Josh "The Panther" Versus Edgarcito "The End3" : A Grudge Match, No Holds Barred

[Joshpantera]

15 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I'm lead to this question please Josh.  Does life have any value in your spirituality?

 

Yes. 

 

The only answer that I've been able to pose to the question (see the linked thread) of "why does anything exist at all?" is that the absolute nonexistence of anything isn't possible. Because existence is taking place, there's an unbroken line of previous existence going back past eternal which is unavoidable from this philosophical perspective. But even the scientific perspective presents the same issue. No fixed beginning for existence itself. No true fixed boundaries in sight for it either. 

 

Life exists. Experience exists. Awareness exists on many levels. And consciousness exists. 

 

All of this has value simply do to the fact that it all exists. It's all part of the totality. Within existence, there is awareness. Which makes awareness a part of existence. All life represents awareness.

 

And on the more front line speculative end, even interactions at subatomic levels seem to represent more primitive aspects of awareness. Or what has been called "conscious agents" through the conscious realism theorizing: 

 

 

Life is part of the situation of awareness taking place in the universe.

 

Whatever mysteries we solve where awareness in the universe is concerned, always apply back to life itself. We may find deeper meanings about life as we discover more and more about the truth of reality, the nature of space and existence, and so on. 

 

We are looking forward to discovering these answers, we do not current have them answered in ancient mythological stories. Such as the bible or any other. 

 

If you get the chance to chill out and watch the long video above, you should do so. Try and take in the content. Pay attention to the evolution aspects of the above. How fitness shaped our perceptions of the world. Where all of this "separateness" perceiving that you keep trying to cling to seems to have come from. But through knowledge we now understand where our perceptions are not full and complete. 

[Edgarcito]

It's not that I don't understand your viewpoint.  Got it in spades.  Please quit reiterating it over and over and over.  It's hasn't thus far produced any spiritual feelings in me when Anterman and I used to discuss a very similar interpretation years ago, and it doesn't now.  If it does for you, then bam, cool beans.  

 

One thing that worries me severely is your spiritual model doesn't seem to give much emphasis to life Josh.  The totality of my spiritual seems to hinge around Love and life.  Reabsorbing back in to elements, electrons and such just doesn't produce anything at all for me.....regardless of how extravagant we describe it's potential.

 

I appreciate your efforts and the discussion.  We just aren't getting anywhere and I'm not going to be convinced because it isn't in whatever arrangement of matter that I AM at the moment, that produces the affect it has on you.  Superior?  Idk, I'm sure it is for you  and I'm glad.  Truthfully, I hope everyone has a superior spirituality that moves them successfully through this transition.

 

Hopefully we might conclude this unless you have something that you just need to say.

 

Thanks.

[Joshpantera]

6 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

It's not that I don't understand your viewpoint.  Got it in spades.  Please quit reiterating it over and over and over.  It's hasn't thus far produced any spiritual feelings in me when Anterman and I used to discuss a very similar interpretation years ago, and it doesn't now.  If it does for you, then bam, cool beans.  

 

I wouldn't have to go over it again and again if you posted something that actually acknowledged that you get it, let alone in spades. But I'll leave it at that. I don't believe that you do get this, but so be it. I'll respond to the rest below. 

 

6 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

One thing that worries me severely is your spiritual model doesn't seem to give much emphasis to life Josh.  The totality of my spiritual seems to hinge around Love and life.  Reabsorbing back in to elements, electrons and such just doesn't produce anything at all for me.....regardless of how extravagant we describe it's potential.

 

 

This is a nonsensical comment, Ed. Biblical spirituality hinges literally on sin and death, with love and life something of an aside brought out by the NT writers. And any love and life is only measured out according to strict adherence to the cult with a grim ending to all those who simply don't believe it.

 

You choose to focus only on the parts you see as uplifting and turn a blind eye to the rest. 

 

Now it's fair enough that reality (reabsorbing back into whence we arose) doesn't do much for you, as you'd prefer not to base your views on demonstrable truths and factual issues as your starting point.

 

But if reality doesn't do much for you, that leaves the world of make believe and fantasy your cup of tea. That's what you've demonstrated here. You turn away from demonstrable realities in favor of demonstrable fantasy and argue that demonstrable realities don't strike you as spiritual, just the fictional stuff does that for you. 

 

Your free to do so. It's your choice.

 

And you perceive your choices of fantasy and fiction as better than the knowledge based reality approach. We can leave this as a 'to each his own' type of conclusion. But the content will remain as public record for readers to read through and make their own decisions about the content and interpretations of the debate. 

 

6 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I appreciate your efforts and the discussion.  We just aren't getting anywhere and I'm not going to be convinced because it isn't in whatever arrangement of matter that I AM at the moment, that produces the affect it has on you.  Superior?  Idk, I'm sure it is for you  and I'm glad.  Truthfully, I hope everyone has a superior spirituality that moves them successfully through this transition.

 

Hopefully we might conclude this unless you have something that you just need to say.

 

Thanks.

 

No, we aren't getting much of anywhere. 

 

At least you can acknowledge that I see the knowledge based approach as superior and you can feel positive in some way towards a different view than your own as long as it's working for them. That's a big step for a christian. And it deserves a thank you. I know a lot of other people who wouldn't even give me that much. 

 

I give you the same respect in that way. Though I think you're incorrect, if your spiritual views work for you then good. I'm just giving you something to chew on. Especially the fact that some people leave christianity and find themselves in moral and spiritual situations that they see as far superior to their older, past views as a christian. 

 

I have nothing else to add. I rest my argument. 

 

Thank you! 

[Edgarcito]

Isn't this what we are discussing really?  You say I don't get it, but you tout that if I have enough information that your brand of spirituality is superior.  I realize the functionality of connectivity via some reasonable definition science gives.  What you have failed to do, is tell me why you know that if you give me the necessary information that my body, my mind, my soul, will receive it, and then enact it, place it, feel it, as the superior version for spirituality for me.  

