Genesis And The Fall

[Ssel]

From a book I recently read...

 

At what point does “survival of the fittest” become “survival of the fitted”? The effort to manage life on Earth is an issue of managing passions. It’s important to note the difference between managing something and controlling it. Managing something is giving it direction and allowing it freedom within guidelines. Attempting to absolutely control all life is both naïve and pointless.

 

Name one time in the entire history of Man when some group wasn't trying to gain control over another if not all others and wouldn't stoop to deception to gain it?

 

Power has been the name of the game since before Man walked upright. To call this conspiracy paranoia is simply the sign that you are being manipulated already. Conspiracies have always existed all over the world. History is loaded with them. But if you say "I think these secret people are.." then you get the immediate knee-jerk response, "Ahh.. you are one of those paranoid conspiracy people".

 

To NOT believe in conspiracies is truly insanity on the same scale as the SCC who never questions the Bible.

 

 

When you really know how deception works, the entire discussion of who might be attempting to control which part of the world at the moment is pointless for a variety of reasons.

 

1) It is FAR too easy to hide behind a fig leaf.

2) People are extremely easy to divert with suspicion

3) There are good reasons to maintain a degree of secrecy

 

4) On this site, the Religions are the "obvious manipulators trying to control the world".

 

5) In the long run, who is doing what isn't the relevance

6) Your information is being distorted in clever ways (by organized efforts or not) thus any attempt to justify your suspicions merely makes you more blind.

 

7) The better idea is to simply realize that the information is being tampered with and scrutinize it more carefully, especially if you have likes or dislikes about the issue.

 

 

The true need is to honestly watch the effects that are happening and what those effects in turn cause. It is irrelevant as to who might be causing them because even if you knew, you could do nothing about it other than free yourself alone by never jumping to conclusions.

 

The policemen absolutely knows that the video cameras, both hidden and not, are there only for good and wholesome reasons and would never, ever be used for anything else.

 

The worker in child protection agencies absolutely knows that family courts are legitimate and would never do anything that wasn't for the best interest of the children.

 

The Priest absolutely knows that a church would never, ever use its authority to harm anyone.

 

The public "secret organization" of the Home Land Security would absolutely never use such extreme authority in any abusive way even many generations from now.

 

On and on and on ...

 

Doesn't it occur to anyone that when you have absolute trust or absolute distrust in ANY organization, then you are actually already insane?

 

I raised the issue of the Freemasons simply to point out that secret things have been going on forever right under your nose and will be for a long time to come. The point being to more carefully examine your sources of information, you can only trust your ability to reason and use logic, all else requires that you trust other groups (including the vague entity called "science")

 

 

I can display obvious "science" which is far from what you trust science to be.

[thomas]

 

Power has been the name of the game since before Man walked upright.

 

I agree.

 

 

To call this conspiracy paranoia is simply the sign that you are being manipulated already. Conspiracies have always existed all over the world. History is loaded with them. But if you say "I think these secret people are.." then you get the immediate knee-jerk response, "Ahh.. you are one of those paranoid conspiracy people".

 

To NOT believe in conspiracies is truly insanity on the same scale as the SCC who never questions the Bible.

 

It is a logical consequence that various groups will try to get power by using secret means.

But how successful are such groups? What is the general picture?

 

 

 

 

When you really know how deception works, .......

 

How does deceptions work?

 

 

 

 

 

The true need is to honestly watch the effects that are happening and what those effects in turn cause. It is irrelevant as to who might be causing them because even if you knew, you could do nothing about it other than free yourself alone by never jumping to conclusions.

 

 

 

One needs to know what to look for. Could you explain a bit further?

 

Edited to add this:

ANd how do I know that you aren't part of a network trying to deceive me?

[Ssel]

All very respectfully legitimate questions…

 

But how successful are such groups? What is the general picture?

The general picture is that probably 90% of what you hear and see is a part of someone's game of influence. My point is to stop worrying about who and instead more closely watch out for too quickly accepting a notion.

 

How does deceptions work?

By the reverse of what it takes to know truth.

 

1) Consistency - create and give the appearance of inconsistency (chaos)

 

This provides for much easier manipulation due to the clouds of confusion and distraction keeping the mind unstable, uncertain, and incapable of identifying any source. But then slowly color the clouds and give slight persuasions so as to guide in the direction of choice.

 

This also allows for much of recorded history to be altered while everyone is too busy trying to keep tract of their lives. Perception is easily deceived once in a chaotic environment. Consistency is reality.

