Do you guys actually believe this stuff?

[Account1]

Maybe Ra's story is a cartoon picture of the way things really are. All mythologies are. And so are all scientific models.

You equated cartoon pictures of reality with *all* scientific models. To say "scientific theories were made up, so if I make something up that deserves to be treated with the same respect" is ridiculous, and it is essentially what you did.

---

If I don't hold a consensus perspective, why would I use consensus defintions?

To have some decency and reach a shared understanding? That's the kind of the reason language exists...

I think that mainstream thought systems are poor models, resulting in unnecessary equivocation and vagueness, especially where non-physical description is concerned.

People who don't like reality often just do their best to create their own little one. You are assuming the existence of "non physical" things, what justification for this is there? To clarify I don't mean thoughts I mean stuff like astral bodies, and thought forms attaching to auras.

[Unbound]

Isn't geometry a "non-physical" element of nature? For example, the molecule of chlorophyll only photosynthesizes when the atoms are arranged in a particular geometric pattern. What is the physical analog of the information/patterns which arises as geometry, where does that information begin?

[JustLikeYou]

Different models adhere more or less strictly to the standards of truth. It would be nice if all models were as strict as the physical sciences, but they aren't. This does not render them untrue. Perhaps it renders them not yet true or potentially true. Theoreticians don't get to begin with a robust set of data that supports the infant theory. They have but a few data points and some interesting ideas.

You appear to assume that because there is no science about subject x, there can be no science. Or else that the science must be born adult and fully armored like Athena.

To say "scientific theories were made up, so if I make something up that deserves to be treated with the same respect" is what I heard, as that is essentially what you did.

I did not say this, nor do I intend to assert it. I'm not the fuzz-head you think I am. Rather, the things that a theoretician "makes up" need to be nurtured before they can be criticized, just like a child. The truly revolutionary theories (like Kant and Newton) need years of solitude before they can be safely revealed to the world without being laughed out of the room. But since we're talking about an entire science, even more nurturing is necessary. I'm not going to put myself with Kant and Newton, but they are definitely my role models.

[Account1]

No, it's a mental model for processing and organizing information. Like I said I'm not talking thoughts.

I'm talking about the supposed non physical things suggested in the Ra Material which do not have physical correlates unlike mental structures or emotions.

[JustLikeYou]

To have some decency and reach a shared understanding?

I have provided definitions. Is this not enough?

To clarify I don't mean thoughts I mean stuff like astral bodies, and thought forms attaching to auras.

You seem to agree that there is justification for the existence of thoughts as metaphysical entities. That's a shoe in the door. That opens an entire world of experience that needs to be catalogued. I've already said that emotions are poorly understood and that if you pay attention to these, you will find the metaphysical data you need to begin distinguishing the substance in this metaphysical world of experience. As you do so, certain patterns of interaction emerge and it becomes necessary to use names like "astral body" or refer to the concept of an attaching thought form. I don't like this vague metaphysical vocabulary any more than you do, but right now it is what we have.

---

Isn't geometry a "non-physical" element of nature?

Yes. All patterns are non-physical, whether they are thoughts that interpret patterns or natural laws that enforce them.

[Account1]

You appear to assume that because there is no science about subject x, there can be no science. Or else that the science must be born adult and fully armored like Athena.

Believe me I don't. I'm actually incredibly open minded in comparison to my peers. But what I'm not sure you understand, which is surprising since you look up to Newton, is that science is inherently empirical and that we address what we can be repeatedly observed under the same conditions. The claims in this material are unobservable (unless you want every paranoid schizophrenic's anecdotal evidence constituting as a foundation for a robust model of reality), thus have no place in a scientific framework. Trying to pass off personal made up theories as being just as worthy as verified, documented, peer reviewed investigations is worthy of scorn, even if the theory were 100% true. You see, even if the claims were true (miraculously?) I personally cannot assume them to be honestly because there is no proof no reason outside of personal inclination, I may as well believe that reason I couldn't find my toothbrush this morning was because I was under psychic attack from an Orion crusader trying to infringe on my free will.

I have provided definitions. Is this not enough?

for now.

I did not say this, nor do I intend to assert it. I'm not the fuzz-head you think I am.

