were dogmatic (in providing explanations) ? science - as far as i am concerned offers suggestions or tendencies or patterns of cultural generalizations within certain standards of people?

[Tiffani Jameson]

Originally Posted by ninasastri

Hi Tiffani,
What you said is the essence of all transpersonal approaches towards contemplative (or spiritual) experiences. I do think - however - that being capable of transforming from past experiences (and using that experiences) to be better able to live in the "here and now" and to not make the same mistakes over and over again is better than just living in the "here and now". I heard one religious instructor (a highly spiritual person) tell me that there is a likelihood that someone who is obsessed with things happened in the past that prevent him from fully indulging in the "here and now" needs that "attachment" or "obsession" to interprete it in so many many many different forms (every day you talk about it it tends to get different meanings) that you detach yourself with the power of the here and now. I myself had such attachments that made me unable to live in the here and now and overanalyzing them, focusing on them made me - at one point really overcome said past and become anew like the Phoenix out of the fire flame.

I have known people that wipe off experiences too easy and are throwing themselves into the same mistakes over and over again, opening up past wounds again and again. I think there are no real ways on what approach is better - to make an experience again and again , or too overindulge in the past.

But i agree with you, that - generally speaking - we have to live in the here and now to be able to overcome a past with reprinting memories of different experiences :-) Some do so by reprinting one experience with different meanings and explorations til they actually get overindulged and tired of it - and it falls of like the crust of a healed wound :-)

Hello, darling!

Most people get that one-dimensional meaning when you speak of living in the now. I've had friends that have read different books and they all asked the same question: 'Am I just supposed to sit here? In the now?' It doesn't mean forget where you're from or don't learn from your past, just don't BE the past. It's what we do with that past that affects the here and now. We can say 'men hurt me' and be bitter and dateless but 'in the here and now' avoiding relationships, or we can learn from that past, and-as you've said-emerge a better person because of it, applying the lessons of the past in the here and now. I do also believe that life requires thought. Just being 'present' without it is just unacceptable.

And worrying about the future is even worse. Living in the now doesn't mean you forget about the goals. You just don't let the mind frame of that goal overpower what you have to do to accomplish it. Always make sure your now is moving one step toward the future you want it to be.

As far as religion is concerned, I agree with Lauren on this one. When the Lovely Miss Bebe mentioned that religions have done harm to the masses, I agree as well. But Miss Bebe, I implore you to think about what the foundations of all religion were for: to bring people closer to God, or enlightenment, or oneness. To truly help people. But what we have today is a mix of human greed in a spiritual endeavor. Religion was never meant to be included in or intertwined with governments and was meant for people to choose freely.

But a truth is a truth, and good is good in any religion, and as Lauren stated it is meant to focus on the fulfillment of a good life. And I have faith, the faith that there is a bigger power than ourselves at work here. The fact that we have the wherewithal to comprehend the world around us and actually give it the name science is proof of that. We could have been cockroaches. If we haven't been in a past life (hehe).

I believe in that higher power, I believe we are all connected to it, and I seek to strengthen my connection.

[NinaBrooke]

Originally Posted by Tiffani Jameson

Hello, darling!

Most people get that one-dimensional meaning when you speak of living in the now. I've had friends that have read different books and they all asked the same question: 'Am I just supposed to sit here? In the now?' It doesn't mean forget where you're from or don't learn from your past, just don't BE the past. It's what we do with that past that affects the here and now. We can say 'men hurt me' and be bitter and dateless but 'in the here and now' avoiding relationships, or we can learn from that past, and-as you've said-emerge a better person because of it, applying the lessons of the past in the here and now. I do also believe that life requires thought. Just being 'present' without it is just unacceptable.

And worrying about the future is even worse. Living in the now doesn't mean you forget about the goals. You just don't let the mind frame of that goal overpower what you have to do to accomplish it. Always make sure your now is moving one step toward the future you want it to be.

As far as religion is concerned, I agree with Lauren on this one. When the Lovely Miss Bebe mentioned that religions have done harm to the masses, I agree as well. But Miss Bebe, I implore you to think about what the foundations of all religion were for: to bring people closer to God, or enlightenment, or oneness. To truly help people. But what we have today is a mix of human greed in a spiritual endeavor. Religion was never meant to be included in or intertwined with governments and was meant for people to choose freely.

But a truth is a truth, and good is good in any religion, and as Lauren stated it is meant to focus on the fulfillment of a good life. And I have faith, the faith that there is a bigger power than ourselves at work here. The fact that we have the wherewithal to comprehend the world around us and actually give it the name science is proof of that. We could have been cockroaches. If we haven't been in a past life (hehe).

I believe in that higher power, I believe we are all connected to it, and I seek to strengthen my connection.