 

2) Completeness - give the appearance of a rationale being complete even though much has been left out.

 

This is much like the statistician who presents the "9 out of 10 Dr's say.." thing. But leaves out that those were the only 9 out of 100 that were asked or many other ways to hide the total picture. Statistics is very prone to deception.

 

The many Biblical code things are another example. They only show were the proposed code fits as though there was nothing else to show. They leave out the many places where the same formula would be absurd.

 

The media in ALL forms, news, movies, advertisements, articles... ALL tend to be attempting to present a picture of reality which is skewed to what they prefer that you believe by showing you only a small piece and showing nothing of what they prefer that you not believe.

 

This is also the concept of having you distracted to the right hand, while the left hand pulls the trick.

 

 

3) Relevance - imply irrelevance to any truth that you wish to hide while implying great relevance to the idea that you want to promote.

 

"The Bible is just a myth" - the implication of irrelevance (even a myth might have importance but who would want to bother to find out)

 

"They are trying to con your children into their control" - children are the latest focus for gaining attention and concern. Any reference of danger to a child is immediately taken as important and all rationality is abandoned.

 

"Terrorists are trying to destroy our country" - a relevant concern used to slip in laws which allow all freedoms to be removed.

 

"People are more intelligent now." - thus all older things are to be ignored as merely the ramblings of immature superstitious people.

 

 

ANd how do I know that you aren't part of a network trying to deceive me?

The true need is to honestly watch the effects that are happening and what those effects in turn cause. It is irrelevant as to who might be causing them because even if you knew, you could do nothing about it other than free yourself alone by never jumping to conclusions.

1) Find out what your REAL needs are

 

2) Learn how to adjust your wants to match your needs

 

3) Out of all of your needs, decide which that you can handle on your own

 

4) Find the most trustable advisor for the things which you can not handle on your own

The things that I have emphasized have always been to calm down and seek your OWN understanding through serious logic and reasoning and to listen, but totally trust no source. Realize that science is also being distorted and examine it before you accept it.

 

How can this advice be of deception?

 

Look at everything I have said since I have been here. Look for consistency, completeness (which isn't complete at this point of course) and relevance.

 

I personally suggest that you use traditional science (before 1970) as a basic guide for reasoning and rationale. But science never said the God doesn't exist nor many other things that are said today. Today's science has gotten into public manipulation and they will be very good at it just as they have been at many other fields.

[thomas]

The general picture is that probably 90% of what you hear and see is a part of someone's game of influence. My point is to stop worrying about who and instead more closely watch out for too quickly accepting a notion.

 

Seems resonable. It is the same a manager in a company has to do. All info he receives (from the bottom and up) is distorted, because people have to take care of their carriers.

 

I actually know a story about a company, where a group of managers agreed, that the CEO was not qualified for his job. So they formed a group to run the company and to produce false information to the CEO. The CEO did never noticed, that his decisions never were implemented, and that he only received a feedback of contructed information. But the reason this could be done was, that the CEO spent too much time outside the company playing golf.

 

 

How does deceptions work?

By the reverse of what it takes to know truth.

 

1) Consistency - create and give the appearance of inconsistency (chaos)

 

This provides for much easier manipulation due to the clouds of confusion and distraction keeping the mind unstable, uncertain, and incapable of identifying any source. But then slowly color the clouds and give slight persuasions so as to guide in the direction of choice.

 

This also allows for much of recorded history to be altered while everyone is too busy trying to keep tract of their lives. Perception is easily deceived once in a chaotic environment. Consistency is reality.

 

 

 

You seem to indicate, that all chaos and confusion simply is because of manipulation. But I am not so sure. It seems more resonable to me to think, that life by its very nature is too complicated for humans. Manipulation may add to the complexity, but basically life is complex, and therefore we need to trust trustworthy people.

 

 

2) Completeness - give the appearance of a rationale being complete even though much has been left out.

 

This is much like the statistician who presents the "9 out of 10 Dr's say.." thing. But leaves out that those were the only 9 out of 100 that were asked or many other ways to hide the total picture. Statistics is very prone to deception.

 

The many Biblical code things are another example. They only show were the proposed code fits as though there was nothing else to show. They leave out the many places where the same formula would be absurd.

 

The media in ALL forms, news, movies, advertisements, articles... ALL tend to be attempting to present a picture of reality which is skewed to what they prefer that you believe by showing you only a small piece and showing nothing of what they prefer that you not believe.

