(12-12-2009, 12:15 PM)Questioner Wrote: Dustin, I'm not able to comprehend all of your material. (I'm glad you share it anyway!)
If there's anything that doesn't make sense please ask! This prose description might help.
I'm much more comfortable talking about the full idea here because many of the notions bleed outside the realm of western philosophy in to the esoteric. Since the idea virtually mimics the 'Law of One,' of all the communities out there, I believe LOO'ers are the most likely to be able to grasp the full extents of the concept.
Quote:But as much as I can get out of it, I agree: It appears that your own study was leading to you Law of One type understandings.
Perhaps some of your discoveries were channeled, in the form of equations or concepts or process flows you "tuned into," without your realizing that was what was happening?
I'm somewhat uncomfortable talking about the experience, as I still don't understand it, but I think there's a distinct possibility that what I gleaned involved some form of external source. Actually ... I'd go so far as to say I'd be shocked if this wasn't the case. Maybe at some point I'll feel more at ease discussing the details.
For now though it'll have to suffice that while the idea started in a completely rational manner it quickly became very bizarre.
Quote:As for me, I'm not convinced. I'm also not unconvinced. Let me try to explain. I've not had any experience I can remember that would certainly prove to me this material, or any spiritual material, is true. It takes an act of will for me to choose to have faith in the material. However, it makes more sense to me to choose faith in this material than in any other explanations I've seen of spiritual truth.
Therefore I choose to have this faith, which I define as wholeheartedly living my life as though this material is true, until and unless I find something more comprehensive, compelling, consistent, and empowering. I also choose faith in several Buddhist, Taoist, U-U, Quaker, astrological, quantum physics, and Native American concepts to the extent I understand them and they meet these criteria. As far as I can tell, all of these are matters of faith in unproven interpretations and conclusion about proven observations.
I like the wording here, "faith in unproven interpretations and conclusion about proven observations."
A proven observation can be entirely subjective. If I see and interact with something it's then proven beyond a doubt that what I had come in contact with is true. This can be thought of as being subjectively-objective. Had I the ability to share these direct thoughts with others it could then be seen as objective by those who hadn't the privelege of the direct experience. Unfortunately we lack this talent so the only way to go about showing this subjectively-objective reality to others is to come up with a case that's repeatedly testable or to simply have the good fortune of having others present reinforcing the strength of the original observation.
Meaning for something to be externally-objective it requires at a minimum one external confirmation. For it to be scientifically-objective requires repeated confirmation. So there can be three overarching types of objectiveness:
- subjective objectivity (lone observation)
- external objectivity (more than one individual or device)
- scientific objectivity (infinitely observable)
Likewise something can be scientifically objective, but that doesn't mean we understand the observation. However since it's scientifically objective many people accept initial explanations if only because the observation has proven through repeated tests to be valid. This is even worse than being dismissive of poorly quantified observations because now the person is accepting an explanation for an observation because of the type of objectivity used to verify the observation.
These types of biases and poor understanding often lead to a scenario similar to the one described in "The Blind Men and the Elephant" by John Godfrey Saxe,
It was six men of Indostan, To learning much inclined, Who went to see the Elephant, (Though all of them were blind), That each by observation, Might satisfy his mind.
The First approached the Elephant, And happening to fall, Against his broad and sturdy side, At once began to bawl: "God bless me! but the Elephant, Is very like a wall!"
The Second, feeling of the tusk, Cried, "Ho! what have we here, So very round and smooth and sharp? To me 'tis mighty clear, This wonder of an Elephant, Is very like a spear!"
The Third approached the animal, And happening to take, The squirming trunk within his hands, Thus boldly up and spake: "I see," quoth he, "the Elephant, Is very like a snake!"
The Fourth reached out an eager hand, And felt about the knee. "What most this wondrous beast is like, Is mighty plain," quoth he; " `Tis clear enough the Elephant, Is very like a tree!"
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear, Said: "E'en the blindest man, Can tell what this resembles most; Deny the fact who can, This marvel of an Elephant, Is very like a fan!"