Hi Darling :-)
I agree with you on the one-dimensional approach living in the "here and now" that gets triggered in some people`s mind (sometimes also in mine i have to admit as a person fond of analytical research and qualitative research..;-)....

I disagree with you in the same way i disagree with Lauren on the latter (the last topic) that all religions help to seek fulfilment. This might be true as i pointed out, but every religion has core values which can be much to the detriment of some person fulfilling. I don`t want to repeat myself on the gay and jewish issues with some religious values or on the issues of feminism or emanzipation (yes also pagan religions DO indeed have feminist issues...). So a religion helps to divide people also into classes and norms. Most of all these norms are to a detriment of those who are not part of that religions (the catholics and their "missionary positions" (haha) have destroyed oh so much - remember the inkas and aztecs? because they wanted to force their belief on everyone) Even nowadays we are under the handle of too much catholicism and it has an influence in what we say or do? Heteronormativity comes with it.

A religious insitution is also there to have power to say which kind of fulfillment is ok and which is not (being gay in mormonism ?? an absolute NO NO? i already had a disagreement with Lauren on hedonism and religions ? some endorse it as a part to reach higher states of consciousness some despise it as a lack of personal capabilities to restrain one-self)

So its a two sided sword to say all religions seek fulfilment and help people. No religion helps gays. Only some religions endorse polygamy (the ones that do are also the ones who endorse patriarchy - women are male subservients. The pagan religions divide men and women`s psyches into different entities , which is completely agains every form of personal growth other than being subservient of the split between the sexes and making therefor feminism an issue) - Read Max Weber on political influences religions have. Cavinism etc.

What happened in transpersonal areas of thought is that they found that every religion contains mystical experiences which are the same ones in all religions (note : has nothing to do with fulfilment, morals , ethics etc. ...) Based on these experiences happens an interpretation , which leads to the catastrophic elements of religions deciding which entities of thought-streams are fulfilling or not.

What you pointed out, is the same i pointed out with the religious contemplations as a base for mystical religions. It has nothing to do with religions if we believe in some higher power. At all.
So if you state that all religions are there to fulfillment. Its wrong. Sorry to say :-). I do think y ou have to make a distinction between contemplative experiences and religions as religious institutions. Religions ARE already far away from contemplative matters. If that weren?t the case the world would be a more peaceful place. And mormons would not make the proposition 8 in California? And catholics would not have destroyed africa with their influence (africa was matrilinear culture)..

So what i miss within your writings is the same i miss in Laurens sayings: To make said distinction between contemplative experiences and religions. You cannot throw all together into one box. Its confusing .
I think the article pointed that out as well. Its a beautiful article that reminds us to come back to the base of all religions fundaments, which are contemplative experience who trigger thought.

If we do so - we can transcend all religions and become better empathic persons. And peace will come in this world . Transpersonal Psychology (Sociology) does exactly that. Spo stating that science and religion are enemies is only partially true. That said its true when it comes to the fundaments of religions - the DOGMA - not when it comes to mystical experiences. There we are united. But that has nothing - and i mean absolutely nothing to do with morals, ethics, personal fulfillment , hedonism (or not) or anything anything remotely like that.

I agree with your believe in a higher (transpersonal that is) power. I seek to strenghten it too. And i assume you mean the power within all experiences and the love we share . ANd that is free from all religions.Because contemplative experiences ARE per se free from JUDGEMENT. A religion NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER is. NO matter how you twist and turn it. Do you know Terence McKenna`s "The food of gods"? He writes about entheogens.

Merci,
Sina

[Bebe Le Strange]

Originally Posted by Tiffani Jameson

When the Lovely Miss Bebe mentioned that religions have done harm to the masses, I agree as well. But Miss Bebe, I implore you to think about what the foundations of all religion were for: to bring people closer to God, or enlightenment, or oneness. To truly help people. But what we have today is a mix of human greed in a spiritual endeavor. Religion was never meant to be included in or intertwined with governments and was meant for people to choose freely.



I believe in that higher power, I believe we are all connected to it, and I seek to strengthen my connection.

Tiffani I don't believe that you have to have religion to come to any enlightenment, nor feel some sense of oneness. Religion and its claim to bring someone closer to some God is in fact a fallacy, almost delusional thinking that there is some deity in the sky helping you along. Religion and politics and governments running the people based on religion has and always has been since before the so called birth of "christ". It is entrenched in history. As I said before, it is a way to control the masses and to bring people to power who use that influence to keep that control. Not only that but people of so called "faith" or "spiritual-ness" often lose the critical thinking and rationality that is needed to look at real facts.