Once you believe in this stuff it's less likely you're gonna be investigating the nature of reality without wanting to prove something in particular, which is a dishonest approach.
I don't think you're a fuzz head you just remind me of all the intelligent but over confident people I met who adopted beliefs that would be unprovable allowing them to construct their own explanation that could never be falsified, allowing them to always be right (and never proved wrong) in their own mind. I don't wish to offend you've just sparked some memories.

The truly revolutionary theories (like Kant and Newton) needed years of solitude before they can be safely revealed to the world without being laughed out of the room.

The circumstances are very, very different these days regarding the academic institutions. For what it's worth my role models are Bacon and Spinoza.

Edit: bad grammar and changed a sentence as I realise it was bit misleading and possibly offensive.

[Unbound]

No, it's a mental model for processing and organizing information. Like I said I'm not talking thoughts.

I'm talking about the supposed non physical things suggested in the Ra Material which do not have physical correlates unlike mental structures or emotions.

Well astral bodies are generally considered to be the same as the body we use/experience in dreams. As for thought-forms, obviously these do not fit anywhere in to current scientific understanding as thoughts are perceived to be objects of the thinker rather than things in themselves as the mind is often considered to be an individual affair (although collective unconscious concepts would perhaps suggest thoughts are communal, or at least their gestalt imprints are). Although I've always wonder that if we are all part of a big collective unconscious, then how would you characterize that single mind?

[zvonimir]

Isn't geometry a "non-physical" element of nature? For example, the molecule of chlorophyll only photosynthesizes when the atoms are arranged in a particular geometric pattern. What is the physical analog of the information/patterns which arises as geometry, where does that information begin?

your word echoes through my mind like sound from a crystal chalice

We can also ask ourselves : Why does a leaf on tree turns itself towards the Sun? and yet we acknowledge it as true without knowing what is it that moves it.

i know the answer to this question, but i cant measure it or spy on it with microscope and earthly tools,does this non provable fact denies itself?

i am greatefull for Account 1-s posts and when this debate ends i would like to hear some observations if it is possible on George Ivanovich Gurdjieff ,what ever you can share

be well Account 1 I look forward to your thoughts whether I agree or disagree

[Jeremy]

I'm honestly surprised this discussion has gone on for as long as it has. Virulent defense and incessant personal displays of beliefs will produce no acceptable outcome for the one that questions this material thus such entertainment of this supposed curiosity accomplishes nothing in the long run.

It's because a lot of you don't seem to understand that you can't just pick and choose what's true and have it be true simply because you chose it.

The western empirical tradition that resulted in modern science is establishing truths, actual accurate observations and explanations of reality, it's a gradual process of discovery. Whereas this book offers a completely different view of the world not based on any science (well apart from Larson who is not respected in the scientific community) with a whole bunch of unprovable stuff and you just take that all on faith? I mean you may as well believe that this post will align your energy centers, there's no reason to believe it but people are proving they don't need reasons other than making you feel good. JLY was looking really promising but after a few posts it all broke down into "I can believe what I want and that includes making stuff up and being inconsistent" no offense intended but he did literally make stuff up (ad hoc explanations allowed by a cosmic philosophy that does not discriminate fact from fiction, he had the honesty to admit it though and did say that the theory would be consistent with what's displayed in the Ra Material, though doesn't stop it being made up) and was inconsistent (regarding Larson in relation to the Ra Material).

I'm surprised too though, apart from the individuals that just flared up and went "ah you're here to attack us like a zealot cos you don't see any reason to believe that my cherished views are true" I've found most of you to be rather pleasant and agreeable.

---

And to be honest, the longer I spend here the more convinced I become that this Material is bunk. Not completely convinced yet but I'm getting there. Especially as all the most reasonable folk here aren't completely convinced either.

Again, you're trying to use a scientific approach to understand something that cannot be proven which is where you will run into an impenetrable wall every time. If it's not standing up to your internal BS meter, then the material simply isn't for you at this time. I'm not saying you're not ready for it or claim that you aren't good enough like some egocentric new ager either. Going by their own words, you cannot convince those who have not come to a point in their lives where such material is pertinent.