 

This is also the concept of having you distracted to the right hand, while the left hand pulls the trick.

 

Statistics is a science, that helps to quantify the influence of factors, that we don't fully understand. In a production plant procedures based on statistics are very valuable in controlling production processes and quality.

 

The problem with statistics is, that many of the basic calculations (like calculating an average value) are so simple, that most people think they understand statistics, while the reality is, that most people do not understand what statistics is all about. And therefore, many people may easily use statistics to jump to false conclusions.

 

This even happened with a Jewish math professor, who thought he had proven bible codes. Real statistics shows, that there are no such codes.

 

 

3) Relevance - imply irrelevance to any truth that you wish to hide while implying great relevance to the idea that you want to promote.

 

"The Bible is just a myth" - the implication of irrelevance (even a myth might have importance but who would want to bother to find out)

 

"They are trying to con your children into their control" - children are the latest focus for gaining attention and concern. Any reference of danger to a child is immediately taken as important and all rationality is abandoned.

 

"Terrorists are trying to destroy our country" - a relevant concern used to slip in laws which allow all freedoms to be removed.

 

"People are more intelligent now." - thus all older things are to be ignored as merely the ramblings of immature superstitious people.

 

 

 

I agree, and I think it is quite easy to see, that this is going on all the time.

 

I do not like to see, how the American neo conservatives misuse terror to increase govermental control. And I hate to see, how their agenda is spreading to other countries (including my own), where we now in the name of terror are giving more power to the police.

 

As far as I understand, the neo conservatives think people need an enemy in order to strenghten their character. They hate when ordinary people just are living an ordinary life in a safe country. A cyclus of "working, eating, drinking, having sex, sleeping - working, eating, drinking, having sex, sleeping - ........." isn't good enough for them.

 

As I understand, it was the same reasoning behind the cold war, where the threat from the Soviet Union was grossly exagerated.

 

 

The things that I have emphasized have always been to calm down and seek your OWN understanding through serious logic and reasoning and to listen, but totally trust no source. Realize that science is also being distorted and examine it before you accept it.

 

How can this advice be of deception?

 

I don't think individuals can make it only trusting themsleves. This could really lead to confusion.

 

 

I personally suggest that you use traditional science (before 1970) as a basic guide for reasoning and rationale. But science never said the God doesn't exist nor many other things that are said today. Today's science has gotten into public manipulation and they will be very good at it just as they have been at many other fields

 

Why 1970? What happened in 1970??

[Alice]

Name one time in the entire history of Man when some group wasn't trying to gain control over another if not all others and wouldn't stoop to deception to gain it?

 

Power has been the name of the game since before Man walked upright. To call this conspiracy paranoia is simply the sign that you are being manipulated already. Conspiracies have always existed all over the world. History is loaded with them. But if you say "I think these secret people are.." then you get the immediate knee-jerk response, "Ahh.. you are one of those paranoid conspiracy people".

 

To NOT believe in conspiracies is truly insanity on the same scale as the SCC who never questions the Bible.

 

In order to gain a 'ahh ... you are one of those paranoid conspiracy people' responses from me would depend on not just who you were saying the secret people are but why you had decided they were the culprits.

 

If you were saying that the freemasons are the ones to watch and that because they have bizarre rituals and exclude a lot of people they are clearly an evil organisation bent on world dominations with a carefully orchestrated plan for how to bring this about you would likely get this response from me

 

 

When you really know how deception works, the entire discussion of who might be attempting to control which part of the world at the moment is pointless for a variety of reasons.

 

Grrrr Ssel, sometimes trying to have a converstaion with you is the MOST annoying thing. You seem to have a lot of good things to say but I find your methods a little disingenuous at times. In a similar vein to your earlier manipulation of an angry response so that you could share your thoughts on the folly of the emotional response you now raise the freemason conspiracy conspiracy so that you can point out how arguing about 'who' the secret people might be is pointless.

 

Your methods are irritating to many and strangely alluring and provacatice to some

 

(I would so dance with you, but keeping in sight what is truly good for me, I would also be so glad that I had neither arrived with, nor left the party with you )

 

1) It is FAR too easy to hide behind a fig leaf.

2) People are extremely easy to divert with suspicion

3) There are good reasons to maintain a degree of secrecy

 

4) On this site, the Religions are the "obvious manipulators trying to control the world".