 

You haven't done that.  So essentially you haven't connected knowledge with spirituality, let alone, superior.  

 

This amigo, is the part you don't get, but every science person on this forum does.  Think about it before you continue telling folks you have the recipe...

 

If I were wrong, they would be shredding the Christian at this point......

[Joshpantera]

3 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Isn't this what we are discussing really?  You say I don't get it, but you tout that if I have enough information that your brand of spirituality is superior.  I realize the functionality of connectivity via some reasonable definition science gives.  What you have failed to do, is tell me why you know that if you give me the necessary information that my body, my mind, my soul, will receive it, and then enact it, place it, feel it, as the superior version for spirituality for me.  

 

The more you speak, the more you outline just how much you don't get what I'm saying at all. It's as simple as understanding the difference between a world view of distinct separateness and plugging god and spirituality into that world view and labeling it spiritual, versus going beyond the separateness thinking and graduating into a much deeper insight. There are ancient religions that do have this greater insight, just not yours. 

 

The only reason science even plays into it at all is because the discoveries of science support the interconnection worldview that comes from the ancient world more so than the separateness based world views that come from ancient monotheism. Things aren't as they appear to be. They are much more interconnected than they appear. 

 

You subscribe to a spirituality founded on the short sighted view of how things appear to be at face value (again, see the last cited video).

 

The short sighted view is hailed as THE TRVTH!!!! But it isn't. 

 

It's actually THE BVLLSHIT!!!!

 

Spiritually and scientifically both. 

 

11 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

If I were wrong, they would be shredding the Christian at this point......

 

You've been wrong all along, and they've been shredding you without pause the duration that you've been here. Do you think something has changed? You have everyone either seeing me as winning or the debate is not winnable simply because it deals with spirituality so branding all spiritual thinking equal. 

 

That's not winning, Ed. 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

2 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

The more you speak, the more you outline just how much you don't get what I'm saying at all. It's as simple as understanding the difference between a world view of distinct separateness and plugging god and spirituality into that world view and labeling it spiritual, versus going beyond the separateness thinking and graduating into a much deeper insight. There are ancient religions that do have this greater insight, just not yours. 

 

The only reason science even plays into it at all is because the discoveries of science support the interconnection worldview that comes from the ancient world more so than the separateness based world views that come from ancient monotheism. Things aren't as they appear to be. They are much more interconnected than they appear. 

 

You subscribe to a spirituality founded on the short sighted view of how things appear to be at face value (again, see the last cited video).

 

The short sighted view is hailed as THE TRVTH!!!! But it isn't. 

 

It's actually THE BVLLSHIT!!!!

 

Spiritually and scientifically both. 

 

 

You've been wrong all along, and they've been shredding you without pause the duration that you've been here. Do you think something has changed? You have everyone either seeing me as winning or the debate is not winnable simply because it deals with spirituality so branding all spiritual thinking equal. 

 

That's not winning, Ed. 

 

 

No, it's not that I can't walk into a room and see one community and feel the entire connection.  Quit telling me you KNOW my spiritual prowess.   How in the hell can you define that.  Your initial claim was knowledge was superior.  

 

WHY isn't every scientist specifically a pantheist?  How does your knowledge connect the actual two.  Why aren't men that understand that physics, pantheists?  Shouldn't they understand and then it spiritually resonate to the "deep, superior, fucking level" you do????  It SHOULD, but many physics experts are CHRISTIANS.  Why is that Josh.

 

And if you would like, I could copy and paste your peers notes to me...

[Edgarcito]

You'd like to address comparative religions?  Is this what you are really discussing?  That if people have more knowledge regarding various religions, that this knowledge changes their inferior spirituality? 

[Edgarcito]

You see the Bible's Spirituality hinging on "literally on sin and death".  No, I see it as hinging in eternal life.  

 

Good lord, I watched a few minutes of the prescribed video.  Interface.....just a brief insight to his initial thoughts.  What happens when you put two interfaces of "god" directly together?  I fully expect you to bloviate with more bs that somehow there is no separation between interfaces or that there remains a theoretical gluon connection.

 

I'm about to drown in bullshit Josh.

[Joshpantera]

On 5/16/2021 at 4:21 PM, Edgarcito said:

No, it's not that I can't walk into a room and see one community and feel the entire connection.  Quit telling me you KNOW my spiritual prowess.   How in the hell can you define that.  Your initial claim was knowledge was superior.  

 

Another example of you completely not understanding the content of the debate. YOU have told me YOUR spiritual prowess. It consists of NOT seeing reality as interconnected. When you keep going on about wanting to see a "mechanism" and then ignore every answer, that demonstrates your lack of comprehension of the subject matter being discussed throughout the entire debate. Which, I won't keep rehashing per your request. 

 

On 5/16/2021 at 4:21 PM, Edgarcito said:

WHY isn't every scientist specifically a pantheist?  How does your knowledge connect the actual two.  Why aren't men that understand that physics, pantheists?  Shouldn't they understand and then it spiritually resonate to the "deep, superior, fucking level" you do????  It SHOULD, but many physics experts are CHRISTIANS.  Why is that Josh.

 

The Einstein quotes were pantheistic, for starts. And so are just every quote that ever comes from a scientist concerning philosophical and spiritual oriented issues. If you read the link to the WPM you'd see long lists of quotes like that actually. Because none of it points to monotheism. It points away from monotheism. The christians, like you, will demonstrate a lack of comprehension due to monotheistic biases when questioned, every time. 

 

On 5/16/2021 at 4:21 PM, Edgarcito said:

And if you would like, I could copy and paste your peers notes to me...

 

You can read pages of content in the peanut gallery for yourself. We don't need to add that much content copy and pasted to this debate. 

 

On 5/16/2021 at 4:24 PM, Edgarcito said:

You'd like to address comparative religions?  Is this what you are really discussing?  That if people have more knowledge regarding various religions, that this knowledge changes their inferior spirituality? 