As parsons mentioned some pages back, I'm wondering if the reason why so many have agreed to humor you on this endeavor is because they see so much of themselves in you regarding your unwavering urge to pick this material apart because it's sounds too crazy to be true. When I first found this material, I too was this way. I kept reading thinking "there is no freakin way this can be true!" Yet I kept reading. The more I kept reading, the more it actually made sense. I can't tell you why but something just clicked.

I too came from a very logical and scientific approach to life. If something didn't pass the scientific method, it was false, no ifs, ands, or buts. If it wasn't quantifiable, it wasn't pertinent or even worthy of a discussion. Yet for reasons I still can't explain, this material sparked something inside of me. Even to this day, I will struggle with my logical mind and this material yet I have worked upon my faith that it is indeed true and in the end, what's the harm in believing in something that ultimately is good for humanity? Sure you can say it leads some to create their own delusional world where they use it as a form of escapism and I agree with that. I've seen many people withdraw from society and strive to become adepts/recluses simply because they can't seem to integrate within society. Yet the ones that you've claimed that this type of information could be dangerous are the ones that regardless of whether they found this material or not would still be in the same predicament of self delusion.

I don't subscribe to the more mystical parts of the material but not because I don't believe in it but because I know it's not my path. Sure some stuff sounds pretty fantastical but it's not up to me to determine what path another takes so I accept them just as I accept you and your path. It's not our job to convince you of anything. If you cannot accept this material internally then I accept that and understand that this way of life isn't for you. Again, not because it's above you or anything but just because it's not your path.

[BrownEye]

That's why I consider the notions found in the Ra Material not only to be false but also dangerous since it is conducive to this kind of behaviour...

Anyways, I am still very open to discussion.

60 School Shootings Linked To Psychiatric Drugs Over Past 20 Years


Yeah whatever.

[Monica]

You are assuming the existence of "non physical" things, what justification for this is there? To clarify I don't mean thoughts I mean stuff like astral bodies, and thought forms attaching to auras.

Many of us don't assume at all, but have had direct experiences, which are explained and supported by the Law of One.

[Adonai One]

And he'll claim mental illness. I've seen things, I've used magick to manifest tangible after tangible observable event in my life to perfectly desired qualities. Even I can explain it away as just as psychological mind tricks.

Either way, it's all cool.

[AnthroHeart]

A friend of mine has had out of body experiences, but he still doesn't believe we have a soul. He thought they were a drug-induced trick of the brain.

[Parsons]

A friend of mine has had out of body experiences, but he still doesn't believe we have a soul. He thought they were a drug-induced trick of the brain.

We don't have a soul; we are a soul having a physical incarnation.

[AnthroHeart]

What's that that leaves the physical body and goes roaming during an OBE?

[JustLikeYou]

But what I'm not sure you understand, which is surprising since you look up to Newton, is that science is inherently empirical and that we address what we can be repeatedly observed under the same conditions.

I do understand this. That's why I'm not claiming that any of this (the Ra Material or my own expansion of the philosophy) is now a science. The genesis of a science is my goal, but I know I have a long way to go. Apart from inner resonance (a piece of emotional data which is undoubtedly meaningless to you), the reason I endorse the Ra Material is that the framework it contains is what I was already working toward before I found it.

The claims in this material are unobservable (unless you want every paranoid schizophrenic's anecdotal evidence constituting as a foundation for a robust model of reality), thus have no place in a scientific framework.

I understand that there is a data collection problem. The only way to resolve this is to use data only from those who themselves reliable sources. But how do you determine who is a reliable source? Well you need to be a reliable source first. And convincing others that your sources are reliable is a whole new area of complication. To use my Tralfamadore analogy, the possibility of a science requires first that the Cult of Vision achieves a greater degree of sensory consistency. A new culture must be carefully nurtured.

The claims in the Ra Material are observable on the condition that they are sharpened (which is what my "ad hoc" gap-filling is designed to do), but they are not easy to experiment with. I have had to satisfy myself with my own experience, measured against the attitudes that others have toward me. That is, the data I use is not only inner data, but also outer: I must judge my own reliability as an instrument of detection by whether other people think I'm crazy or sane (to use simplistic terms).

Trying to pass off personal made up theories as being just as worthy as verified, documented, peer reviewed investigations is worthy of scorn, even if the theory were 100% true.