 

5) In the long run, who is doing what isn't the relevance

6) Your information is being distorted in clever ways (by organized efforts or not) thus any attempt to justify your suspicions merely makes you more blind.

 

7) The better idea is to simply realize that the information is being tampered with and scrutinize it more carefully, especially if you have likes or dislikes about the issue.

 

This is a useful checklist.

 

My reasons for complaining about the TV documentaries that looked into the 'secret courts' were not made in an attitude of ...

 

The worker in child protection agencies absolutely knows that family courts are legitimate and would never do anything that wasn't for the best interest of the children.

 

but in an attitude of rejecting the attitude that is 'if something is done in secret it must be hidding terrible deliberate wrongdoing and the intent must be the manipulation and control of all of us that are in the dark'

 

Doesn't it occur to anyone that when you have absolute trust or absolute distrust in ANY organization, then you are actually already insane?

 

I think this occurs to most people Ssel, although people may be more inclined to use words other than 'insanity' (but I'm sure you have a definition of insanity that makes it the most appropriate word to use in the circumstances. If you decide to tell me - you do so at the risk of having your toes firmly stamped on )

 

I think that may people have absolute trust in certain aspects of an organsiation and absolute mistrust in others and in this way they think are free of what you term 'insanity'. Sometimes the trust and mistrust is misplaced.

 

I raised the issue of the Freemasons simply to point out that secret things have been going on forever right under your nose and will be for a long time to come

.

 

You raised the issue because you decided a tango was called for and forgot we were waltzing.

 

The point being to more carefully examine your sources of information, you can only trust your ability to reason and use logic, all else requires that you trust other groups (including the vague entity called "science")

 

A good point to make.

[Ssel]

but why you had decided they were the culprits...

Grrrr Ssel, sometimes trying to have a converstaion with you is the MOST annoying thing... I find your methods a little disingenuous at times. In a similar vein to your earlier manipulation of an angry response so that you could share your thoughts on the folly of the emotional response you now raise the freemason conspiracy conspiracy so that you can point out how arguing about 'who' the secret people might be is pointless.

 

Your methods are irritating to many and strangely alluring and provocative to some

When people stop over speculating and presuming the purpose, then they can see much more of reality find that the tune isn't changing as often has they thought.

 

A BIG problem is "presumption of purpose"

 

And you correctly pointed out that this is, in fact, the mental cause for paranoia.

[Ssel]

You seem to indicate, that all chaos and confusion simply is because of manipulation. But I am not so sure.

You had asked how deception works. Your view of what is normal, safe, dangerous, and intentional are all the result of how deception works.

 

Why 1970? What happened in 1970??

Your view is that the formula for displaying a danger so as to justify more power is coming from the West. It is actually only spreading from the Middle East.

 

What has happened in the West is the NT type of methodology wasn't really being used properly and thus wasn't working as it should have. Around 1970 the West resolved that "Peace can not be protected". In fact, "Peace as they had seen it was never the real goal to begin with.

 

They accepted the notion, "If you can't beat'm, join'm" and "A man has to do what a man has to do". They were referring to accepting the ways of the OT so as to allow a greater freedom for causing bad for the sake of good. They accepted the Jewish use of the OT which really isn't being used exactly right either but they'll figure that out eventually.

 

This is the greatest distinction in the methodologies between the NT and the OT. Both have been misunderstood and misused.

 

Around 1970 the West accepted to create chaos and deception as a means of control and defense. The Christian methodology had forbid the free use of this. The Jewish methodology worships the use of it.

 

My personal issue is that both are being misused and abused simply because they are not seeing the real intent and purpose. Like everyone, they presume too quickly and rush to judgment from speculated threats. But these "people" are not foolish, selfish children by any means. My claim is simply they didn't look hard enough before they leaped.

 

The end result of this will be that a great deal of misery will be created needlessly and the new world order will grow strong and insist on its perfection. But in the end, what they left out will consume them.

[thomas]

Your view of what is normal, safe, dangerous, and intentional are all the result of how deception works.

 

Are you asking me to stop relying on my own thinking?

 

 

Your view is that the formula for displaying a danger so as to justify more power is coming from the West. It is actually only spreading from the Middle East.

 

 

Are you talking about Israel and the Jews? Are you a jew yourself or .. ???

 

 

What has happened in the West is the NT type of methodology wasn't really being used properly and thus wasn't working as it should have. Around 1970 the West resolved that "Peace can not be protected". In fact, "Peace as they had seen it was never the real goal to begin with.

 

They accepted the notion, "If you can't beat'm, join'm" and "A man has to do what a man has to do". They were referring to accepting the ways of the OT so as to allow a greater freedom for causing bad for the sake of good. They accepted the Jewish use of the OT which really isn't being used exactly right either but they'll figure that out eventually.

 

This is the greatest distinction in the methodologies between the NT and the OT. Both have been misunderstood and misused.

 

Around 1970 the West accepted to create chaos and deception as a means of control and defense. The Christian methodology had forbid the free use of this. The Jewish methodology worships the use of it.

 

 

Are you saying that the Jews are taking control of the world?

 

 

My personal issue is that both are being misused and abused simply because they are not seeing the real intent and purpose. Like everyone, they presume too quickly and rush to judgment from speculated threats. But these "people" are not foolish, selfish children by any means. My claim is simply they didn't look hard enough before they leaped.

 

The end result of this will be that a great deal of misery will be created needlessly and the new world order will grow strong and insist on its perfection. But in the end, what they left out will consume them.

 

Hmmm...??????

 

 

In my eyes, your post seems odd.

 

Although you have offered some thought provoking ideas, I don't think I ever can agree with your basic worldview. And for the moment, I have had enough. Maybe we will meet in another discussion some other time, but for now, I will just thank you for your time and energy.

[Alice]

When people stop over speculating and presuming the purpose, then they can see much more of reality find that the tune isn't changing as often has they thought.

 

A BIG problem is "presumption of purpose"

 

And you correctly pointed out that this is, in fact, the mental cause for paranoia.

 

 

I do think that a lot of the conspiracy conspiracies have at their heart a presumption of purpose that is misplaced.

 

I think there is choas all over the place that is unhelpful if not harmful to the betterment of humankind, but I see this less in terms of evil plotters bent on actual world domination and more in terms of a failure to 'see the big picture' and a world of individuals bent on dominating and controlling their own individual worlds.

 

Apologies for my provincial analogies again - but bringing this back to my own sphere - there are people in the child protection services who do not act in the interests of children. This is because they fail to see the big picture and wish to protect their own little world.

 

So we have departments that fight with each other to preserve their hold on their part of the budget - because they believe they know how to spend their part 'in the best interests of the children they are working with' and they have no desire to share it with anyone else.

 

So time is wasted - because individuals cannot see a way out of the delays without making sacrifices to their own lifestyle - and 'they see no one else making any sacrifice so why should they'

and everyone agree's it is terrible for so much time to be wasted but cynicism cuts in and 'after so many attempted changes' the experienced conclude 'there is change left to be made that would really speed up the process'. And many fight change because they see it as a criticism of their efforts to date - and somewhere they have lost sight of their goal - and having their efforts to achieve the goal acknowledged - has become muddled with the goal itself.

 

And individuals in the organisation have many and conflicting goals and for some 'protecting children' is the method rather than the goal.

 

And things get covered up - sometimes because people want to protect their department'livelihood from being sued/lost and they convince themselves that this deception is for 'good intent' - because 'what good will it do if the department crumbles?' and sometimes its because managers fear that heads will roll - and they don't want it to be their neck on the block. And sometimes the frontline workers blame the managers because they do not want to look at their own practice - and vice versa.

 

And if you whistle blow - will it really make a difference?

 

So all the time a group of people who apparently have a common ideal - the protection of children', this is rarely a goal that is pursued at the expense of loosing one's hold on the individual world one occupies. And in amoungst the good work is a lot of unnecessary delay and waste and decisions that do n ot have the best consequences for children. But rarely is this a 'deliberate' act.

[Ssel]

I would say that is all a pretty accurate assessment.

 

The few who intentionally cause things are those who are in the position to see and affect large groups. Those people ask themselves, "Is is better for me to have people more selfish or more selfless?". then they affect things such as to create more of what they decided.

 

This is much like viewing your crops and deciding whether it is better to fertilize, water, spray insecticides, burn, or replant at the moment. They are not doing anything on an individual basis, but exercising what influence they have on a macroscoping basis. The media, for example, does nothing for the sake of an individual but rather assess which direction they prefer to affect the crowd.

[Ssel]

Are you asking me to stop relying on my own thinking?

I am saying that the CIA's method for knowing who and how to trust others is accurate.

 

You can trust when you know these 3 things;

 

1) intention

2) method

3) situation

 

But trust is not a black or white situation. The degree that you know these things of another determines the degree that you can trust. But every speculation and hyper concern to guess adds to your error.

 

Also trust people to be what they are, not merely right or wrong, good or bad.

 

The key is to simply not make an assessment until you really need to and most of the time, you really don't.

 

Ask what do you really know of yourself in regards of those 3 concerns?

 

Are you saying that the Jews are taking control of the world?

I'm saying that it is an issue of the formulae (methods), not the these people or those people.

 

I don't think I ever can agree with your basic worldview.

I still have no idea as to what you think my "worldview" is.

 

But just try to remember to bend the cotter pin.

 

[Ssel]

I don't think I ever can agree with your basic worldview.... I will just thank you for your time and energy.

It would be more polite to at least state why you can never agree in return for the effort I was willing to go to attempt an answer your questions.

[thomas]

It would be more polite to at least state why you can never agree in return for the effort I was willing to go to attempt an answer your questions.

 

It will be a long discussion. You have spent time and energy expressing your views and I have spent time and energy trying to understand. For now, it feels like I have been browsing a book, and decided not to read it.

 

I do not want to be impolite, and I do not want to cut off contact with you. So my suggestion is, that write more about yourself and begin to take part in the social side of this board.

 

Then at a later time, we can probably go back and discuss your wordview again.

[Ssel]

So my suggestion is, that write more about yourself and begin to take part in the social side of this board.

I had a small hope that reality was the discussion and not really "me" else I would be doing exactly what you have suggested already.

 

But I have to yield to the fact that reality doesn't get much attention nor is of much interest to anyone. And THAT is my real concern and issue.

 

I see far too much of the world simply saying, "I want what I want. I don't care why I want it. I don't care who is right. I don't care who suffers. I couldn't care less if it is actually logical or if my arguments make any sense. And I REALLY don't care if you like my methods for getting it."

[Alice]

I had a small hope that reality was the discussion and not really "me" else I would be doing exactly what you have suggested already.

 

But I have to yield to the fact that reality doesn't get much attention nor is of much interest to anyone. And THAT is my real concern and issue.

 

I see far too much of the world simply saying, "I want what I want. I don't care why I want it. I don't care who is right. I don't care who suffers. I couldn't care less if it is actually logical or if my arguments make any sense. And I REALLY don't care if you like my methods for getting it."

 

Ssel,

 

it appears you are being asked to give some more information about your

 

1) intention

2) method

3) situation

 

 

Are you sure you really know the intent behind the questioning of 'who you are' .

 

I would sure like to know some more about your situation. Not because I don't care - not because I base my evalution of whether something someone has to say is valuable or not on whether I like them or not (although I am predisposed to more easily 'accept' things from those I like, but recognise the potential risk for error in this. An example would be that although I know nothing about you - your words have reminded me of someone of whom I am particularly fond - therefore I am predisposed to take the time to listen and to assume 'good intent'.

 

I would hope I know enough of my own intent, methods and situation to alert me to errors I may make in my assessment of you because of this predisposition.

 

I tend to persevere with people because I find that one seldom gains anything but misplaced opinions from initial discussions whilst the treasures take some finding.

 

One of the reasons I like to learn about people - and not just their 'teaching' is that I learn from narrative and illustrations from life - far better than from simple statements of belief.

 

I would love to hear examples of how you have utilised the beliefs you have arrived at - in your own life, because (1) that is the best and most effective way I have for learning/understanding, (2) I am curious by nature.

 

However my interest in this conversation would not be dependent on this approach. If you do not wish to share anything of your own life and experiences that is entirely up to you.

 

I would like to continue in conversation with you.

 

I think I am benefitting from it. The moment it is tiresome to you - or leaves you feeling 'hopeless' please know that I would like the conversation to end.

 

I will need you to introduce the next installment if we are simply following on from the post below, as we have reached apparent agreement in this regard and I have nothing to usefully add.

 

The few who intentionally cause things are those who are in the position to see and affect large groups. Those people ask themselves, "Is is better for me to have people more selfish or more selfless?". then they affect things such as to create more of what they decided.

 

This is much like viewing your crops and deciding whether it is better to fertilize, water, spray insecticides, burn, or replant at the moment. They are not doing anything on an individual basis, but exercising what influence they have on a macroscoping basis. The media, for example, does nothing for the sake of an individual but rather assess which direction they prefer to affect the crowd.

[thomas]

 

But I have to yield to the fact that reality doesn't get much attention nor is of much interest to anyone. And THAT is my real concern and issue.

 

 

Ssel

 

You misunderstand my intention. But come on, tell about yourself and and take part in the social discussions here. Then maybe we can go back to the more serious stuff at some other time.

[Ssel]

What social discussions?

[thomas]

What social discussions?

 

What I mean is, that there are threads purely for fellowship and having a good time together. Since I at the moment don't want to continue the discussion here, the treads for fellowship could be a way to stay in touch.

[Guest Guest]

In the beginning of Genensis we meet the story about Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit.

In my eyes the story seems to be symbolic. It contains a garden with a talking serpent, a tree of knowledge of good and evil, a tree of life etc. Such a story cannot be taken on face value.

 

So what is this story really about?

 

Sorry to re-rail the topic, but I've heard some interesting discussions on this subject in my reading of Kabbalistic literature and even some zen discussion.

 

It's been a long time since I've read this stuff, so i'm going to make some mistakes. Please bear with me though.

 

Firstly, I've read that the word used for "In" in the very first line of the bible also means 'with' equally. According to Rabbi David Cooper, in his book God is a Verb, an equally valid translation of this verse is "With beginning (implied 'It') created Elohim." This "It" is regarded by Kabbalists as Ain Sof, which represents non-dual godhead. So, "with beginning," which implies a sort of necessary dualism of creation, "Elohim" also effectively comes into being. Before (fore lack of a better word) beginning, Godhead is all there is and giving this non-dual aspect a name is really impossible (the term Ain Sof here is used as an expedient means for elucidating a very subtle concept). So, as Elohim takes a palpable existence only with the necessary element of time (and thereby space). We can regard Elohim here as the dualistic 'face' of Godhead as it acts within conventional existence(rather than absolute non-duality where distinguishing characteristics are moot). It can be attributed with the characteristic of judgement (the aspect of cognitive distinction) on a level which is shapes and creates on a material level. The reflection of this in the individual would be our own judgement/discernment faculty.

 

Now, this Elohim 'creates' Adam and breaths life into his nostrils after having divided the heaven & earth, etc. By the way, kabbalists define the days of creation more in the sense of stages than any sort of literal day. This Adam is considered to be a reflection of Elohim and has not yet divided his own consciousness into mundane/divine. Here though adam is aware of his own subjective experience and feels teh need for a companion. So eve is created, being brought out of "His" side (the literal hebrew does not say 'rib' in the first part of the genesis myth/story). BTW, Adam before this is regarded in the plural. So, now Adam has necessarily divided his own essence to create an companion. Perhaps this could be regarded as his own inner vision/monologue, though the literal translation works here as well (but more applies to the second part of the Genesis account).

 

From here we get to the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. A lot of rabbis see sex happening here (in the literal translation) and the serpent could correlate to Kundalini energy. Another interpretation (that I have heard from a Zen practitioner) is that the serpent could represent discursive thought which is responsible for the craving/aversion dichotomy (the tree of knowledge of good and evil). This discursive element is rebellious in a sense as it takes us out of the unconditional awareness (a unitive state of consciousness) which experiences a unity with the divine 'Other'. It also seems to deal with the identification process of mind which associates one to be the body/mind, rather than the observer of the body/mind. In this sense, one who 'eats' (which has strong correlations with knowing) this fruit will certainly experience death and all the trappings of conditional existence.

 

In this sense, mankind falls from his natural undivided essence, into a mind which picks and chooses based on experiences of pleasure and pain, living a miserable existence of toil and confusion. Additionally, if one attempts to gain re-entry into pardes while in this particular state of mind, they are barred by cherubim holding flaming swords. So, the way out of this problematic existence of 'exile' requires us to stop eating the proverbial fruit of the picking-choosing aspect of mind. In other words it is a sort of unconditioning process which is required. We must re-arrive at the nakedness (bare awareness) that Adam and Eve covered up. Only when we are not ashamed (and not deluded) may we re-enter the presence of "god", or the non-dual state regarded as Adam Kadmon by kabbalists. Adam Kadmon basically represents the aspect of non-conceptual awareness. There is no mental-elaboration here. Also, it is associated with Kether (Crown), or Ayin, which is the highest emanation of God (above Wisdom) in Lurianic Kabbalah and is a state of mind regarded as no-thing-ness. Here a correlation can be drawn to the Nirbikalpa Samadhi of Hinduism and the Nirvana of Buddhism.

 

Anyway, this state has no division of self/other and so when one realizes it, the Cherubim no longer pose a threat as there is no self to defend and no other to threaten. One can here 'enter pardes' and remain there.

 

Interesting theory, and supposedly achievable according to kabbalists. It puts the reading of the rest of Torah on a different level, which can be potentially enlightening, though one still has a lot of difficulty with the nastier portions of Torah where god orders killing and raping among other things.

 

Well, I'm sure I botched some of that, but it is still interesting to me, nonetheless.

 

Take care all

 

_/\_

metta

[not1not2]

sorry, wasn't logged in

[godlessgrrl]

Heh, yeah, sorry to "re-rail" also, to borrow not1not2's terminology. I feel like leaping into the fray too, fwiw.

 

I look at the Fall as being a bastardization of a different, goddess-centered mythology. A re-telling, if you will.

 

If you look at a picture of a woman standing in front of a tree with a snake in it, handing a man a piece of fruit, it could mean anything. It could be two lovers in a garden, sharing a meal of fruit, with the snake representing sexual energy. It could be a woman grabbing a magic fruit from a magic tree before a snake gets it, and giving it to a man to impart some kind of wisdom.

 

Apparently, to the ancient Hebrews, the vignette was about a snake and a woman tempting man to disobey god. Merlin Stone, on the other hand, suggests that to other Fertile Crescent cultures, the scene represented a goddess plucking the fruit of wisdom from her own holy tree and granting it to a blessed worshipper or follower, the snake and tree being symbols of the goddess' connections with life and death.

 

Lately I've begun to think that religions are reflections of the people who create and follow them; in this context I have to wonder if the Eden vignette means whatever the viewer brings to it. Lovers in a garden? Woman tempting man to sin? A goddess blessing her follower? How about whatever you want it to mean, according to who you are?

 

So maybe it all just depends on what you want to get out of the story.

 

I like the idea of lovers in a garden. But that's just me.

[Amanda]

So eve is created, being brought out of "His" side (the literal hebrew does not say 'rib' in the first part of the genesis myth/story). BTW, Adam before this is regarded in the plural. So, now Adam has necessarily divided his own essence to create an companion.

Hi Not1not2, I find this whole post very interesting.

 

The way I had been interpreting the text, I thought the concept of woman was initiated by a more specific separation of roles for mankind, allocated according to gender. Is this in line with what you are saying?

 

This discursive element is rebellious in a sense as it takes us out of the unconditional awareness (a unitive state of consciousness) which experiences a unity with the divine 'Other'. It also seems to deal with the identification process of mind which associates one to be the body/mind, rather than the observer of the body/mind. In this sense, one who 'eats' (which has strong correlations with knowing) this fruit will certainly experience death and all the trappings of conditional existence.

 

Is this more like the book The Power of Now? Where I think he suggests that our thoughts go masquerading as who we are, which is incorrect... because it is the 'awareness' of our thoughts is who we are, and not the actual thoughts themself. I like this because it allows one to examine their thoughts about themselves for their validity, instead of assume that what we say about ourselves is true.

[All Gods Fail]

Adam & Eve, sittin in the woods

Eve says "Man, I got something real good!

It's in that tree - you'll get smart fast!"

Adam said, "Sure, snake my ass.

I don't see no snake, but...

all women are bad!"

 

The Cramps - All Women Are Bad

 

Sorry, I couldn't resist!

 

Back to the thread!

[Amanda]

So maybe it all just depends on what you want to get out of the story.

 

I like the idea of lovers in a garden. But that's just me.

 

Hi Gwenmead! Maybe it is what we want to get out of the story. It also seems once I start looking at all the cultural perspectives, it seems to me they start sounding just alike! Is that just me?

 

Of course, I like your idea of lovers in the garden too! Keeping romantic ideas in life seems to be a good thing to me. After all, Eve didn't have a desire for her husband till AFTER they ate the fruit. :wink:

[NotBlinded]

Is this more like the book The Power of Now? Where I think he suggests that our thoughts go masquerading as who we are, which is incorrect... because it is the 'awareness' of our thoughts is who we are, and not the actual thoughts themself. I like this because it allows one to examine their thoughts about themselves for their validity, instead of assume that what we say about ourselves is true.

Tolle rocks...