Page 8 of 14 « First<678910>Last »
Topic Options
#41420 - 08/04/10 05:02 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: XiaoGui17]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
... I'm confused.

I'm not surprised, since you've now backtracked over, rearranged, and respun your arguments & examples to the point where my MEGO fuse has blown. So I will just toast your right to believe in whatever it is that you do believe in concerning evolution, intelligence, dolphins, and parrots.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41426 - 08/04/10 08:03 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Morgan]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1146
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
... I'm confused.

I'm not surprised, since you've now backtracked over, rearranged, and respun your arguments & examples to the point where my MEGO fuse has blown.


I wouldn't call clarification backtracking, but I'm not sure if you're being disingenuous or I've failed to make myself clear.

 Originally Posted By: Morgan
So suck a dick.


Probably the best advice in the entire thread. Turns out, this would've been a much better investment of my time...
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#41428 - 08/04/10 08:43 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: XiaoGui17]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
The main problem in this "debate" is that while some of us can be corrected and change our views should there be a logical reason or supporting evidence to do so, for others it might not be that simple.

As far as I can see it, if all evolution would be a natural process, things become very complicated for the ToS. It is pretty hard to keep such a religion intact should the building blocks turn out to be compromised or should Set not have known what he was talking about back in the day. As such, no matter what argument or evidence presented contra, any believer in the ToS memeplex can’t do else but vehemently deny it and thus distance themselves further and further from the scientific agreements. And such is the case it seems, the more science advanced during the last decades, the more stubbornly people seem to hold on to their old ideas. It is their right of course but this isn't about right any longer as it is about trying to keep alive a memeplex destined to go the way of the dodo.

D.

Top
#41450 - 08/04/10 08:29 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Diavolo]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
As far as I can see it, if all evolution would be a natural process, things become very complicated for the ToS.

Not at all, because at the core of Setian philosophy is the phenomenon of isolate self consciousness per se, not the mechanisms of natural evolution which operate within the Objective Universe.

Evolutionary forces are of interest not as a creator of this metaphysical phenomenon, but rather, incidentally, as a reflection of its presence and effect upon not just the human physical organism but indeed this entire planetary biosphere. Reliance upon our consciousness and extremely-divergent intelligence has changed our physical species (as in medical, diet, physical programs or artificial assists). It has also intruded upon all other species and the natural environment.

Indeed a key issue has nothing to do with the presence or power of the Gift of Set a such, but how humanity has chosen to exercise it. Obviously most are not Setian Initiates. Humanity's removal of most of its natural predators, diseases, and other population-control mechanisms has led to runaway overpopulation, extermination and or enslavement of all other species, and inexorable poisoning of the biosphere. Is any of this the appropriate invocation of the divine powers of the Gift? No. Is it happening nevertheless, because of how noninitiate humanity abuses it? Yes. And so would it be better had the Gift never happened, and our primate predecessors just remained one more pre-"monolithic" type of ape? A case can be made for that, though just a too-late/if-only one, which is a futile exercise. My personal nightmare is that of Morbius in Forbidden Planet, whose own attempt to emulate the Krell unleashed this same evil. It may be that in the last analysis the "messiah" of humanity is not Jesus, Mohammed, or Buddha, but rather:

 Originally Posted By: Donald Thomas, The Marquis de Sade
... From two narrowly avoided death sentences, from twenty-seven years in prisons and lunatic asylums, the Marquis de Sade emerged with his spirit unbroken, and with an appalling alternative philosophy of human conduct which he had written secretly in the long months and years of his confinement. In the new order of things there was to be no God, no morality, no affection, no hope - only the extinction of man in a final erotic and murderous frenzy. Murder, theft, rape, sodomy, and incest were to be the reasonable means to this end.

If all this had been the raving of a lunatic, there would have been no trial in 1956, because the books would have been too absurd to warrant a collected edition or an edition of any other kind. But Sade's interpretation fits with horrific aptness a world without a God and a universe which knows no higher laws than those of nature.

In the eighteenth century, of course, the heroes and heroines of his novels are frustrated in their larger designs. It is a matter of great regret to Juliette that she cannot destroy whole towns by bringing about an eruption of Vesuvius, and she kills a mere 1,500 people by poisoning a town water supply.

The twentieth century was uneasily aware, by 1956, that it had harnessed nuclear fission and bacteriology to provide for its own destruction on a scale undreamed of by Sade's heroes.

