Gnosticism - The world is a vampire, sent to drain? Secret destroyers hold you up to the flames?

[Hurmanetar]

Yeah well, if at least the cook would speak to us CLEARLY and tell us what he's doing....but we are all here on earth just guessing, the cook is silent or saying contradictory things, which amounts to the same thing...Also suppose the chick pea did not wish to be cooked in the first place, but wanted to just stay a plain chickpea, in nature, without having to endure this boiling process. Why didn't it have that choice? "Don't you try to jump out" he's told. How is that not abuse of power? Why are we being forced to play along?

If everything were clear, you wouldn't have any choices to make. If you don't have any choices to make you are a robot or a slave. The process of gaining your freedom must involve a journey into ambiguity. By searching within yourself for a voice to guide you through tough choices, you gain a voice, establish your character, and by degrees become the author of your own reality.

We all go through these phases...

1) the narrative we're initially told by authorities
2) childish bliss and simplicity (like the growing chickpea)
3) conflict - where the way we thought the world worked doesn't line up with our experience - narrative failure (getting boiled)
4) depression or frustration at this and struggling against authorities that supported the now insufficient narrative.
5) learning to let go (or escape desire) and surrender
6) learning newer more subtle yet more powerful ways (more flavorful ways) of enjoying the world and influencing it
7) transformation - freedom

 

[Max_B]

If everything were clear, you wouldn't have any choices to make. If you don't have any choices to make you are a robot or a slave. The process of gaining your freedom must involve a journey into ambiguity. By searching within yourself for a voice to guide you through tough choices, you gain a voice, establish your character, and by degrees become the author of your own reality.

We all go through these phases...

1) the narrative we're initially told by authorities
2) childish bliss and simplicity (like the growing chickpea)
3) conflict - where the way we thought the world worked doesn't line up with our experience - narrative failure (getting boiled)
4) depression or frustration at this and struggling against authorities that supported the now insufficient narrative.
5) learning to let go (or escape desire) and surrender
6) learning newer more subtle yet more powerful ways (more flavorful ways) of enjoying the world and influencing it
7) transformation - freedom

Where did you get those 7 phases from @Hurmanetar ?

 

[Hurmanetar]

Where did you get those 7 phases from @Hurmanetar ?

I just made them up... :D

 

[Max_B]

I just made them up... :D

I thought there was a bit of psychotherapy in there...

 

[hypermagda]

If everything were clear, you wouldn't have any choices to make. If you don't have any choices to make you are a robot or a slave. The process of gaining your freedom must involve a journey into ambiguity. By searching within yourself for a voice to guide you through tough choices, you gain a voice, establish your character, and by degrees become the author of your own reality.

We all go through these phases...

1) the narrative we're initially told by authorities
2) childish bliss and simplicity (like the growing chickpea)
3) conflict - where the way we thought the world worked doesn't line up with our experience - narrative failure (getting boiled)
4) depression or frustration at this and struggling against authorities that supported the now insufficient narrative.
5) learning to let go (or escape desire) and surrender
6) learning newer more subtle yet more powerful ways (more flavorful ways) of enjoying the world and influencing it
7) transformation - freedom

LOL Just seen that you said that you made these phases up!....well, that makes it easier for me to say that of course this is just your view of things, and that's OK, we're here to give inputs and food for thought to each other so I appreciate it...though I don't agree of course :-). BUT I still have questions for you (once again :-)), namely:

1) are these the phases you have gone through yourself (and that's why you assert that we ALL go through these phases...personally I never generalise from my experience....maybe because I'm aware that I've always been "different" in many ways ...that's OK though, I like myself a lot (btw I like lots of other people too: we don't have to be all the same! And here on Skeptiko there seem to be a lot of "different" people, which is very cool! :-)
2) do you feel that you have reached the final stage (#7) or is this some kind of a forecast of the stages you already know you will be going through?
3) when you say that (I quote you) "by searching within yourself for a voice to guide you....you gain a voice" - is that voice inside of you your own voice or "some entity" whispering to you what you are supposed to do? This is particularly interesting to me because sometimes I wonder to what extent we are "free individuals" or material expressions of "forces" (for lack of a better word) expressing themselves through us (hence our differences, and especially - and here I link back to the latest Skeptiko Podcast- why even rationality and hard data are not necessarily enough to make our view of things change radically).

Last but not least, reading between the lines of this post of yours I would conclude that you are one of those who believe that this consensus reality is some kind of "school", that is, a place where we are supposed to learn something. I may be wrong though, so feel free to correct me. However if you belong to the "school" school of thought :-) I wonder if you would be so kind as to answer the question I asked in this very same thread (see my post #69). Thank you!

 

[Hurmanetar]

LOL Just seen that you said that you made these phases up!....

Haha... I could totally start my own religion. ;)

BUT I still have questions for you (once again :)), namely: 1) are these the phases you have gone through yourself (and that's why you assert that we ALL go through these phases...personally I never generalise from my experience....maybe because I'm aware that I've always been "different" in many ways ...that's OK though, I like myself a lot (btw I like lots of other people too: we don't have to be all the same! And here on Skeptiko there seem to be a lot of "different" people, which is very cool! :)

You ask great questions. I've always been accused of over generalizing... Guilty! But I do think that curious people tend to go through something similar to these phases. We start with a story about reality that works for a while. But we inevitably come up against an experience that doesn't fit. Often this is very frustrating and even depressing because things are not the way we think they should be. When we accept things as they are Wu Wei style it is a big relief. This frees us up to develop a better approach which actually does give us more control and more well-being.

It seems by your posts that you are greatly frustrated by some aspects of reality: synchronicity, ambiguity, the many horrible things in the world. And you are looking for a better model to make sense of these things. Is this correct?

2) do you feel that you have reached the final stage (#7) or is this some kind of a forecast of the stages you already know you will be going through?

I've gone through these phases a few times and at the end of it I always feel a little more free... A little more transcendent like I've got the world by the tail. I don't think there's really ever a FINAL final phase. It's just a cycle.