Quote: "One of the greatest challenges facing civilization in the twenty-first century is for human beings to learn to speak about their deepest personal concerns--about ethics, spiritual experience, and the inevitability of human suffering--in ways that are not flagrantly irrational. We desperately need a public discourse that encourages critical thinking and intellectual honesty. Nothing stands in the way of this project more that the respect we accord religious faith."

[Naomi4u]

Ooh... don't get me started on religion!

I agree with the OP's last post!

[NinaBrooke]

Originally Posted by Bebe Le Strange

Tiffani I don't believe that you have to have religion to come to any enlightenment, nor feel some sense of oneness. Religion and its claim to bring someone closer to some God is in fact a fallacy, almost delusional thinking that there is some deity in the sky helping you along. Religion and politics and governments running the people based on religion has and always has been since before the so called birth of "christ". It is entrenched in history. As I said before, it is a way to control the masses and to bring people to power who use that influence to keep that control. Not only that but people of so called "faith" or "spiritual-ness" often lose the critical thinking and rationality that is needed to look at real facts.

Quote: "One of the greatest challenges facing civilization in the twenty-first century is for human beings to learn to speak about their deepest personal concerns--about ethics, spiritual experience, and the inevitability of human suffering--in ways that are not flagrantly irrational. We desperately need a public discourse that encourages critical thinking and intellectual honesty. Nothing stands in the way of this project more that the respect we accord religious faith."

I don`t think Tiffanni means that there is some deity in the sky to help you. Thats fundamentalist religious thinking. I do believe - and i think even Lauren and Tiffani mean this when they state their beliefs (correct me if i speak of you and misinterprete) that there is a difference between believing in a personificated god (that differs from religion to religion - some are not monotheistic too so more gods or godesses) versus believing in "GOD" as a state of mind or state of contemplation.

The experience ot entheogen experiences is something different than believing in a "father -god" . I think and i know ( i have studied various topics and researches on that) that all religions are funded on experiences of contemplation and mysticism and then have built religions around it. Why is taht? because the human language is not made for talking about higher states of consciousness so they had to rely on things that are known, words that are known. Which leads us to the "Tower to Babel" - the confusion of fundamentalism with comtemplation. I do believe what you say or what the article portrays is right,

but Bebe, to criticise you (even if you think i am awesome which caters to my latent or very obvious narcissism of course ) - you make the mistake of believing that no religious experience or religious entity does exist by stating that you don`t believe in religions. But i do not believe in religions either (i assume no one that really is an intellectual can do so - since dogmatic beliefs are unquestionable per se) and i agree with you on the said negative effects of such believes, you make the mistake to deny all experiences of deep contemplations and mystical (religious mysticism is different from religions and religious beliefs) states of mind.

Love is a mystical experience. An orgams is. A boregasm is. If you put up your hands in the air for two hours - given the point you did not faint til then - leads you to a mystic experience. Aka the different forms of meditations are there to lead you to mystical experiences (and christianity has said meditations too - we do not need to escape to the oh so fashionable buddhism for that) .

What i agree with you is that religions are there to lead people to a more fulfilled life. No they don`t. That is dogma. Religious ethics are always wrong per se. Because they exclude people and other-thinkers. The base contemplation of states of higher consciousness (aka magic mushrooms aka some rituals of consumptions of said things or some non-drug induced states of consciousness are there to connect you with GOD as a state of mind - an entheogenetic entity. You can also call it DEVIL , its just a matter of names)
is something completely different than believing in a personification of god.

If someone is interested in why religions and consciousness evolved in the first place read that book: Julian Jaynes - The origin of consciousness -
http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Conscio...6142490&sr=1-1

a little review:
"His theory, in simplest terms, is that until about 3000 years ago, all of humankind basically heard voices. The voices were actually coming from the other side of the brain, but because the two hemispheres were not in communication the way they are now for most of us, the voices seemed to be coming from outside. The seemed, in fact, to be coming from God or the gods"

Nina

[Bebe Le Strange]

Nina, I definitely believe that unlike religion, mysticism is a natural proclivity of the human mind, and you need not believe anything on insufficient evidence to actualize it. Mysticism is a sort of "thinking" via experience or non tangible experience, however,my opinion is that spirituality and mysticism is somewhat pretentious of this so called "higher" rationality riddled with the same fallacies and claims of being "empirical" and "scientific" or being testable by "experience".

However, if it is a way of thinking that brings you to some rational (measurable) conclusions, and is a way to "think out" ideas and thoughts that is deemed "a sort of higher state of mind" then so be it.

In other words this "new age spiritualism/mysticism" is more cognitive and conceptual thinking.

Am I making much sense here..? Or is this all just babble? =)

Edit, Edit: LOL re-reading what you posted, I think we are saying the same thing?

Edit: By the way, I absolutely love debating with you all! It's refreshing.