It was argued, of course, that his novels were only intended to show what must follow if mankind chose to reject the authority of God. Sade may have rejected it, but his obsession with Providence and blasphemy is a sound enough basis for believing that his greatest mania was religious rather than sexual. Whatever his intention, he was the one major figure of the past two centuries to think the unthinkable, and to record it in stories which have been regarded as unprintable during much of the time since they were written. Voltaire had shown that all was not for the best in the best of all possible worlds; Sade unveiled a universe dominated by evil and destruction, where the only consolation was a brutal, erotic prelude to the unlamented obliteration of the human race.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41452 - 08/04/10 09:41 PM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: MawhrinSkel
Today's primates' ancestors split away from today's humanity's ancestors around 8-12 million years ago (depending on type of primate). The number of primate species and humans that didn't make the grade? MANY. They died off because they didn't keep up with the race, or because they were made extinct by natural enemies.

There are also rumours of another type of homo living alongside us some tens of thousands of years ago, and having similar, if not superior abilities to ours. Why would a superior species die off and we, the inferiors, flourish? The answer is surprisingly simple. We were more economical, and presented a more efficient model for replication and fitness.

Actually we wouldn't know the answer in a case that far back and based on considerable speculation as to such a being's actual constitution.

 Quote:
And that is, once again, my point: Evolution builds on small, incremental steps, from simple to complex. We, along with every other current species, have a similar level of complexity. We have evolved for the same length of time.

No disagreement here.

 Quote:
There are exceptions, of course, but there is nothing to suggest that a divine spark at any one point touched us. There is simply no proof for it.

Well, yes, there is, since we possess an unmatched and even substantially unapproached level of intelligence & consciousness, and no natural/evolutionary forces effect or affect this. To escape-clause that "anything can evolve into anything else over enough time" just begs the question; and you are still left with the vast gulf between humanity and anything else in this regard. The same natural/evolutionary forces that engendered these phenomena in humanity, if you wish to make that speculation, should have been at work in other Earth life-forms as well over the same time-span. It is not just our intelligence/consciousness that is significant, but its species-unqueness as well.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41455 - 08/05/10 12:05 AM Re: the deception of atheism [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Originally Posted By: MAA

Well, yes, there is, since we possess an unmatched and even substantially unapproached level of intelligence & consciousness, and no natural/evolutionary forces effect or affect this.

You know, just repeating the same things over and over doesn't make them true. Not even writing them in an ebook, then quoting yourself from that ebook, would help you to that effect.

Maybe if you stopped doing the rhetorical two-step long enough to offer up a bit of evidence in favour of your claims that a) humans are more conscious than other animals, b)the intelligence gap between humans and other great apes is so vast as to not be explainable by natural selection and c)an intelligent force intervened and somehow(?) caused humans to be special, you might be getting better responses.

As it is, you are coming across as just another nutter with extraordinary claims he can't back up.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#41456 - 08/05/10 04:59 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
You are right of course when you look at consciousness as separate from our biology but the problem with this is that the dualist view is a "dated" view. The mind is the brain –there is evidence enough out there- and since the mind is the brain, it is also subject to evolution. Some apes, bottlenose dolphins and elephants have the capacity for self-awareness. Magpies might also posses it. Again, humans are not unique and the current "complexity" of what their brain is capable of is not, by definition, evidence of divine interference. And we're again to my claim that if the ToS does not deny evolution, it will become very complicated for them.

If the mind is the brain, Set's gift goes down the drain. ;\)

Your interpretation of the 2001 scene is yours of course but I see it as another metaphor, maybe slightly more accurate with what happens in that scene and afterwards.

One can see the monolith, being cast down from the heavens, as the Devil. His gift, as shown in 2001, is not consciousness, or the spark of intelligence, but Will to Power. As a result of this gift being spread amongst our ancestors, we start to fulfill our destiny as conquerors, excelling in all those fine and exquisite techniques for murder and mayhem until we are able to conquer that what is now beyond us; space.

D.

Top
#41458 - 08/05/10 07:11 AM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
As far as I can see it, if all evolution would be a natural process, things become very complicated for the ToS.

Not at all, because at the core of Setian philosophy is the phenomenon of isolate self consciousness per se, not the mechanisms of natural evolution which operate within the Objective Universe.