 

It's certainly made my spiritual understanding superior to better know and understand world mythologies, religions, and esoteric traditions on a comparative and global scale. Again, this is about being more or less ignorant about a given issue. And you're more ignorant than I am about the subject matter by way of your own demonstrations.

 

It doesn't mean you're stupid. It just means that you're ignorant about a great many things concerning religion, mythology, spirituality, science, philosophy, and all related topics entering the debate. 

 

On 5/16/2021 at 8:13 PM, Edgarcito said:

You see the Bible's Spirituality hinging on "literally on sin and death".  No, I see it as hinging in eternal life.  

 

Good lord, I watched a few minutes of the prescribed video.  Interface.....just a brief insight to his initial thoughts.  What happens when you put two interfaces of "god" directly together?  I fully expect you to bloviate with more bs that somehow there is no separation between interfaces or that there remains a theoretical gluon connection.

 

I'm about to drown in bullshit Josh.

 

As you're drowning while perceiving facts and reality as bullshit, I've been surfing over the top of your ignorance of the subject matter, Ed. Going up and turning 360's off the lip. Carving round house wrap around's back into the pocket - revisiting where I'd just been and then moving forward again. And nose riding entire sections like this not doing much standing straight and holding position. 

 

The futility of trying to relate anything outside of someone's christian tainted mindset while under the cult influence is laid bare in this debate.

 

Usually we focus in just on science or make it about theology only. Same results, of course. Because there can't be any different results unless the person in question suddenly 'gets it,' and realizes at least in part what's wrong with the christian mentality. Whether about science, theology, philosophy, or spirituality. 

 

It has people crippled mentality, regardless of their IQ and regardless of just about anything. William Lane Craig, primary example. He's not stupid. High IQ. But he's crippled by his clinging to christianity and suffering cognitive dissonance in debates. 

 

So you see the bibles spirituality hinging on eternal life? How do you get there? It has to start off with the myth of Genesis and make the initial claims that nature is fallen and corrupt. Focus in on sin and death through the doctrine of "original sin," and then after making all of these demonstrably false claims, then go on to offer people eternal life only if they "believe" and have "faith" in the demonstrable bullshit that they've been given. Everyone else is dammed to hell fire who doesn't believe or have faith in the demonstrable bullshit. 

 

All christian spirituality arises out of christianity itself. Which is biblical.

 

Which in turn is reworking the ancient Hebrew scriptures around in ways which were never accepted as true by the Hebrews in question. The Hebrew scriptures themselves which introduced the false doctrine of original sin through the demonstrably non-literal Genesis myth which encapsulates a near eastern, bronze age perspective of the earth, the universe, and reality. 

 

Let's map out your personal spiritual origins: 

 

Hebrew myths > spiritual ideas based on Hebrew myths > christianity > christian spirituality > Edgarcito

 

The roots of which are false, with everything else necessarily false thereafter. In a straight line of falsehood right down to your current experience.

 

To get out of this false situation you have to fix the foundation all the way back at the very beginning, Ed. But that's up to you. You have to make the choice to fix what's wrong. And if you don't, then don't blame me for the fact that you're wrong. It's not my fault that you can't get it right. It's the fault of the religion you subscribe to. 

[Edgarcito]

You didn't answer the question.  Here it is again.  Per the dude in the video, what happens when two interfaces of the eternal come together?  WHY are there two or MILLIONS, BILLIONS actually of separate interfaces (people), that are the "eternal"  First, this represents separation.  Secondly, some of the representation of the universe suggests the universe needs real help.  And third, you have no explanation other than some dude suggesting we smoke weed to the point where are brains are fucked up enough where we might imagine the bullshit.  

 

Answer the specific question because it doesn't agree with your, there are no boundaries.  There are, but apparently I wasn't using the right bs vernacular.....interfaces..  

 

Do tell please sir......scientifically and spiritually.

[Edgarcito]

I think you need to rethink your universal soup theory....not everything bonds.  Things are suspended, things dissolve.  Take the time to work that into your soup theory.  There seems to be the formation of humanity, and then the potential for interaction that either keeps us bound to the formation soup, like we never left, or start bonding and growing with other possibilities to weaken the connection to initial formation.  Kind of like a lava lamp.  Your scenario really suggests more than one soup.  Think about it.

[Edgarcito]

You really run into the same dilemma with your theory as Christianity.  The formation is from a whole, but the process has the capability to choose to bond to possibilities within the whole such that you become separate from the whole.  I.e, you may still be within the whole, but broken away from the process that created you...based on consciousness in this case.  It's essentially like the argument against Christianity...

[Edgarcito]

So here's the deal.  I'm starting to think that it is just not connectivity alone, but maybe a specific type or types of connectivity that produce the key to unlocking knowing the something larger.  So the universe might hold a connectivity and humanity may hold a certain set of connectives that are common to the universe but distinct in humans....chemistry/physics.

 

Betting money that if we knew more about chemistry/physics, the more likely we might understand religion, myths, spirituality.  

 

Little bit scary though, John 1:1....in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and was God.   In other words a certain joinery/dispensation was given in the creation and although we are part of that larger group, the specific joinery/combinations run through humanity and if we don't actively maintain those bonds, the joinery has the potential to move us outside of that group.  

 

Just sci-fi thinking out loud, but it's just spirituality, right?

 

 

 

  

[Joshpantera]

21 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

You didn't answer the question.  Here it is again.  Per the dude in the video, what happens when two interfaces of the eternal come together?  WHY are there two or MILLIONS, BILLIONS actually of separate interfaces (people), that are the "eternal"  First, this represents separation.  Secondly, some of the representation of the universe suggests the universe needs real help.  And third, you have no explanation other than some dude suggesting we smoke weed to the point where are brains are fucked up enough where we might imagine the bullshit.  

 

There aren't any literal interfaces, first of all. He made clear over and over again that he's using a metaphor to try and explain the situation of not perceiving reality as it actually is. Much like a desk top icon is viewed as something simple, but behind it is a ton of information packed in. We don't see all of the various energies which we actually are, we just see a representation of those various energies, atoms, sub-atomic particle, and your sacred gluons, Edgarcito. 