I don't really know what you mean by "worthy." I never said a mythology is equal to a science, so I don't know where you got that idea. If you're referring to the post where I said "I get to believe whatever I want," I was not trying to insinuate this idea. I was rejecting your rigid all-or-nothing epistemology.

You have your own mythology and no one else subscribes to it. I guarantee you do, even if you call it a "philosophy" or a "cosmology." Human beings need mythology just as they need a physical theory. So which mythology will we choose to believe in?

You see, even if the claims were true (miraculously?) I personally cannot assume them to be honestly because there is no proof no reason outside of personal inclination, I may as well believe that reason I couldn't find my toothbrush this morning was because I was under psychic attack from an Orion crusader trying to infringe on my free will.

The personal evidence is whether it explains your experience more coherently, accurately, simply and comprehensively than any other theory.

Look, I'm with you about the Orion crusaders. It is an easy target to blame your own shadow avoidance on. I have never yet felt the need to invoke the psychic attack explanation for any experience I have had thus far. But I still don't discount the possibility. When you reach a requisite level of self-knowledge and familiarity with your own mental atmosphere, you learn to detect the presence of something foreign, especially if you are consciously attempting to separate the native from the foreign. Maybe I'm not sensitive enough yet, but I still haven't found anything foreign.

Why are you so fixated on absolute truth? You'll never get it and if you did you wouldn't know it. I call science a cartoon picture because it is. All scientific models are "idealized" which means that they are a caricature of the world we actually experience. Scientists will tell you this themselves.

Once you believe in this stuff it's less likely you're gonna be investigating the nature of reality without wanting to prove something in particular, which is a dishonest approach.

So I'm guilty by association? Everyone has pet theories. It is your responsibility as an honest investigator to recognize when a theory has become a pet theory and to abandon it if necessary. Besides, most investigations begin with a hypothesis.

I don't think you're a fuzz head you just remind me of all the intelligent but over confident people I met who adopted beliefs that would be unprovable allowing them to construct their own explanation that could never be falsified, allowing them to always be right (and never proved wrong) in their own mind. I don't wish to offend you've just sparked some memories.

I really think we'd get on better if you'd speak to me on my own merits. You remind me of people I've met before, too. I generally don't get into conversations with people who sound like hard-nosed skeptics, because nothing ever satisfies them. I can see that you are more complex than this, so I'm doing my best to recognize that I'm projecting my shadow onto you.

Besides, I don't often get the opportunity to speak to someone who is (1) familiar with western philosophy, (2) familiar with the Ra Material and (3) doesn't believe it. So I'd really like to learn something here, but I feel like you're straw-manning me without even realizing it. And hell, maybe I'm doing the same to you.

The circumstances are very, very different these days regarding the academic institutions.

Yeah, I know. That's why I'm not in one. Some insight would be helpful here. I'm still torn about whether I or not to return to academic philosophy. I appreciate that the analytic tradition forces rigorous thought, but it discourages creativity by that same token. (PM might be a better medium for this conversation.)

For what it's worth my role models are Bacon and Spinoza.

Spinoza, eh? I am definitely surprised. Pleasantly surprised, though.

[Diana]

"Belief" closes the door to new information. I prefer "working theory." The history of science has shown us repeatedly that we never see the whole picture, and later down the road new information will come into the picture which changes everything.

1. The world is flat; then discovered to be round.

2. Time and space are fixed; then Einstein proves that they are relative.

3. Subatomic particles are "solid," but they turn out to be "fuzzy."

Add to that that this whole existence and everything in it is evolving (working theory). If so, you will never see the complete picture. On the one hand, a grand and delicious proposition; on the other hand, a bit frustrating for those like me who WANT TO KNOW!!!

[Account1]

Why are you so fixated on absolute truth?

I'm not, read the posts, trying discern a degree of certainty is not absolutism. Absolute truth is somewhat of an unreachable goal. I just think there is a less intensive degree of truth in the Ra Material than in the empirical tradition of modern science, for reasons that are previously stated and observable to the both of us.