This is of major importance and this is where the ToS start to get problems. The dualistic view that the subjective universe (psyche or soul or whatever) is somehow distinct and separate from the objective universe (nature if you will). This is of course by todays standards a highly unscientific view but nevertheless the view that probably is most common in modern day western religion.

I’d say that not only does the "soul" depend on the body they are both one and the same. The names we give are there to distinct certain processes within the whole (and indeed this is also the case of man and what is not-man so to speak). There is no core self. It’s like when you peal an onion. You remove layer upon layer of what makes the onion but when you reach the core it is empty. Still it appears to be solid when viewed from the outside. The same is true with stones as well as any other material phenomena. We can reduce the building blocks into nothing - literally nothing in the material sense of the word (it is still energy). And so to with the "soul". The Self or soul is more to be viewed as an ever changing thing that we recognize only as it has happened when we have already seen the path it traveled on.

My view is that all is dependant on each other and the Self is ever changing and never still. And it is closely linked to everything else in the Universe. There is no separation there is only perception from within the system from those creatures that are able to reflect on what happens "outside of them".

Top
#41470 - 08/05/10 01:15 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Diavolo]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
You are right of course when you look at consciousness as separate from our biology but the problem with this is that the dualist view is a "dated" view. The mind is the brain –there is evidence enough out there- and since the mind is the brain, it is also subject to evolution.

The mind is certainly not the brain, unless your definition of "mind" is limited to the brain's processing of stimulus/response and functional information. To that extent it can indeed be compared to an extremely advanced computer, but beyond all this is consciousness of self, which cannot be attributed to any such process [though "conscious" computers such as HAL have been a sci-fi darling].

The degree and absoluteness of the consciousness' reliance upon the physical brain are also fascinating, as in John Lilly's work with sensory deprivation and ESB (electrical stimulation of the brain) experimentation. We know that uninitiated minds rely heavily upon constant external input to maintain coherence; in Setian philosophy we liken this to "training wheels on a bicycle". Initiation consists in part of freeing the mind from this "default"-addiction to stimulus, which also limits it to functionality in the Objective Universe (from/to which are said stimulus/response).

OU science, which because of its self-imposed limitations must remain within and deny beyond the OU, is inapplicable here. "Someone," growls Mason Parrish in Altered States, "has to keep an eye on you two sorcerers!"

Can you choose, through laziness, fear, or inability, to limit your existence to that of OU stimulus/response and to "blot yourself out" at the moment of removal of these training-wheels, e.g. bodily cessation? Yes. Or:

 Originally Posted By: The Sage
O Her-Bak. O Egypt. You are the temple which the Neter of Neters inhabits. Awaken Him ... then let the temple fall crashing.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41472 - 08/05/10 01:34 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
But it is quite clear that a person’s consciousness can be reduced or even become non-existent because of injuries to the brain. If consciousness was isolate from our biology or could be trained to be why would it be so effected as to even “disappear” when a certain part of our body (the brain) gets injured?

I think you touch on this in your "black magic" essay but you do not give any answers.


Edited by TheInsane (08/05/10 01:35 PM)

Top
#41475 - 08/05/10 01:59 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: TheInsane]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 320
Loc: SoCal
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
But it is quite clear that a person’s consciousness can be reduced...


I agree.

I would go so far as to say that what we refer to as "human consciousness" or "the gift of Set," is Conditional.

By "Conditional" I'm trying to say that our "human consciousness" comes into being, or rather we consciously assume we are human or become human under such Conditions where we are exposed to other humans at a critical age and state of mind.

I bring up the many cases of Feral Children as an example of when what physically is "human" [homo sapiens] has been raised by or exposed to animals during a certain age range and state of mind. Such "humans" are not human in mind or consciousness or behaviour. They appear to be very much like the animal kind that nurtured them. The gift of Set seems to be based on Conditions of who raises and Nurtured us. It's a cheap gift based on one man's perception and understanding of Human Consciousness... or lack of perspective and understanding.

Edit:

This goes the other way also. I've seen great apes such as Koko who were raised by humans. Such great apes end up exhibiting the level of human consciousness as that of a deaf human. With Koko she can use sign language, and so on. It seems as though a zoo trainer gave Koko the so called gift of Set.


Edited by Caladrius (08/05/10 02:06 PM)
_________________________
Chloe 352

Top
#41476 - 08/05/10 02:02 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: TheInsane]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
But it is quite clear that a person’s consciousness can be reduced or even become non-existent because of injuries to the brain. If consciousness was isolate from our biology or could be trained to be why would it be so effected as to even “disappear” when a certain part of our body (the brain) gets injured?