You look at someone like Raymond Moody who exudes confidence and peace and joy when he talks... Does he have it all figured out? He would freely admit he doesn't. But what he has learned as he continues to follow his curiosity enables him to transcend. Do you get a feeling of transcendence when you have an epiphany? Or when you see things in a new way that just "fits"?

3) when you say that (I quote you) "by searching within yourself for a voice to guide you....you gain a voice" - is that voice inside of you your own voice or "some entity" whispering to you what you are supposed to do?

I suppose whether you identify with the voice is up to you just like whether you identify with the cells in your body or the earth is up to you. I recommend it.

When we lift weights we stimulate our muscles to grow. When we exercise our volition and conscience and intuition I believe these grow as well. If we always follow the instructions...well... just watch The Lego Movie. :) Alex said he's going to do a show about it.

Alan Watts liked to point out that "person" is derived from "per sonae" which was the mask in a Greek play which had a megaphone mouth. The "dramatis personae" was the cast of characters. So to be a "person" is to be an actor in the Hindu sense that we are all the expression of divine creativity temporarily forgetting its omnipotent divinity in order to play an individual role in the universal drama.

Where this analogy breaks down is that we are not merely reading a script handed to us, but we are also beginning to co-author it.

This is particularly interesting to me because sometimes I wonder to what extent we are "free individuals" or material expressions of "forces" (for lack of a better word) expressing themselves through us (hence our differences, and especially - and here I link back to the latest Skeptiko Podcast- why even rationality and hard data are not necessarily enough to make our view of things change radically).

In a completely rules based reality with no ambiguity, there would be no free will. But particle physics and literary deconstruction both agree that ambiguity is inherent in reality and so free will can exist and rules are subject to creative interpretation.

Last but not least, reading between the lines of this post of yours I would conclude that you are one of those who believe that this consensus reality is some kind of "school", that is, a place where we are supposed to learn something. I may be wrong though, so feel free to correct me.

I think the earth school analogy is a good one. I believe curiosity is a virtue on par with love (maybe I'm biased because I'm so damn curious). Curiosity increases spiritual vitality as it draws a soul along the boundary between knowledge and mystery. So yes I think we're here to learn... not necessarily because our alien parents dropped us off at Earth School daycare while they do their shopping, but because learning and exploration is a fundamental aspect of life.

However if you belong to the "school" school of thought :) I wonder if you would be so kind as to answer the question I asked in this very same thread (see my post #69). Thank you!

I think we could usefully start a discussion about "what is happening (here and beyond) and why" starting from one of Laird's excellent questions, a truly key one in my view, because those who believe that we are in a school of sorts (and there are lots of them, including in this Forum, I have noticed) usually say that it would defeat the purpose to tell us what we are supposed to learn. I frankly do not understand this point at all, could anyone who believes this elaborate on it?

If some things you're here to develop are: intuition, conscience, internal guidance, a unique expression of character, then receiving external guidance would short circuit that process. It is the difference between teaching a technique that someone else figured out and placing someone in the midst of a puzzle or problem in order for them to develop their own problem solving ability or their own techniques. It is the difference between coloring inside the lines and painting your own picture. You are your own work of art.

Another problem with direct dictation from God (or other super entities) is that "truth" abstracted and informed into language is inherently ambiguous and flawed (see deconstruction). Experience is truth. Words about experience are but pixelated blurry snap shots with a cheap cell phone camera. We see this problem in the legal system. Laws are written. Interpretations vary. Loopholes are found. More laws are written to close loopholes. Making positive statements implies negatives which might not have been intended. We could add specificity in an infinite regress until the entire universe is described.

Edit: returning to my Christian roots, consider that the first instruction "The Gods" gave to man set him up for "the fall" resulting in death. The serpent deceived by playing on the ambiguity in the meaning of the command. Consider that the knowledge of good and evil is what makes man "like the gods" and yet brings death. The law brings death but the spirit gives life. In other words, externally communicated instruction brings death, but internalized experiential understanding brings life. This internalized experiential understanding is the Gnosis.

Alan Watts explains these things better than I could ever hope to:

As I wrote in a previous post, when we attend a course we are given a curriculum and clear instructions about what we are supposed to learn, so to me this "school" metaphor doesn't really hold water.

It's more of a Montessori style school or a classical education... The allusion to the modern method of schooling kind of proves my point: the modern schooling system is designed to make automatons and good workers (just another brick in the wall) rather than free thinkers.

Especially since, as Laird very rightly wrote: "What advantage does it have over directly "beaming" information harmlessly into our minds? Why do we even need to incarnate to learn?"

Because experience is the real truth and learning is its own reward.

Anyway, back to the main question: Laird: " If this is a school, then what is it supposed to teach us, and is this genuinely the best method of teaching? It seems pretty sadistic to me at times."

I think my statements above and the Alan Watts videos hopefully addressed this.

 

[hypermagda]

Haha... I could totally start my own religion. ;)
You ask great questions. I've always been accused of over generalizing... Guilty! But I do think that curious people tend to go through something similar to these phases. We start with a story about reality that works for a while. But we inevitably come up against an experience that doesn't fit. Often this is very frustrating and even depressing because things are not the way we think they should be. When we accept things as they are Wu Wei style it is a big relief. This frees us up to develop a better approach which actually does give us more control and more well-being.
It seems by your posts that you are greatly frustrated by some aspects of reality: synchronicity, ambiguity, the many horrible things in the world. And you are looking for a better model to make sense of these things. Is this correct?
I've gone through these phases a few times and at the end of it I always feel a little more free... A little more transcendent like I've got the world by the tail. I don't think there's really ever a FINAL final phase. It's just a cycle.
You look at someone like Raymond Moody who exudes confidence and peace and joy when he talks... Does he have it all figured out? He would freely admit he doesn't. But what he has learned as he continues to follow his curiosity enables him to transcend. Do you get a feeling of transcendence when you have an epiphany? Or when you see things in a new way that just "fits"?

Because experience is the real truth and learning is its own reward.