60 School Shootings Linked To Psychiatric Drugs Over Past 20 Years


Yeah whatever.Rolleyes

I'm sorry but what does this have to do with anything? Am I somehow to blame for these tragedies that you just made light of?
I mean how would you like it if I did the same thing back to you and pointed out how Elliot Rodger read The Secret and tried to manifest his own reality? A popular past time amongst the new age scene, not that we was a hippy but it shows unstable minds are attracted to this stuff. That Himmler's beliefs and interests were, by todays standards "new age"? That every year thousands of naive souls are scammed for all they're worth by people pushing these notions of transcendence? Are you to blame? Have you spent any of your life trying to help people in need despite labeling yourself as selfless serving others? Where's your studies, your time, your discoveries, your effort that will aid humanity? Or do you just have an ego to show for all your hard work? Yes, I must just be a mindless drug pusher for money, of course. If I wasn't that would run contrary to the narrative that big pharma and the psychiatric community want you to stay sick or some other paranoid hippy bullshit that I have to hear endlessly.

Many of us don't assume at all, but have had direct experiences, which are explained and supported by the Law of One.

Like what? Out of body experiences? Seeing visions? UFOs?

No Adonai One, I would not simply write it off as mental illness. Believe it or not you actually need a lot of time and data to make such a judgement, can't just go sticking one size fits all labels everywhere if you want to do anything of value. Thing is there is the experience and then how the experience is interpreted, it is pretty important to note the distinction, especially with altered states of mind (not necessarily drugs but also hyper histamine mystical states and such). I know people who have been convinced of "magically manifesting" things but later gave up the idea with further experience. I have "mystical" experiences of my own doesn't mean I'm going to subscribe to a theory that accounts for them just because it does regardless of what else it claims to be true in a certain manner.

The history of science has shown us repeatedly that we never see the whole picture, and later down the road new information will come into the picture which changes everything.

And you claim to be privy to such knowledge that will tear the science delusion apart?

[quote[I was rejecting your rigid all-or-nothing epistemology.[/quote]
Just because I don't believe aliens built the pyramids or that Free-will is the fundamental principle of existence doesn't mean i'm "all or nothing" it may look like this because we are talking about such fringe beliefs but I'm really not. And in regards to the material it does require a bit of "all or nothing" ness as it is claiming some absolutely grandiose notions and is so cosmic in scope that it claims to account for everything so yeah I don't really see why people would believe in it but cherry pick.

JLY it's been a pleasure and I'd be happy to continue by personal message but that post regarding school shootings has made me feel ill.

---

I appreciate that the analytic tradition forces rigorous thought, but it discourages creativity by that same token.

Yeah for the record analytic philosophy is naive.

[Diana]

The history of science has shown us repeatedly that we never see the whole picture, and later down the road new information will come into the picture which changes everything.

And you claim to be privy to such knowledge that will tear the science delusion apart?

Um, I think you misunderstood me. No, I am not privy to any such knowledge. That's my point. No one is. That's why I only operate from working theories rather than beliefs. I don't "believe" in anything.

I love science and its careful way of shining the light of observation on so-called reality, but science can be, at times, a bit egotistical in its insistence that it knows all or is "right." I don't want to tear any delusions apart. I want to shine the light of curiosity on the unknown and coax open the doors of perception.

[Adonai One]

I appreciate that the analytic tradition forces rigorous thought, but it discourages creativity by that same token.

Yeah for the record analytic philosophy is naive.

Wisdom.

---

No Adonai One, I would not simply write it off as mental illness. Believe it or not you actually need a lot of time and data to make such a judgement, can't just go sticking one size fits all labels everywhere if you want to do anything of value....

Either something works and produces the desired result consistently through time, or it does not. I go for the former, always. The only things I value are my happiness and the happiness of others. Everything else has no significant value to me.

I am strictly pragmatic. I love Rorty.

[JustLikeYou]

I don't really see why people would believe in it but cherry pick.

This is what I mean by "all-or-nothing". The way you use the term "believe in" suggests dogmatic commitment. I, for example, am receptive to the veracity of the story that Ra tells about themselves, but part of that story is Ra's claim to (1) a limited perspective and (2) difficulty translating (including mathematical difficulty). While this may sound like a set of convenient cop-outs to you, it means commitment elbow-room for me. Because Ra qualify their position in more than one way, I don't have to say "I believe this story" and give myself over to every single claim the way I would if Ra had not offered these qualifications. And, again, if evidence mounts against Ra (which hasn't happened yet for me), I'll abandon ship.

Edited to add: If the Ra Material were offered in such a way that it required the kind of dogmatic commitment you seem to be suggesting, I would not be interested.