No, what is reduced by injury [or other sensory-deprivation] is what might be siplified as the "computer processing functions" of that part of the brain. This also affects both incoming and outgoing communications functions insofar as these are habitually OU functions (speech, writing, other sensory-signalling). None of these have anything to do with the ka or psyche, though an uninitiated one will find itself just as disoriented as Dr. Jessup's. [You get a taste of this whenever you fall asleep, your brain dials down its OU attention to alarm-clock sensitivity, and you go nuts. But you don't go away.]
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41477 - 08/05/10 02:15 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
No, what is reduced by injury [or other sensory-deprivation] is what might be siplified as the "computer processing functions" of that part of the brain. This also affects both incoming and outgoing communications functions insofar as these are habitually OU functions (speech, writing, other sensory-signalling). None of these have anything to do with the ka or psyche, though an uninitiated one will find itself just as disoriented as Dr. Jessup's. [You get a taste of this whenever you fall asleep, your brain dials down its OU attention to alarm-clock sensitivity, and you go nuts. But you don't go away.]


You claim that "isolate conciousness" is the Gift of Set and there are, as far as we know and can measure, cases where a person has lost their conciousness or personality or whatever you may call it due to physical injury. If I have understood the psyche in ToS terms it is that which is the "core you". Does this include a certain personality? And if this is not in any way sensory then what is it - dont you regard thinking as sensory?

What about those people who have lost their previous personality forever due to brain injury? Some have lost it alltogether (and thus often is said to not be alive even if their body functions). Others wake up and have a completely new personality.

Top
#41489 - 08/05/10 09:47 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: TheInsane]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2599
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
If I have understood the psyche in ToS terms it is that which is the "core you". Does this include a certain personality?

Sure: yours. If you happen to be a werewolf, there might be a slight complication here, however.

 Quote:
And if this is not in any way sensory then what is it - dont you regard thinking as sensory?

Ahem, Descartes? ... Well, you can think about all sorts of OU phenomena and how to Lego them, and that creates the casual illusion that you need Lego pieces in order to think. But the capacity and action of thinking itself is prior to how you may apply it, whether Lego-practically or imaginatively/creatively, leading ultimately to the creation of SU universes (what Nietzsche referred to as "horizon building").

So your ka is not a Lego-construct that you have to look at in the mirror to realize yourself. It is the thing that wishes to play Lego in the first place.

I am reminded of the student who, after listening to a lecture on Descartes, became more and more agitated until, at 3AM, he finally phoned the professor up at home and screamed, "I can't stand it - I've GOT to know! DO I EXIST?!" The prof yawned and said, "And who wants to know?"

Look, you can do two things with your ka: You can deny it, suppress it, burn it at the stake, flagellate it, sublimate it, or otherwise try to rid yourself of it like Anton LaVey's tussle with the dreaded Nocturnal Lurker. In that case when your training-wheels time is over, you'll wind up here, in Verse XIV, lines 49-84.

If you discover, unleash, and assume your godhood, your eternal future is this.

Your choice.

 Quote:
What about those people who have lost their previous personality forever due to brain injury? Some have lost it alltogether (and thus often is said to not be alive even if their body functions). Others wake up and have a completely new personality.

You're asking several different questions here, but the thread common to all of them is that one's consciousness of being (the ka) is prior to any constructs it has arranged, memorized, and accustomed itself to in the OU, which include all physical surroundings, im/expressions, and in some cases (such as Alzheimer's) memory. The ka may continue to indwell the body in any number of manifestations, such as an "OU-memoryless" state of instantaneous experience only. Or it may depart the shell, leaving it to metabolize [or be artificially metabolized by other humans]. each situation is unique, as you will also see for yourself when/as/if.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#41492 - 08/05/10 10:58 PM Re: Touching the Monolith [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
I think the word for repeatedly asserting unevidenced and unfounded claims ,ignoring all evidence and logic to the contrary, is preaching.

How long is this guy going to be allowed to preach this hocus pocus nonsense anyway? His celebrity cred must be running thin by now..honestly..

There is no difference between this and the good news of christ.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
Page 8 of 14 « First<678910>Last »


Moderator:  SkaffenAmtiskaw, fakepropht, TV is God, Woland, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.031 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.