The Sixth no sooner had begun, About the beast to grope, Than seizing on the swinging tail, That fell within his scope, "I see," quoth he, "the Elephant, is very like a rope!"
And so the these men of Indostan, Disputed loud and long, Each in his own opinion, Exceeding stiff and strong, Though each was partly right, And all were in the wrong!
Moral: So oft in theologic wars, The disputants, I ween, Rail on in utter ignorance, Of what each other mean, And prate about an Elephant, Not one of them has seen!
Quote:The longer I live this life, the more certain I feel that what matters more is the quality of care we have for ourselves and for other lives. I feel this is much more important than whether we have the right doctrine in our heads.
Later - perhaps through next year, perhaps starting through the holidays - I want to offer a series of topics here exploring faith, doctrine, love, reason, cult abuses, etc., both to explore my own personal journey and to learn from others. If I get around to all that, I'd love to discover more about your perspective.
It's interesting to imagine a planet of people all caring more about the state of others than their personal well-being. If such a place were to exist then no one individual would ever be in a position worse than anyone else.
However it also makes me wonder, would we simply idle ourselves and not work towards better conquering the elements to attempt to provide a better outcome for future generations? I discussed this with a friend and he related an anecdote about his ancestors who lived in a poor Indian village that was quiet, impoverished, but peaceful. It took my friends grandfather to whip them in to a state of productivity increasing the habitability of the residences, improving the quality of the water supply, and in general the overall health of the community.
So it's interesting that in this thought experiment, if we all care about each other equally, then we can also see no one person would force another in to work. However at the same time in allowing others this unrestricted freedom we then have the potential for regression. Not because the people in this community care less about one another, but because not all actions have equal benefit for all people. If an entire community were to truly buy in to the philosophy of "the simple life" it would have the potential to hurt the quality of life for all people, present and future, because no one would be working towards preparing for monsoons, factoring in structural designs to account for earthquakes, understanding strains of population growth, etc.
Thus if one person in the village urged his family members and friends, out of love and kindness to prepare for these things, but was ignored, despite spending much of his own time trying to solve these problems, we can then see how the seeds for discontent might be sown. It wouldn't be because of a lack of love, or wanting to help, but due to differing ideology in a world where entropy (observably) has the final word.
Quote:Have you read 'Secrets of the UFO,' a free download from this site? It's the history of Don and Carla's explorations, pretty much leading up to the Ra contact. I think you'd enjoy it and find much to ponder and discuss.
I'll have to check it out. My investigation in to UFOs has primarily been in to official documentation either through Blue Book, Project Sign / Grudge, CNES / GEIPAN, Pennine, Hessdalen, FOIA archives, Project Identification, Jung's treatise, Quintanilla's draft, Condon's papers, AIAA papers, etc.
I usually prefer to mull over the what's been officially recognized first. Then I'm willing to wade in to material that's more speculative. It allows me to compare and contrast the quality of what's supposed to be the "official" analysis against that of the outliers. What's surprising is that with the UFO phenomenon I've found, for the first time, the non-official position is more tenable from a scientific position than that of the "professional" explanation.
However I think with any area of study that's steeped in so much ambiguity it behooves the researcher to be extra cautious about what's accepted as fact.
Quote:I think that's a great idea. "Event hunter team" could be a killer app for the iPhone.
The idea has a lot of enthusiasts. Sadly I don't have much time for it these days.
Quote:What does TLE stand for?
Transient Luminous Events.
This is just fancy terminology for uncommon forms of atmospheric lightning. Some well known upper atmospheric TLEs include blue jets (in the stratosphere), elves (high mesosphere to low thermosphere), red sprites (mesosphere), and trolls. The Hessdalen lights are also associated with TLEs.
Really anything that's an anomalous light source fits in to the bucket of TLE, but atmospheric scientists are usually fairly guarded about UFOs (as paranormal or intelligently controlled craft) and therefore want nothing to do with such observations.