 

So what this outlines is how some people are so literalistic that even when faced with a metaphor, and told at point blank range that it IS a metaphor they are being given, how do they react?

 

Well, they react exactly how you've reacted just now. They take it literally and completely ignore the fact that they've been told that they've been given a metaphor. That goes back to the beginning of the debate where I cited Joseph Campbell's "Tat Tvam Asi," which covers the issues of metaphor as myth and as religion. 

 

But from the literal perspective, icons and interface metaphors aside, what we're looking at is a situation we don't visually see the air as a bunch of congregated atoms vibrating with energy. We just see what looks like distance between objects. Same with space. We see what looks like small areas of matter spread out through vast distances of blank space. 

 

The science brought forward so far shows otherwise, contrary to our face value perceptions. 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

14 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Betting money that if we knew more about chemistry/physics, the more likely we might understand religion, myths, spirituality.  

 

We know quite enough right now. We understand the myths evolved along with us, and were organized into religions, which then set forward different types of spiritual views - such as the monotheistic and pantheistic. These were born out of the chemistry and physics of the human psyche grasping at the mysteries of life and existence. And apparently bubbling up thoughts and feelings about realizing a connection to the whole without understanding the specifics of how that might be. The ancient Hindu pantheists, however, saw everything interconnected through a fundamental, transcendent energy conscious labeled "Brahman" in their mythology. 

 

This brings me back to outlining something about christianity again. And try and pay close attention to this part. I'm going to list out a series of questions just for sake of setting up another point: 

 

1) Is the christian god conscious or not conscious? (per tradition, conscious)

2) Is the christian god omnipresent or not omnipresent? (per tradition, all present) 

3) Is the christian god all knowing or not all knowing? (per tradition, all knowing)

 

Just with these three simple, factual oriented examples we can see that the christian mythology is making similar claims to the Hindu mythology. They both have a god concept of an all pervading and transcendent consciousness that precedes and is fundamental to the existence of the universe.

 

Except the Hindu's call it like it is, but the christians call it the same thing with the same traits and descriptions, but pussy foot around not recognizing it as such. Saying that the god is this and that, but not following their own claims through to the applied logic of such claims. Mostly because the claims themselves cause a series of contradictions with the politics and social order aspects of the myths. The mystical function is not coordinated very well with the social order function. 

 

So for he ancient pantheistic Hindu's, it's Brahman that everything dissolves back into - a fundamental consciousness that is viewed as the base level existence of everything. 

 

The christians don't ever get down to that level. And the issue is more an issue of evolving mystical and religious views than anything else. The ancient pantheists were evolving towards a recognition of things as more interconnected than they appear to be at face value. The christians have similar mystical views taken and placed into their myths and associated spiritual views. But they have not been developed as far as the Hindu views. 

 

And this is a problem to the popular western notion that christianity came along and gave the world a superior, truth based spiritual insight that must be preached to all of the world so that the end may finally come. There's multitudes wrong with that set of assumptions. 

[Joshpantera]

14 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Little bit scary though, John 1:1....in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and was God.   In other words a certain joinery/dispensation was given in the creation and although we are part of that larger group, the specific joinery/combinations run through humanity and if we don't actively maintain those bonds, the joinery has the potential to move us outside of that group.  

 

Just sci-fi thinking out loud, but it's just spirituality, right?

 

I gotcha. You're having fun with it and exploring ideas. 

 

But consider what I've laid out above. The god basically represents all present consciousness in it's developed form. It wasn't exactly fully developed at the beginning, but it was eventually developed that way. By the time of John it had been developed that way. 

 

How does consciousness transfer from the all present god to Adam? The myth has the god breathing it's life and consciousness into the lifeless and unconscious human formed like a clay figure. Then it becomes a "living soul." The consciousness of the god has something to do with the first human being coming to life and becoming a living soul. Then that human being is used to created a second living soul. The two living souls, having much to do with consciousness itself, are then responsible for projecting out the creation of every other living soul thereafter through procreation. 

 

 

consciousness god > consciousness human beings > Edgarcito.

 

The god is eternal, so the soul is considered eternal. But the consciousness aspect of the eternal soul is also necessarily eternal as well. This is a different presentation but not wholly different than what was developed long before as "Brahman." Did John the mystical writer know of Brahman? One has to wonder. 

 

And if the mystical writer of John did know of Brahman, did he think that judaism was missing something and wanted to try and work out a way of attaching it to a judaized type of presentation? These are interesting questions to consider as well. 

[Edgarcito]

On 5/17/2021 at 9:20 PM, Joshpantera said:

 

There aren't any literal interfaces, first of all. He made clear over and over again that he's using a metaphor to try and explain the situation of not perceiving reality as it actually is. Much like a desk top icon is viewed as something simple, but behind it is a ton of information packed in. We don't see all of the various energies which we actually are, we just see a representation of those various energies, atoms, sub-atomic particle, and your sacred gluons, Edgarcito. 

 

So what this outlines is how some people are so literalistic that even when faced with a metaphor, and told at point blank range that it IS a metaphor they are being given, how do they react?

 

Well, they react exactly how you've reacted just now. They take it literally and completely ignore the fact that they've been told that they've been given a metaphor. That goes back to the beginning of the debate where I cited Joseph Campbell's "Tat Tvam Asi," which covers the issues of metaphor as myth and as religion. 

 

But from the literal perspective, icons and interface metaphors aside, what we're looking at is a situation we don't visually see the air as a bunch of congregated atoms vibrating with energy. We just see what looks like distance between objects. Same with space. We see what looks like small areas of matter spread out through vast distances of blank space. 

 

The science brought forward so far shows otherwise, contrary to our face value perceptions. 

 

 

So when you arrange these "energies" in certain arrangements, we see a representation of these various energies and we might call it a person, or a rock, or a turtle.  And then only certain people can discern what they are really seeing and also the real difference between their magic energy vision and myth and the less-sighted religious.  

 

And then we are back to the gluon field that is science but we but we are only using science to......no wait, we are not using science. 