JLY it's been a pleasure and I'd be happy to continue by personal message but that post regarding school shootings has made me feel ill.

That wasn't me. Are you saying you are taking leave of this forum entirely? Are you saying you will converse via PM, but not in this thread?

[Ashim]

What's that that leaves the physical body and goes roaming during an OBE?

Consciousness.
It's a non local phenomenon.
Mind - space/time, Spirit - time/space.

[Billy]

I often think that my dissociation is actually me getting closer to a higher level of consciousness or reality. I can see how that would be considered dangerous or unhealthy.

[Spiritmolecule]

Why does it matter if it's real or not. My teacher(I guess that's what he is he's very smart) introduced me to this and he always tells me" you're living a happier life and giving. If it's real hooray and if it's not oh well you'll enjoy you're life more than others." And with all the alien stuff well I'm sure there are and if so why the idea of channeling be so crazy? That's just my opinion though, I am only 16 so what do I know.

[Adonai One]

Spiritmolecule, it is not about you living a happier life, it's not about enjoying your life, it's not about happiness. It's about what is absolutely correct as defined by our academic institutions.

There are right things to believe in and there are wrong, unacceptable things to believe in. What we can reasonably believe is endowed upon us by a rightfulness that can only be found in the most sensible, reasonable minds in our academic and scientific communities, the ones that deserve our trust and respect. To do otherwise is to say you hate education and intelligence.

They have worked through many years of grad school, earning the respect of other trained professionals to tell us how we should think and I think you ought to respect that.

[Bluebell]

That's wut all the extremists say, Adonai

[βαθμιαίος]

But what I'm not sure you understand, which is surprising since you look up to Newton, is that science is inherently empirical and that we address what we can be repeatedly observed under the same conditions. The claims in this material are unobservable (unless you want every paranoid schizophrenic's anecdotal evidence constituting as a foundation for a robust model of reality), thus have no place in a scientific framework.

Don Elkins viewed the channeling sessions themselves as an experiment and for him and his group they were indeed reproducible. 106 times Carla went into a trance and gave information and philosophy that she had no knowledge of in her waking life, and the information was consistent across sessions.

[Diana]

Spiritmolecule, it is not about you living a happier life, it's not about enjoying your life, it's not about happiness. It's about what is absolutely correct as defined by our academic institutions.

There are right things to believe in and there are wrong, unacceptable things to believe in. What we can reasonably believe is endowed upon us by a rightfulness that can only be found in the most sensible, reasonable minds in our academic and scientific communities, the ones that deserve our trust and respect. To do otherwise is to say you hate education and intelligence.

They have worked through many years of grad school, earning the respect of other trained professionals to tell us how we should think and I think you ought to respect that.

I have respect for their learning and expertise, however, NO ONE can tell me what to think, nor will I ever surrender my own power to another. I am perfectly capable of thinking for myself.

[βαθμιαίος]

Spiritmolecule, it is not about you living a happier life, it's not about enjoying your life, it's not about happiness. It's about what is absolutely correct as defined by our academic institutions.

There are right things to believe in and there are wrong, unacceptable things to believe in. What we can reasonably believe is endowed upon us by a rightfulness that can only be found in the most sensible, reasonable minds in our academic and scientific communities, the ones that deserve our trust and respect. To do otherwise is to say you hate education and intelligence.

They have worked through many years of grad school, earning the respect of other trained professionals to tell us how we should think and I think you ought to respect that.

I have respect for their learning and expertise, however, NO ONE can tell me what to think, nor will I ever surrender my own power to another. I am perfectly capable of thinking for myself.

I assume Adonai One was joking.

[Billy]

Spiritmolecule, it is not about you living a happier life, it's not about enjoying your life, it's not about happiness. It's about what is absolutely correct as defined by our academic institutions.

There are right things to believe in and there are wrong, unacceptable things to believe in. What we can reasonably believe is endowed upon us by a rightfulness that can only be found in the most sensible, reasonable minds in our academic and scientific communities, the ones that deserve our trust and respect. To do otherwise is to say you hate education and intelligence.

They have worked through many years of grad school, earning the respect of other trained professionals to tell us how we should think and I think you ought to respect that.

Thanks for this Adonai