Thank you so much Hurmanetar for your detailed replies, very interesting and also very useful for me, because what you wrote helped me clarify for myself why I could never see reality the way you do - and that's OK in fact, I'm happy to be me, although yours may very well be the way 'the God(s)"(Universe, mind-at-large, call it what you will) would like us to see the world (if there is indeed a single "mastermind" behind what is, I certainly don't know for sure and in fact I hope not). I guess you imply it by saying " When we accept things as they are Wu Wei style it is a big relief" - I am not looking for relief in acceptance, I'm looking for meaning...I want to see whether somewhere behind this reality that is so unsatisfactory to me there's something that makes sense to me. Maybe there isn't, I'm still seeking (this is why I'm in this Forum). The whole paranormal thing & synchronicities in particular are of interest to me as a way to understand what is going on, and ultimately the point of it all - namely, if there is any meaning that I can somehow endorse, or if it's just a pointless game which only serves the purpose of entertaining/keeping busy "someone" else (gods/forces/entities, who knows what's out there exactly), and that we can only appreciate if we take the same "aesthetic", playful approach to it.
In particular what you wrote here "learning is its own reward" is something completely alien to me - it sounds like "l'art pour l'art" , while for me learning is a means to an end. In a way the school metaphor in your case becomes an "art school" metaphor: the world would be a place where we are supposed to follow our curiosity and be amazed (you mentioned the concept of amazement in a previous post)....That's actually one of my worst nightmares, that 'God' is some kind of artist, and in particular one of those insensitive, ruthless artists for which art is so important that it can justify cruelty, like putting a gold fish in a blender and waiting to see what happens

http://evaristti.com/index.php/helena

by the way I'm obviously and proudly the moralist here: the idea of an artist God who will capriciously expose us to a goldfish in a blender (this very imperfect world with all its suffering and its horrors) to see how we react is repulsive to me. I'd say you're the Voyeur type described in this article (curiosity....), but no offence meant of course! :-)

So in reply to your question, I don't know if I'm looking for a better model, I'm rather looking to see if there is ANY point in this world on the basis of my deepest values....when I was a materialist I though that the universe was just a blind, meaningless clockwork mechanism, while, since my "strange experiences" started, at least I have the hope that, who knows, there may be a corner of this huge mystery where I could feel at home.

So, you and I are very different and that's another thing that fascinates me - how come we are all so profoundly different in our basic, most visceral approach to existence? (so much so that convincing others is often impossible regardless of data, reasoning etc). I don't expect you to reply to this question, don't worry :-) Thank you once again for your answers and by the way I found this thing you posted truly hilarious - I copy and paste it here for those who haven't seen it - indeed a very wise caveat my friend! :-)

Hurmanetar: "I'm pretty sure the light is as good as it's cracked up to be, but the conspiracy theorist in me wonders if maybe this isn't going on?"

 

[Hurmanetar]

Thank you so much Hurmanetar for your detailed replies, very interesting and also very useful for me, because what you wrote helped me clarify for myself why I could never see reality the way you do - and that's OK in fact, I'm happy to be me, although yours may very well be the way 'the God(s)"(Universe, mind-at-large, call it what you will) would like us to see the world (if there is indeed a single "mastermind" behind what is, I certainly don't know for sure and in fact I hope not). I guess you imply it by saying " When we accept things as they are Wu Wei style it is a big relief" - I am not looking for relief in acceptance, I'm looking for meaning...I want to see whether somewhere behind this reality that is so unsatisfactory to me there's something that makes sense to me. Maybe there isn't, I'm still seeking (this is why I'm in this Forum). The whole paranormal thing & synchronicities in particular are of interest to me as a way to understand what is going on, and ultimately the point of it all - namely, if there is any meaning that I can somehow endorse, or if it's just a pointless game which only serves the purpose of entertaining/keeping busy "someone" else (gods/forces/entities, who knows what's out there exactly), and that we can only appreciate if we take the same "aesthetic", playful approach to it.
In particular what you wrote here "learning is its own reward" is something completely alien to me - it sounds like "l'art pour l'art" , while for me learning is a means to an end. In a way the school metaphor in your case becomes an "art school" metaphor: the world would be a place where we are supposed to follow our curiosity and be amazed (you mentioned the concept of amazement in a previous post)....That's actually one of my worst nightmares, that 'God' is some kind of artist, and in particular one of those insensitive, ruthless artists for which art is so important that it can justify cruelty, like putting a gold fish in a blender and waiting to see what happens

http://evaristti.com/index.php/helena

by the way I'm obviously and proudly the moralist here: the idea of an artist God who will capriciously expose us to a goldfish in a blender (this very imperfect world with all its suffering and its horrors) to see how we react is repulsive to me. I'd say you're the Voyeur type described in this article (curiosity....), but no offence meant of course! :)

So in reply to your question, I don't know if I'm looking for a better model, I'm rather looking to see if there is ANY point in this world on the basis of my deepest values....when I was a materialist I though that the universe was just a blind, meaningless clockwork mechanism, while, since my "strange experiences" started, at least I have the hope that, who knows, there may be a corner of this huge mystery where I could feel at home.

So, you and I are very different and that's another thing that fascinates me - how come we are all so profoundly different in our basic, most visceral approach to existence? (so much so that convincing others is often impossible regardless of data, reasoning etc). I don't expect you to reply to this question, don't worry :) Thank you once again for your answers and by the way I found this thing you posted truly hilarious - I copy and paste it here for those who haven't seen it - indeed a very wise caveat my friend! :)

Hurmanetar: "I'm pretty sure the light is as good as it's cracked up to be, but the conspiracy theorist in me wonders if maybe this isn't going on?"

Thanks for your response. I like the example of the goldfish art with the three categories of perspectives. Yes I'd say much of the time here I'm presenting the voyeur category, although I very much sympathize with the moralist view. My girlfriend is definitely of the moralist persuasion which is why I'm constantly overrun with stray dogs... :) My deep rooted moralism (from my Christian roots) is probably what compels me to argue more about 9/11 and politics on here than NDEs or parapsychology.