[Edgarcito]

Well let's move down your path for few posts and see where it goes.  All this manifestation of "universal consciousness".  Are humans in error with this consciousness when they feel love is right and hate/evil is wrong?  Or is this just human influence on the consciousness that is an illegitimate, out of harmony with the greater.

 

I realize that before you have attempted to state that whatever happens just is. 

 

So again, WHY do humans have any spirituality at all?  What's the purpose?  And if you think about it, we can't even claim to discern anything because it's relative to the universe.....which we can't really define, ......so why not go with the potentially errant ideals of morality.  

 

Josh, that's a really really illogical thing you have going there.  There is no standard, so again, why does spirituality have any value at all?  And ultimately how can it be superior if the manifestations have no ultimate value themselves other than their own interpretation.....which you say is, "just is".

 

What is the consciousness doing specifically with the human manifestation, and why is it wrong at all for that manifestation to develop in the way that it develops, REGARDLESS.  If you can't answer that, you have no means of defining superior.  AT ALL.  And the likelihood that you are right in your assessment is minuscule....like the gluon...  

[Edgarcito]

I forgot... you make fun of my Bronze Age beliefs but yours are superior bc they are older, but new science is better than old observations/ observers....got it.  

[Joshpantera]

On 5/21/2021 at 11:46 PM, Edgarcito said:

So when you arrange these "energies" in certain arrangements, we see a representation of these various energies and we might call it a person, or a rock, or a turtle.  And then only certain people can discern what they are really seeing and also the real difference between their magic energy vision and myth and the less-sighted religious.  

 

He isn't taking about religion at all. Just the cognitive sciences and what we have learned about perception versus reality. You should go ahead watch the whole thing. You mentioned that you stopped watching early on. The citation is for the purpose of reflecting back on what is now known about perception, how evolution shaped out perceptive abilities, and similar issues. 

 

The main point being to better understand how and why things aren't as they appear to be at face value. 

 

On 5/22/2021 at 12:11 AM, Edgarcito said:

Well let's move down your path for few posts and see where it goes.  All this manifestation of "universal consciousness".  Are humans in error with this consciousness when they feel love is right and hate/evil is wrong?  Or is this just human influence on the consciousness that is an illegitimate, out of harmony with the greater.

 

I don't think we're out of harmony because evolution shaped our perceptions in this way. Part of life and existence involves these fitness oriented aspects of evolution. Survival is behind it. So there is a correspondence to be noticed between survival of the fittest in nature among ''beasts" and the perception of discrete, separate objects in space. I take what has happened as a natural and necessary aspect of the evolution of life on this planet, and possibly also anywhere else in the universe. And I'm looking at it as the adolescent or introductory stages of life and intelligent life here and possibly anywhere else that life emerges. With the understanding that with time and further evolution and development knowledge to the contrary begins to emerge as the inner working of the universe are better understood. 

 

On 5/22/2021 at 12:11 AM, Edgarcito said:

I realize that before you have attempted to state that whatever happens just is. 

 

So again, WHY do humans have any spirituality at all?  What's the purpose?  And if you think about it, we can't even claim to discern anything because it's relative to the universe.....which we can't really define, ......so why not go with the potentially errant ideals of morality.  

 

So it looks to me like what has happened is that mystical and intuitive religious insights early on started bringing this up ahead of science emerging and then discovering the details. Self awareness and self recognition of our true identity with the whole came first as a mystical religious insight. When I quoted the Upanishads, that's what I see going on there. They were introspective and through deep thought and observation, combined with meditation, interconnection with the totality was the resulting conclusion. Especially where arising from what looks like void or nothingness is concerned. 

 

All of their moral senses are attached to the wholeness concept. The idea that Brahman, a transcendent energy consciousness is the foundational basis for all that exists. So myths will read something like this:

 

"I am yesterday, today, and tomorrow. I have the power to born a second time. I am the source and creator of all the gods..." 

 

When the god is speaking like this in the myths, it's more like a series of clues that the mythic writer is taking the reader down more than anything else. Who says this? What is it? And it's leading the reader towards the potential for self recognition and identification with the whole according to my interpretation here. The moral aspect of ancient pantheism is that you are transcendent energy consciousness which is all things. And from that realization you plot your course in life in terms of morality. 

 

From there people branch off on how they interpret it. Just like any other religion. How many interpretations are there of christianity? How many interpretations of islam? How many interpretations of judaism? 

 

This isn't any different. It can be interpreted in different ways. 

 

On 5/22/2021 at 12:11 AM, Edgarcito said:

Josh, that's a really really illogical thing you have going there.  There is no standard, so again, why does spirituality have any value at all?  And ultimately how can it be superior if the manifestations have no ultimate value themselves other than their own interpretation.....which you say is, "just is".

 

 

First of all, what is your basis for logic? Serious question. 

 

If your basis for applying logic to anything at all comes from a foundation of believing the bible and christianity, then I have to look at that basis and see what's logical about your platform for applying logic. There's a story about an unproven set of gods called the elohim who operate contrary to everything that is known about the natural universe and the earth. If that's your basis for applying logic and considering anything contrary illogical, then the problem is very simple. 

 

You're flipped around backwards. To where logic looks illogical and ill-logic, from your perspective, looks logical. 

 

Everything you're doing hinges on being twisted around backwards by this bronze age myth. If we go with the facts and keep a knowledge based approach what we're looking at is a situation where life has evolved on the planet. During that time mammals evolved. Of the mammals, primates and great apes evolved among the mammals. Human beings evolved as a species of great ape. Social orders have existed along the way. Groups would react as a group towards certain behaviors. This trend has continued the entire time. And changed and evolved as time went on and groups became larger and larger. 

 

Wanderer nomadic peoples developed their social orders and moralities. Agricultural societies developed their own social orders and moralities. When the two types of culture merged, you find what we see in the bible where nomadic desert wanders from the near east went into the agricultural regions and integrated. Joseph Campbell put a lot of focus on this understanding of the biblical myths. Goddess worship was over taken by the patriarchal invading nomads. In a nut shell, all of the biblical concepts of morality are the result of social orders and the evolution and integration of varying human developments about law and morality. 