The way I see it, there is the serious perspective (moralist) and the not-so-serious perspective (voyeur or sadist). The serious perspective is engrossing and full of meaning. It is empathetic like reading a book and laughing and crying along with the characters. The not-so-serious perspective says: "ah you're just a wave on the sea, you've got infinite incarnations to figure it out - if you want - and you're just here to see what it feels like to be here." The serious perspective says this life is epic and every choice, word, and deed no matter how small matters greatly and eternally and we are progressing towards something better.

These two perspectives would seem to be contradictory, yet they both show up again and again in NDEs, religious texts, and all other forms of "revelation" from the great beyond. Often they are juxtaposed together in the same report. So I have tried to entertain both perspectives and switch back and forth as the situation calls for it. I think that we live in a REAL story that is generating REAL meaning and this story is also the hero's journey - leaving the safety of the known for danger and adventure and then a progression back towards the original good. Somewhere along that journey all hope seems lost and there is the "dark night of the soul." The moralist primarily has the serious perspective which makes for a powerful meaningful story, but makes it difficult to let go of stresses and deal with loss and pain. The Sadist has only the not-serious perspective which makes it difficult to empathize or care or enjoy or find meaning. In my opinion, the wise show deep concern and compassion and savor the meaning in life while at any moment being able to shrug off care and approach it with the silliness and lightheartedness and capriciousness of a child.... sort of like Gandalf or Jesus or any other wise compassionate trickster figure. I mean one moment Jesus is dying a horrible bloody death paying for the sins of the entire world in the most serious and meaningful archetypal struggle in history... a couple days later he's playing jokes on people. So I think it is all about being able to balance both perspectives. I present the not-so-serious top-down zoomed-out art/drama/story perspective because it is the only way I know how to make sense of the serious perspective (being totally engrossed in the story). Viewing the world through a strictly serious lens while maintaining compassion and empathy and seeing the evil and suffering in the world can make one a cynic and taint everything with a dark ugliness... Many atheists and nihilists were once compassionate theists who got angry at God and now work to eliminate meaning to stop the pain.

In one of my favorite movies, The Thin Red Line, there is a quote which sums up the two perspectives: "One man looks at a dying bird and thinks there's nothing but unanswered pain. That death's got the final word, it's laughing at him. Another man sees that same bird, feels the glory, feels something smiling through it." Is that something which is "smiling through it" a cynical devil laughing at the "unanswered pain" or the Spirit of Life itself undergoing a glorious transformation as another epic chapter of the hero's journey is completed? In the movie, Witt, aptly named, is the wise compassionate "trickster" who sees the beautiful light in everything but mocks the evil by refusing to accept the frame it puts on things.

 

[Michael2]

“I’ve missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I’ve lost almost 300 games. Twenty-six times, I’ve been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I’ve failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed.” - Michael Jordan

"The soul would have no rainbow if the eyes had no tears." - Native American proverb

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

Nice sentiments Michael2...but I think no platitude can really wash away the reality of suffering.

I mean would any of us really try to offer such proverbs/quotations to someone who'd been kidnapped & enslaved for years?

But I don't think the earthly suffering really proves Gnosticism, even if it's enough to show that rationally no appeal to an All Powerful *and* Fully Benevolent entity really works. (Mysticism however might offer as solution, but then by its nature as unverifiable person gnosis it can't be used in logical argument.)

Where I think Gnosticism or Hermeticism really comes into play is asking about the shyness of Psi, the Veil between this life and the presumed next, the fact that miracles are rare and in modern times offer no definitive proof, and other questions of that nature.

 

[Michael2]

Nice sentiments Michael2...but I think no platitude can really wash away the reality of suffering.

I mean would any of us really try to offer such proverbs/quotations to someone who'd been kidnapped & enslaved for years?

But I don't think the earthly suffering really proves Gnosticism, even if it's enough to show that rationally no appeal to an All Powerful *and* Fully Benevolent entity really works. (Mysticism however might offer as solution, but then by its nature as unverifiable person gnosis it can't be used in logical argument.)

Where I think Gnosticism or Hermeticism really comes into play is asking about the shyness of Psi, the Veil between this life and the presumed next, the fact that miracles are rare and in modern times offer no definitive proof, and other questions of that nature.

I don't know Sci. I guess I don't see them as merely platitudes, I see them as two poignant statements on not giving up, lessons learned having lived a long and difficult life. These quotes make a lot of sense to me. I think they also speak silently to the fact that none of us have the answer, but life is still worth the effort. I personally would not take Gnosticism literally either. At best it too is just a sign, an icon, that points to the truth.

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

I don't know Sci. I guess I don't see them as merely platitudes, I see them as two poignant statements on not giving up, lessons learned having lived a long and difficult life. These quotes make a lot of sense to me. I think they also speak silently to the fact that none of us have the answer, but life is still worth the effort. I personally would not take Gnosticism literally either. At best it too is just a sign, an icon, that points to the truth.

Hmmmm...."the truth"? Would we even recognize it?

"You lied to her."

"No. I told her a Story."

"[Crap]! You sound just like your dad."

"Actually I was thinking of something...my mother said. That most times, the truth is like a close-up conjuring trick. You can look straight at something and think you're seeing the truth of it. But really, you're seeing what someone else wants you to see. So [screw] the truth. We don't know where it is, and we probably won't know it when we see it. She just chose the story she needs right now.

The story that keeps her standing. That's probably all any of us get to do."
-the Unwritten # 17: The Many Lives of Lizzie Hexam

 

[Michael2]

So maybe (?) words are not to be taken literally either, maybe they also are just signs pointing to the truth. The way I experience my thoughts is that they originate as feelings, mental tensions, musculare tensions - I then spent a good long time trying to find the right words to fit them. That excercise is very hit and miss for me. Maybe finding words to express anything already downgrades that to the level of misunderstanding.

 

[Hurmanetar]

Maybe finding words to express anything already downgrades that to the level of misunderstanding.