 

These then influenced western civilization. But over time even that begin to change. It was perfectly moral during the bronze age to own slaves and considered a 'god given right.' It was considered perfectly moral to have homosexuals stoned to death for being homosexual. It was perfectly moral for women to be treated as property. But as western society continued to evolve, it seems that empathy continued to develop further and in ways that it wasn't fully developed from the outset. Due to empathy, people began to see that enslaving people isn't right by that standard. Or that killing homosexuals simply because they are homosexual isn't right by the standard of empathy. Or that treating women like owned property doesn't work out very well either. 

 

Morality has never been handed down intact from on high. Morality has never been static. Morality evolves with time and empathy has increased to form and shape the morality of future generations. 

 

So bigger question here is how does empathy relate to your debate? 

 

In terms of the mystical realization of oneness and wholeness. And the interpretation of pantheistic philosophical concepts. And what science has uncovered in the areas of cognition, physics, and cosmology? 

 

I think it all comes together. We're necessarily an interconnected aspect of the whole and over time during the evolution of life on the planet empathy has a tendency to increase and shape our moral senses into more focused directions, regardless of ancient religions lack of modern insight. Even christians have evolved past their original views where morality is concerned. None of this has ever hinged on the existence of mythical god. And none of hinges on the existence of a mythic god now.

 

On 5/22/2021 at 12:11 AM, Edgarcito said:

What is the consciousness doing specifically with the human manifestation, and why is it wrong at all for that manifestation to develop in the way that it develops, REGARDLESS.  If you can't answer that, you have no means of defining superior.  AT ALL.  And the likelihood that you are right in your assessment is minuscule....like the gluon...  

 

I have already answered that. So because I have answered that, and I have defined what is superior and inferior in terms of perception by pointing out the adolescent beginnings of a global society, then I have done the very things that you are still trying to claim that I can not do. And since you're flipped around completely backwards in your above conclusion, the opposite of your above conclusion is what? 

 

The likelihood that I am right in my assessment is large, opposite of minuscule. 

 

And the gluon still has very little to do with any of it. Because I am not searching for a binding property to make the point. And to get stuck on looking for a small property of matter to hinge everything on completely misses the point. I don't know if that was you or coming from someone trying to help you along in the debate. But either way, you or they have missed the point of the debate in the process. 

 

On 5/22/2021 at 12:43 AM, Edgarcito said:

I forgot... you make fun of my Bronze Age beliefs but yours are superior bc they are older, but new science is better than old observations/ observers....got it.  

 

Your bronze age beliefs are becoming increasingly outdated as they are trending downward. They aren't falling apart because they're superior and relevant. They're falling apart because they're outdated now making them increasingly irrelevant and necessarily inferior to life now. So too are the ancient pantheist beliefs, though. They aren't increasingly relevant. They just contain better formulated philosophical insights than the bronze age near eastern variety. They are more consistent. 

 

Which is why I've taken to formulating my own modern ways of thinking. You can too. But you have to open to moving forward. If you're not, well, then you doom yourself to being chained to sinking ships.......

[Edgarcito]

The problem is you accept an evolution of universal consciousness but then discredit the form that it takes....i.e. morality, religious variations, etc. as somehow inferior when you have no reason from the model you are proposing.  In other words, you have a "growth", a manifestation of the universe, and you accept the universe as superior through the knowledge that we possess, the manifestation process, that makes ANY process reasonable, but then somehow say that a portion of manifestation, was/is inferior.  You can't make that claim sir, unless you have the knowledge of the great consciousness itself....and you don't. 

 

It would be like me designing a plant and growing one leaf and then having the leaf define whether it was superior or inferior.  That's not something the leaf is capable of.....especially when the leaf doesn't possess the same knowledge level as does the designer.  

 

You keep wanting to say the process is superior, but the outcome is wrong through time.  

 

Why, and how, as your place as a leaf, enable you to say both?

 

You may assert that this is THE process, but you may not say that THE process has some damn qualification like "superior".  You have no means to say that because you aren't the great consciousness, but a manifestation thereof.  

 

You aren't omniscient, you are not omnipresent, you are not omni-anything that I can tell, nor am I.

 

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

On 5/22/2021 at 12:24 PM, Edgarcito said:

The problem is you accept an evolution of universal consciousness but then discredit the form that it takes....i.e. morality, religious variations, etc. as somehow inferior when you have no reason from the model you are proposing.  In other words, you have a "growth", a manifestation of the universe, and you accept the universe as superior through the knowledge that we possess, the manifestation process, that makes ANY process reasonable, but then somehow say that a portion of manifestation, was/is inferior.  You can't make that claim sir, unless you have the knowledge of the great consciousness itself....and you don't. 

 

We're talking about the evolution of life on earth and the consciousness of living creatures, this is quite different than proposing the universe itself is conscious and thinking as we are. So you're getting ahead of the debate in the above. 

 

We can look at christians as a manifestation of the whole, just as any other group or religion. And I have looked at it that way. I don't have to have any knowledge of a great consciousness to make that connection, though.

 

And I don't think the universe is a super consciousness acting as a some type of thinking brain. Not at all. In fact, as you strip consciousness down it loses the sort of focus that a brain and central nervous system of a living creature bring to the table. 

 

To where the base level situation is one not of thinking, contemplative consciousness as we understand it, but of merely primitive aspects of awareness. Awareness absent a thinking contemplative brain. Which, is what people are trying to do with meditation. "Take no thought." 

 

Awareness of the whole then seems to be found more in slowing down thought conscious contemplation more so than experiencing a mythical type of super consciousness and suddenly thinking on a universal level experiencing everything all at once. 

 

So universal consciousness taking form would look more like the chart below: 

 

Raw, primitive awareness associated with existence itself > Primitive levels of awareness becoming increasingly complex > Life emerging without contemplative thought processes > intelligent life emerging with contemplative thought processes > the unknown future of evolution

 

Reverse the evolutionary order and you don't end up with "universal consciousness." 

 

On 5/22/2021 at 12:24 PM, Edgarcito said:

It would be like me designing a plant and growing one leaf and then having the leaf define whether it was superior or inferior.  That's not something the leaf is capable of.....especially when the leaf doesn't possess the same knowledge level as does the designer.  

 

You keep wanting to say the process is superior, but the outcome is wrong through time.  

 

Why, and how, as your place as a leaf, enable you to say both?

 

What designs anything?

 

You have the claim that an external, separate entity speaks magical incantation and things appear out of nothing (creation ex nihilo). 

 

I have the idea that all of the designing comes not from outside but from 'within' everything. Designs show evidence of trial and error attempts. What's fit survives, what's not dies off. These are internal mechanisms working with various levels of awareness and interaction as they press on. Not incantation spells of a fairytale god poofing something out of nothing instantaneously. 

 

I'm talking about reality.

 

A reality that has been shown through many a demonstration to exist as an interconnected realm of realms. And how life develops at adolescent stages where reality is not perceived exactly the way that it really is starting out. Which is an inferior perception when analyzed against evolving further into a greater ability to understand the nature of space and the reality of existence.

 

With the existence of both perceptions, not seeing reality as is versus gaining knowledge of what was wrong with face value perceptions, the latter has come along as a superior way of understanding oneself, the universe, and existence itself out to eternal scale if need be. Superior to the lesser informed, lesser knowledge based varieties of antiquity. 

 

This is very simple, not overly complex. You keep trying to over complicate it in order to try and find some way of positioning yourself into the winning seat. 

 

But all for naught so far....

 

On 5/22/2021 at 12:24 PM, Edgarcito said:

You aren't omniscient, you are not omnipresent, you are not omni-anything that I can tell, nor am I.

 

You can't even wrap your mind around your god being omnipresent yet. How could you go on to understand any of the rest thereafter? If you can't understand the god issue, how could you understand how it relates back to you and everything else in existence?

 

You have your omnipresent god absent from a presence in places that make you uncomfortable with your god having presence in. The problem of you not understanding the implications of omnipresence lead from you thinking of god as partially present and of yourself as partially present as well.  

 

Until or unless it clicks and you get it, you won't get it. It's that simple. You'll be spinning your wheels in the same spot. 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

We're talking about the evolution of life on earth and the consciousness of living creatures, this is quite different than proposing the universe itself is conscious and thinking as we are. So you're getting ahead of the debate in the above. 

 

No, a One, a connectedness.  How may they be separate?  I'm not understanding.  Is the connectedness not tied to the natural physical?  I thought we were discussing not just me as a cluster of matter, but me connected to ALL matter.  Does ALL not include the ALL that is responsible for the physical ALL?

 

We can look at christians as a manifestation of the whole, just as any other group or religion. And I have looked at it that way. I don't have to have any knowledge of a great consciousness to make that connection, though.

 

So no consciousness to the physical, but the physical is still the ALL to the extent we know...

 

 

And I don't think the universe is a super consciousness acting as a some type of thinking brain. Not at all. In fact, as you strip consciousness down it loses the sort of focus that a brain and central nervous system of a living creature bring to the table. 

 

To where the base level situation is one not of thinking, contemplative consciousness as we understand it, but of merely primitive aspects of awareness. Awareness absent a thinking contemplative brain. Which, is what people are trying to do with meditation. "Take no thought." 

 

Awareness of the whole then seems to be found more in slowing down thought conscious contemplation more so than experiencing a mythical type of super consciousness and suddenly thinking on a universal level experiencing everything all at once. 

 

So universal consciousness taking form would look more like the chart below: 

 

Raw, primitive awareness associated with existence itself > Primitive levels of awareness becoming increasingly complex > Life emerging without contemplative thought processes > intelligent life emerging with contemplative thought processes > the unknown future of evolution

 

Reverse the evolutionary order and you don't end up with "universal consciousness." 

 

So what you're saying is that now we have the latter stages of the process that our spirituality is specifically tied to the attempt to connect to the primitive form, but the primitive form, unlike Christianity, has no form, essentially?  And no form is spiritual for you? 

 

With the existence of both perceptions, not seeing reality as is versus gaining knowledge of what was wrong with face value perceptions, the latter has come along as a superior way of understanding oneself, the universe, and existence itself out to eternal scale if need be. Superior to the lesser informed, lesser knowledge based varieties of antiquity.

 

I believe I see your angle.  A rock is a rock because it's at it's developmental stage, as is a butterfly, as is a human.  I'm at one with whatever it is through the connection of evolution essentially....

 

Again Josh, and I'm being honest here.  I don't get any woo feelings when I contemplate my existence and purpose from that standpoint.  And not sure that if I practiced that it would help.  I've tried to meditate a few times and get essentially lost in a conscious/non-conscious state....kind of like pre-sleep stage for a bit, but really doesn't serve me on any spiritual level, much less superior.  

 

So comparing spiritual superiority, I gather the reason we are not progressing is that Christianity assigns purpose to our consciousness where yours says we are a form, but not so much purpose, rather form drives responsibility?  Idk, you'd have to clue me in on if your beliefs require responsibility...  I guess consciousness has no "why" in your model?

 

Thanks.

 

[Edgarcito]

So here's my thought.  If we view consciousness like topography, that perhaps individuals are similar to mountains, a neighboring peak of consciousness, a neighbor, that is a consciousness interface, yet is still tied to all that is below it, doesn't this imply a good bit regarding consciousness?  You care to speculate?

[Joshpantera]

On 5/24/2021 at 1:07 PM, Edgarcito said:

We're talking about the evolution of life on earth and the consciousness of living creatures, this is quite different than proposing the universe itself is conscious and thinking as we are. So you're getting ahead of the debate in the above. 