This is why God (if such a being exists embodying absolute truth) cannot speak to us plainly. As soon as God speaks he becomes in a sense a liar.

"Where can I find a man who has forgotten words that I may talk with him?" -Chuang Tzu

 

[Hurmanetar]

This guy (Richard Alan Miller) is a trip! ....metaphorically... haha, this interview is worth a listen and touches on a lot of stuffs in this thread.

... in fact, this does it for me, I'm buying a subscription to THC. :)

http://thehighersidechats.com/dr-ri...litary-intelligence-and-higher-consciousness/

http://content.blubrry.com/thehighersidechatsplus/THC_Dr_RAM_free.mp3

 

[Buggy713]

Nice sentiments Michael2...but I think no platitude can really wash away the reality of suffering.

I mean would any of us really try to offer such proverbs/quotations to someone who'd been kidnapped & enslaved for years?

But I don't think the earthly suffering really proves Gnosticism, even if it's enough to show that rationally no appeal to an All Powerful *and* Fully Benevolent entity really works. (Mysticism however might offer as solution, but then by its nature as unverifiable person gnosis it can't be used in logical argument.)

Where I think Gnosticism or Hermeticism really comes into play is asking about the shyness of Psi, the Veil between this life and the presumed next, the fact that miracles are rare and in modern times offer no definitive proof, and other questions of that nature.

Hey Sciborg,


I don't know if suffering and evil is logically incompatible with an all good and powerful god, sure it is defiantly a strong argument against it, but I don't know how you can show it is logically inconsistent. Someone can always say that there are reasons that evil and suffering are allowed happen or even have some sort of purpose, even the most atrocious suffering. They can say we have limited information and your just reading one sentence in a book that is 100 pages long.


If you take the mystical literature and NDE stories seriously, they all point to a bright white light that seems to have the characteristics of the classical theist good, all powerful, all good etc. The white light and these characteristics are consistent themes throughout the mystical literature going back centuries. Even the Buddhist talk about the white light, albeit even though they don't believe in god…..they give descriptions similar to nders. From what is seems the white light is the creator and sustainer of all. Its in all and everything is in it, there doesn't seems to be any dark being that I have run across (reading direct mystical experiences that can even come close to the power that the light has. The light is described as God, the one that is in charge.. But... I think it is just much more complex then that... A lot of the mystical literature points to there being an impersonal godhead and a personal god (one that emits love etc.) The impersonal god is what is called Brahman, nirvana etc.. It is absolute unity.... beyond good and evil.... People associate it with bliss... the greatest bliss you can ever experience.. why because what we called love is a feeling of connection with someone else... the ultimate connection has to be a sense of oneness! It is also described as infinite potential... it contains the ability to give rise to everything both indirectly and directly. But it doesn't KNOW this potential directly.. it knows of the essence of it.. so it is not omniscient in that way (omniscient it generally meant as the ability to know all future paths). It lacks of direct knowledge of its own potential


At some point there is a level of dissociation from the impersonal absolute (stealing from the Bernardo) and this is the personal “god” the white light, it is the closest to the impersonal god head, it is associated with "love" because in a sense everything is still one. There is very little duality and certain no knowledge true separateness .The more there is dissociation arises the potential for discord, evil, lack of harmony etc because more dissociation means more duality and further away from the ultimate reality and you get to a point where you can have a world with beings that don't even feel connected to each other anymore because they are ignorant of their true nature. Evil arose at a certain point in the dissociated process of pure consciousness, defiantly not directly at the level we call "god". Think of reality like an onion and levels of vibrations... the lower the vibrations the more potential for discord and harmony… the higher then vibration the closer to the ultimate reality you are. I think we’re are all parts of god... evil comes from ignorance and dissociation... so in a sense evil is carried out by parts of god that are ignorant of themselves... but evil is not the true nature of god.


Why is evil allowed to happen at all generally even if there is this all powerful loving white light that is in charge?... if the impersonal godhead is in some sense beyond good and evil.. but yet is ignorant of duality.. and wants to experience it in all forms.. what we call "good and "evil" is bounds to happen... I think the "light" (the personal god) is experiencing all the pain and suffering that we feel and everything else because it’s in everything... The light is active in the world and the impersonal is not. All possibilities are bound to happen in a sense that all potential possibilities and worlds are contained in the impersonal godhead...all of these possibilities are being played out and experienced through conscious beings given the gift of free choice just like ourselves in this world and probably in many other worlds... the personal god (the light) gets complete knowledge of duality and separateness in all forms through us. Its knowledge of its own potential is incomplete without knowing duality in all its forms. Novel experience could not happen without free will. Just like humans are curious and want knowledge so do higher aspects of reality and true separateness and novel experience does not exist there.


Now why this is world is so fucked up... there may be many different reasons... I don't think that this began as school of any sorts I think that beings who never knew of extra separateness and duality wanted to experience it. I don't think there is any "lessons" to be learned from being tortured or raped. This is just a result of free choices being played out or karma and god doesn't intervene. It got more fucked up then it was supposed to be but it is being allowed to play out for the reasons listed above... I think you incarnate here by choice and because you have to in a certain way for many different reasons. But now I think this world is one big Karmic loop where lessons have to be learned because of things done in the past. I also think we come here to battle with forces of darkness and bring the world back to its original state. I think this world could be a project of some sorts and it got fucked up along the way somehow and we are trying to fix it. Or there is like a demiurge character that lured us here and we got tricked. I am really not sure. There are indications that we think of as our "history" could be all wrong. Graham Hancock’s work, Michael Cremo's work etc.. This world or universe could have been in a higher spiritual state in the past. Maybe there was a fall. This type of world that we have now would not have been directly created by god. There is no evil in a world whose vibration is close to source. Maybe the world has been fucked up to begin with and was created by a demiurge and we bit the apple of knowledge and got lured in.


I am may be wrong about everything but I am open minded to all possibilities and this is just me trying to piece all the stuff I had read, all the hours of research I had done some time back. You can’t know the truth and purpose because in a sense you are just in a human body with intellectual and emotional prejudices. Who knows what the view of suffering is from (if you have one) your higher spiritual state. You are wedded to an earthly perspective and your knee deep in the mud. You can never understand the truth (whatever that is) with the intellectual apparatus of primate. If non duality is true, then all duality is unreal anyway (this is not trying to minimize the existence of suffering, this is just a transcendent way of looking at it).

 

[Typoz]

Seems to me that "all good" and "all powerful" are mutually exclusive. Not sure why this is such a popular combination.

 

[hypermagda]

T In my opinion, the wise show deep concern and compassion and savor the meaning in life while at any moment being able to shrug off care and approach it with the silliness and lightheartedness and capriciousness of a child.... sort of like Gandalf or Jesus or any other wise compassionate trickster figure. I mean one moment Jesus is dying a horrible bloody death paying for the sins of the entire world in the most serious and meaningful archetypal struggle in history... a couple days later he's playing jokes on people. So I think it is all about being able to balance both perspectives. I present the not-so-serious top-down zoomed-out art/drama/story perspective because it is the only way I know how to make sense of the serious perspective (being totally engrossed in the story). Viewing the world through a strictly serious lens while maintaining compassion and empathy and seeing the evil and suffering in the world can make one a cynic and taint everything with a dark ugliness... Many atheists and nihilists were once compassionate theists who got angry at God and now work to eliminate meaning to stop the pain.

In one of my favorite movies, The Thin Red Line, there is a quote which sums up the two perspectives: "One man looks at a dying bird and thinks there's nothing but unanswered pain. That death's got the final word, it's laughing at him. Another man sees that same bird, feels the glory, feels something smiling through it." Is that something which is "smiling through it" a cynical devil laughing at the "unanswered pain" or the Spirit of Life itself undergoing a glorious transformation as another epic chapter of the hero's journey is completed? In the movie, Witt, aptly named, is the wise compassionate "trickster" who sees the beautiful light in everything but mocks the evil by refusing to accept the frame it puts on things.

Thank you, what you wrote is very clear and I totally understand where you’re coming from….but again, your approach, wise as it may well be (I said it myself in another post: the wisest are probably those who can laugh at the universal joke made at our expense - 'if you can't beat them, join them', in other words), is not for me. You see, I could more easily “get over” the reality of evil and suffering if it was just about me and my life instead of a capillary, widespread phenomenon intrinsic in existence - btw re: your example about Jesus: so he got over his own suffering on the Cross, and was playing jokes a couple of days later - but when he died he was certainly not amused , he even reproached his own Father by saying “why have you forsaken me?”, which is basically what I am saying now, so Jesus was no wiser than me while alive, hehe (only I am an agnostic, so mine is not a call for help like his, but rather an inquiry, just in case there’s actually a God "who could do something useful if only he wanted to" out there :)). It’s certainly easier to joke about suffering (if Jesus ever did ) AFTER realising that he “had been on Candid Camera” and that he had after all been resurrected - apologies if this sounds disrespectful to any Christians reading this, I am just using this example because you mentioned Jesus. Incidentally I am an agnostic so I don’t take the Bible’s stories etc as facts.

With reference to what you wrote about becoming a cynic and a nihilist, I have been questioning the meaning of existence well before my “strange experiences” (though I was doing it from a materialist standpoint) - in fact I’ve been questioning the meaning of existence all my life, so I believe I’m not at risk of becoming a nihilist, I’m way too compassionate for that - the lack of meaning actually makes me even more compassionate towards those who are suffering (however not towards those who make the suffering worse with intentional cruel acts, I can be pretty merciless in fact: precisely because I don’t see justice as intrinsic in this “creation" I want to see at least human justice enforced….). In fact I was going to say something sexist hehe….I can’t think of any female nihilist, can you? Just curious to hear if you can think of any “well-known” ones. I guess our hormones protect us from the nihilism and the dark ugliness you mention. Anyway I may of course be completely wrong there.

Another huge difference between me and you (and “God”/the Universe/it as you describe it and as it may well be) is that I dislike this purported “heroic vision” of existence. In fact that’s something that smacks of masculinity to me (maybe you see God/the Universe this way because you are a man? Just wondering....). I am not interested in the hero’s journey. Why not the gardener’s or the seamstress' journey? Why am I forced to be a “hero”, to go through “a dark night of the soul" and even enjoy it?? You use words like “glorious", “epic", “hero", all these words are repulsive to me. They belong to a sort of Nietzschean “amor fati” that I have always profoundly abhorred.

So, bottom line, I am what I am and I see the world differently from you but that’s OK, moreover you have a very important redeeming feature: a lovely moralist girlfriend who rescues dogs, please give her my love and thank her for what she’s doing! :)

 

[Hurmanetar]

You see, I could more easily “get over” the reality of evil and suffering if it was just about me and my life instead of a capillary, widespread phenomenon intrinsic in existence

I totally understand that, and maybe my acceptance of the world as it is has made me too much of a hard-ass... Haha... Here's a blog I wrote a few years ago in which I share almost exactly the sentiment you've shared above. It proves I wasn't always such a hard-ass! :)
https://simcah.wordpress.com/2011/05/30/the-sun-it-will-still-rise/

btw re: your example about Jesus: so he got over his own suffering on the Cross, and was playing jokes a couple of days later - but when he died he was certainly not amused , he even reproached his own Father by saying “why have you forsaken me?”

Good point.

In fact I was going to say something sexist hehe….I can’t think of any female nihilist, can you? Just curious to hear if you can think of any “well-known” ones. I guess our hormones protect us from the nihilism and the dark ugliness you mention Anyway I may of course be completely wrong there.

Haha another good point.. I don't know of any famous female nihilists. (Maybe Hillary Clinton?) It does seem to be more of a man thing and oxytocin probably does have something to do with that.

I am not interested in the hero’s journey. Why not the gardener’s or the seamstress' journey?

Presumably you could have stayed in the Shire if you desired (assuming an aspect of yourself had a choice about it before you were born). Like Bilbo Baggins, the reluctant hero makes the best kind of hero. According to the Genesis myth gardening was what we did...no need for clothes though... But a desire for knowledge set us on this journey and we will eventually return to the "garden state".

Why am I forced to be a “hero”, to go through “a dark night of the soul" and even enjoy it?? You use words like “glorious", “epic", “hero", all these words are repulsive to me. They belong to a sort of Nietzschean “amor fati” that I have always profoundly abhorred.

To be a sensitive being means the potential to experience the full spectrum of senses from pain to pleasure. Whether pain or pleasure is bad or good depends entirely upon how it is framed. The frame is the narrative or the background story. We can choose how we frame the things that happen. I'm only offering a way to frame things so that the bad is turned into good. Is there an ultimately "correct" way to frame things? I don't know.. I think we get to choose from moment to moment how we frame things and that changes the direction and meaning of the story. Are we living in a comedy or a tragedy? We choose.

So, bottom line, I am what I am and I see the world differently from you but that’s OK, moreover you have a very important redeeming feature: a lovely moralist girlfriend who rescues dogs, please give her my love and thank her for what she’s doing! :)

Haha, yes we can agree to disagree. I hope I don't come across too strongly as implying you must see things my way. The dogs and cats are fat and happy. :)

 

[Laird]

Hi Laird

I think that I should put down some more thoughts about how I see/define things before going any further, as many of my thoughts on subjects like these are not fixed. They're more like intuitions that make sense to me, and although I can sense frustration in your post, I can only go so far with my explanations. Remember these are only one individuals thoughts - nothing more. I feel sometimes that I am talking the talk, but I'm very far from walking the walk! Hardly anything I'm saying is my own, it is like a jigsaw puzzle that I've started to put together. Maybe it's designed so that even totally different pieces make the same picture? Maybe many different pictures are equally beautiful.

Intuition and incompleteness are fine with me, Steve. I don't have it all worked out either. On the other hand, I think it's important to recognise the logical inconsistencies in our own positions, incomplete and intuited as our positions may be. Recognising that there's something wrong with our picture of the world is one of the main ways we evolve more accurate pictures.

God - an intelligent entity with love at its core, maybe love's more than at its core , maybe it's all love. I don't think we understand love fully, far from it.

I view God in the same way. But what about all of the other attributes that He is sometimes tagged with? Omnipotence? Omniscience? Authorship of reality? Do you ascribe those to Him too?

Humans - think of them/us like You see a bug making its way through some grass.
Our understanding as humans - like trying to teach a bug maths.
Maybe that's a being little unfair to the bug/us.

"Even" a bug knows when stuff doesn't make sense.

How God sees his creations - as we (most of us)see our children.

I'm going to remind you of that at later points in this response.

Should/shouldn't - Doesn't mean there will be judgement. No hard rules in general.

Consigning a person to burn in an inescapable pit with his victims, even if only temporarily, as a punishment for suicide bombing, seems pretty judgemental to me...

While I think God is all about love, our limited understanding of love/God may make us feel that God should react some way or other, but how can we truly know?

Well, why don't you tell me how a father feels about his children? Is there some way to know that?

If we truly feel that he's good, we should 'have faith'.

We should have faith in God's goodness. We should not "have faith" in just any old model that some person puts before us which happens to share our view that God is good. We should assess the different models on offer to see which one is most internally consistent and best fits the facts.

It's judging the big picture without knowing all the facts.

I might not know all of the facts about the equation of life, but I know that when somebody tells me that the solution to life's equation involves both that 2x = 4 and that x = 8, he's got the equation wrong.

Its the old story about missing a flight that your desperate to catch, your so frustrated and disappointed until you hear on the news that the plane crashed!

And as for the people who didn't miss the flight: bad luck, guys!

Why would a good God play favourites like that?

I should be more careful about the words I'm using, more careful about how I'm writing when people feel so strongly about things I may be commenting on. I said" if it exists it might be necessary ", I could be wrong, I just don't know? But what I know is that it exists. So what are we going to do about it?

Can we, should we really blame God?

Not if he is good and all-powerful. A good and all-powerful God would not be responsible for evil and suffering. But this raises one conclusion and one question: (1) since a good and all-powerful God is incompatible with evil and suffering, and since evil and suffering exist, God is not both good and all-powerful, and (2) assuming we retain the view that God is good (and thus drop the notion that He is omnipotent): who or what is responsible for evil, since God is not?

Say that my/Toms assertion about earth being a virtual reality that we reincarnate on, so as to 'grow', assuming that we have free will, or the illusion of free will is required for some reason (how this is accomplished is way too complicated for me)then it is surely our fault that such horrors exist.

It is our fault that non-contagious diseases ravage young children? It is our fault that tsunamis destroy entire coastlines of villages? It is our fault that predators are forced to destroy the lives of other animals in order to survive?

There are many people that say "We have lost our way, our connection to God". Maybe this is the case? Maybe God, seeing the horrors that men inflict on one another, is just as horrified as I/you are, but who am I (or you) to judge how he should react?

Having suggested that God views us as we view our children, I think you're in a very good position to judge how he should react. How would you react if you saw horrors being inflicted on your child?

How would you react?

With horror.

The evidence of how men react to barbarity is surely not the best way that we might react? I'm guessing, but my guess would be that men's emotional reaction to this would include: anger,disgust, hatred, loathing, fear, etc but what would truly be needed to really make a change, would be love, compassion, understanding, etc.

Love, compassion and understanding towards whom? Certainly, towards the victim. But what good will love, compassion and understanding do for a psychopath? He doesn't want or care for any of that, he just wants power over you.

The perpetrator is very likely to have experienced very little of these throughout his life

In some (many? most?) cases, yes. In that case, yes, love, compassion and understanding are important - but with accountability. In others: no, it's the way they were when they were born. They have chosen or otherwise been set upon a dark path.

and I just don't know about the victim. Maybe he was Hitler/a paedophile in his past life

So, a good God supports retributive karmic justice? Where's the goodness in that?

but Jesus dying at the hands of man doesn't support this

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Clarification please?

I am very far from knowing all the answers, but all that I need to know, from my intuition and backed up by experience is that it's all about choices!

I'm agreeable with that.

I have read some examples of people being in very traumatic situations and being told to forgive their attackers. One cop who was shot a few times and who was about to be 'finished off' by the perpetrator, got a voice telling him in no uncertain terms to say out loud 'I forgive you' to him. This seemed to throw the guy, and he didn't shoot, the cops life changed forever.

OK, but should you forgive a genuinely evil being, one who is irredeemable and has no intention or possibility of ever changing paths? One who delights in causing suffering and misery for its own sake?

I have read that some kids who are abused find a way to leave that reality elsewhere and somehow make it appear 'separate' from them. I would hope that's true, that the suffering that we see is somehow shielded in some way from the victim.

So would I.

But how can we, if our father has a trait that we dislike, he may gamble or drink excessively, should we no longer love him? Or can we say that I might have loved him 100% once, but now I'm only able to love him 70% - can we make such judgements? As soon as we do, I suggest that we find ourselves on a slippery slope.

Too hypothetical for me: I believe in a wholly good God.

Moving on to your follow-up post:

Here's something that maybe relevant.

[Videos of Tom Campbell speaking elided]

Thanks for finding those, Steve, they speak pretty directly to this issue. Let me sum up Tom's position from the first video:

[paraphrasing]Evil is as much a part of greater Consciousness as is good. We, as conscious potential, can evolve in two different directions, one being selfless love, and the other being control (ego) - the negative side of evolution. Both decrease entropy and increase self-organisation, but the path of control has a ceiling, whereas the path of love does not.[/paraphrasing]

This is fine so far as it goes, but as I and others have said, it is incompatible with a good and all-powerful God. Such a God would not tolerate the evil path; He would not have permitted it. The free will defence doesn't work, as I pointed out in my last post. To leave a perpetrator free to commit evil is to remove the freedom of his victim to live a happy and unmolested life. Whether one intervenes or not, somebody loses their freedom, thus, since the two scenarios are equal in this respect (the curtailing of freedom), the right thing to do is to intervene to prevent the evil from occurring.

From the second video:

Question: "If the point of it is to come to love, why doesn't the game start from there and move onwards?"

[Me (Laird) interjecting: Exactly the right question! Here's Tom's answer, which I'll break down afterwards.]

Answer: "You see, what you're doing then is you're eliminating the opportunity to evolve. You're going from a system with free will to a deterministic system. 'Why [not] just start at the end?' You know, 'If you're going to the end point then why don't I just start at the end?' Well, then there is no game. There's no free will, there's no entities, there's no process, and you're really not evolving, you're just doing a head game with yourself: nothing's really changed, nothing significant has happened. So, in order to have this whole system - now, this system is not a closed system, see, sometimes you think of it as a closed system: there's just 'n' entities in here and they're all growing up and eventually we're all going to be there [gestures to a higher level with his hands]. 'Well, why don't we just start there to begin with?' It's not a closed system, there's new consciousness being generated all the time. There's new things coming into the system that have to grow up through the system. So, the system just is. [...] So, this is a natural system of potential that has figured out a strategy to evolve by interacting these pieces together, and there's no way to leap itself, so to speak. It's got to work its way up, it's got to earn its evolution, so it can't just do that. It's not like [in] this system there's a master in charge playing with these pet people, you know, it's not that way. We the pet people are not really pet people: we are the system. We're it too, and we're all just trying to evolve the system, so, it can't do that".

OK, so, breaking this down.

You see, what you're doing then is you're eliminating the opportunity to evolve.

No, you're not. Love is a starting point for evolution as much as an end point.

You're going from a system with free will to a deterministic system.

False: there is freedom of will in (the choice of ways to) love.

'Why [not] just start at the end?' You know, 'If you're going to the end point then why don't I just start at the end?' Well, then there is no game.

So what? Why would we care about a game of evolution-through-suffering when we could start our evolution with lovingness from the beginning?

There's no free will

False: see above.

there's no entities

False: there are simply no evil entities.

there's no process, and you're really not evolving

So what? See three responses above.

you're just doing a head game with yourself: nothing's really changed, nothing significant has happened.

Nothing's changed? Well, if love is what would be unchanging, then why would we want to change?! Why would we want to introduce a "game" of evil and suffering to get to what we already had: perfect love?

So, in order to have this whole system - now, this system is not a closed system, see, sometimes you think of it as a closed system: there's just 'n' entities in here and they're all growing up and eventually we're all going to be there [gestures to a higher level with his hands]. 'Well, why don't we just start there to begin with?' It's not a closed system, there's new consciousness being generated all the time. There's new things coming into the system that have to grow up through the system.

And how does this differ from the possibilities for a system starting out at love rather than ending there? Such a system could be equally open to new consciousness.

So, the system just is.

That it might be, but it is incompatible with a good, all-powerful God (but I am not entirely sure what Tom's concept of God is, Steve, nor, really, yours).

So, this is a natural system of potential that has figured out a strategy to evolve by interacting these pieces together, and there's no way to leap itself, so to speak. It's got to work its way up, it's got to earn its evolution, so it can't just do that.

So we're supposed to believe that there's an intelligence capable of setting up this complex and ordered system of evolution, the point of which is to teach love, but that that intelligence is not capable of "leaping to" (starting from) a system of love in the first place? I don't buy that.

It's not like [in] this system there's a master in charge playing with these pet people, you know, it's not that way. We the pet people are not really pet people: we are the system. We're it too, and we're all just trying to evolve the system, so, it can't do that.

We are the system? So, there's no higher intelligence after all, there's only us? I don't buy that either. Or does Tom simply mean that we are part of the system with limited intelligence and power? That I can buy, but then the first part of Tom's statement would seem to be wrong: there would have to be a "master in charge": whichever being it is who has the intelligence and power to design in the first place the system of evolution in which we more limited consciousnesses evolve.