 

No, a One, a connectedness.  How may they be separate?  I'm not understanding.  Is the connectedness not tied to the natural physical?  I thought we were discussing not just me as a cluster of matter, but me connected to ALL matter.  Does ALL not include the ALL that is responsible for the physical ALL?

 

The universe is only conscious of anything when you focus on the fact that (1) intelligent life forms think and that (2) intelligent life forms are regions of the universe formed into the intelligent life forms in question. It's not separately conscious on some other level often called "super consciousness," which, is just another aspect of supernatural thinking. Which is not a knowledge based, fact and evidence approach. 

 

Everything is interconnected and thoughts are taking place subjectively inside of the brains of intelligent life forms. They may also have the ability to travel as waves outside of the brain, but that's getting of what can demonstrated as factual. So speculatively, there's room for much more going on than we currently understand. But conservatively, we have to go on what is based on facts and evidence known now. 

 

On 5/24/2021 at 1:07 PM, Edgarcito said:

We can look at christians as a manifestation of the whole, just as any other group or religion. And I have looked at it that way. I don't have to have any knowledge of a great consciousness to make that connection, though.

 

So no consciousness to the physical, but the physical is still the ALL to the extent we know...

 

It's hard to answer this train of thought because it's not clear as to what you're getting at. You said that I wasn't including christians in my estimations of what constitutes "the whole." And I simply told you that I haven't left christians out of what is considered "the whole." And it has nothing to do with the supernatrualist oriented "super consciousness" claim that you made. I have nothing riding on any universal or super consciousness theory. I've taken a conservative route that doesn't rest on those claims. I only made mention of the Hindu beliefs which do subscribe to those claims. Brahman is considered as a some type of super consciousness, or transcendent energy consciousness. Out of which all matter arises. For them, the ancient mystics, that is how they visualized a connecting link that connects everything together. That's the ancient mystical pantheism. 

 

I myself, don't subscribe to ancient theistic minded pantheism. I've never converted to Hinduism or Buddhism. And am not likely to ever to do it. My interests are in looking forward, not backwards, accept for recognizing various things from the past that could be relevant to looking forward towards the future. 

 

The idea of an interconnected universe, stripped free of theistic claims or literalism, was an ancient intuition that turned out to be mostly correct. But there's no indication that reality is the dream of a dreaming deity, however. The literalistic view of the myths doesn't play into a knowledge based, fact and evidence style approach to spiritual thinking in the modern world as I'm laying it out here. 

 

On 5/24/2021 at 1:07 PM, Edgarcito said:

So what you're saying is that now we have the latter stages of the process that our spirituality is specifically tied to the attempt to connect to the primitive form, but the primitive form, unlike Christianity, has no form, essentially?  And no form is spiritual for you? 

 

Now we're getting somewhere! 

 

If the idea is to hone in your inner self, or what you are at the base level of things, where else does that lead? Where else can that lead? 

 

What we can't know is where any of this is headed. What happens centuries further along? We can only speculate. But it seems likely to me that the better we come to understanding the universe, the nature of space, and reality in general,  the better we come to understand ourselves and our place within the scheme of it all. Which strikes me as a type of spiritual venture. 

 

Beyond that, there's no telling what sort of activities or roles intelligent life in the universe do or will perform. Or how consciousness ties into this unknown. 

 

But that's the beauty of taking a knowledge oriented, fact and evidence based approach. It's open. It's fluid and not static. You don't have to pretend that you that which is truly unknown, just for sake of make believe because facing true uncertainty is off the table in one's mind. Many people do need to pretend that they have certainties which in reality they do not have, for sake of peace of mind. I get it. 

 

But crossing that christian / ex christian threshold placed the true reality of uncertainty in front of my face and I had to make peace with it. I made peace with it by accepting the truth of the situation. And to be honest, Ed, it was all part of my evolving and expanding sense of human spiritual intuitions. I'm an artists and musician. I'm tuned into the mystical side of thinking by nature. I always have been. And likely always will be. 

 

This is what can happen when someone who is naturally tuned into spiritual intuition understands and accepts the many problems with religion, theistic thinking, misunderstanding mythology, and everything else available to truth seekers all comes together. It's turned into a knowledge based, fact and evidence approach to our very natural human spiritual intuitions. And as you can see, I'm unapologetic about any of it. I'm not shy to claim a spiritual view, even though I'm as atheistic about mythological gods as any hard nosed atheist out there. I don't believe that it's true. What concerns me is what can be shown as true. So I will toss the untruths without thinking twice and press on looking forward. 

 

Spiritual minded all the while......

 

On 5/24/2021 at 1:07 PM, Edgarcito said:

Again Josh, and I'm being honest here.  I don't get any woo feelings when I contemplate my existence and purpose from that standpoint.  And not sure that if I practiced that it would help.  I've tried to meditate a few times and get essentially lost in a conscious/non-conscious state....kind of like pre-sleep stage for a bit, but really doesn't serve me on any spiritual level, much less superior.  

 

If you imagine to yourself that your existence is tied to god, and imagine that maybe John's gospel may actually be trying to tell you to open your eyes to what you've always been connected to, god, and really embrace that train of thought, what feelings might that give you? 

 

I'm looking at the connections from a science based view. And that, right now, may not give you any particular feeling. But if you keep it about god and look it at through the theistic lens, you might start to see what the ancient pantheist mystics were feeling. If for some reason you start to see it for yourself, then it's easier to step it along to seeing it from the modern views that I'm trying to describe. 

 

On 5/24/2021 at 1:07 PM, Edgarcito said:

So comparing spiritual superiority, I gather the reason we are not progressing is that Christianity assigns purpose to our consciousness where yours says we are a form, but not so much purpose, rather form drives responsibility?  Idk, you'd have to clue me in on if your beliefs require responsibility...  I guess consciousness has no "why" in your model?

 

 

I'd say try what I suggested and see if that starts to address some of these questions. Try seeing if it clicks with you. Did you watch the entire video I posted about the gospel of John? I'll repost in case you didn't go through it. I think it could help you see this better. 

 

 

Here is a longer version that goes further into it: