Alex Tsakiris, Four Questions About the Future of Skeptiko |414|

Can you define that term a little, please?

David
"Blobbist" = You know...those that say the goal is to totally lose one's individuality and merge with the One Mind, never to return to individuality.

That's the core of the ideology.

Usually it is paired with the notion that "God" is also a blob of sorts. To a Blobbist, God is just everything and everything is good. The purpose of the illusion of the experience of being an individual is merely God playing with himself to have adventures. There is no moral imperative or purpose because it's all God and God is good. Even Hitler was just God playing hide and seek with himself. We're all God. A pebble is God. A could is God. A lizard is God, etc, etc ad nauseum.

See Stan Groff as a prime example.

Someone mention Bruce Seigel upstream - A good guy who I used to talk to a lot about these matters, but another Blobbist for sure.
 
Last edited:
Oneness is recognized in many different religious and spiritual traditions as well as by spirits and atheists.
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2015/03/realizing-ultimate.html
You might have heard it said that "we are all one". What does that mean? The quotes below explain it. These quotes from: an ancient text, an advanced meditator, a near-death experiencer, a spirit communicating through an evidential mediums, a materialist atheist , Christian scripture, Christian theologians, a Native American medicine man, a Jewish Scholar of the Kabbalah, and a Sufi philosopher, all describe something very similar ...
 
Last edited:
Sunfellow should be more specific about which eastern perspectives he is talking about, they are not all the same. And he should explain what he means by "zombies" - I am not aware of anyone who has experienced a non-dual state (including myself) who has lost himself in the primordial soup.
 
"Blobbist" = You know...those that say the goal is to totally lose one's individuality and merge with the One Mind, never to return to individuality.

That's the core of the ideology.

Usually it is paired with the notion that "God" is also a blob of sorts. To a Blobbist, God is just everything and everything is good. The purpose of the illusion of the experience of being an individual is merely God playing with himself to have adventures. There is no moral imperative or purpose because it's all God and God is good. Even Hitler was just God playing hide and seek with himself. We're all God. A pebble is God. A could is God. A lizard is God, etc, etc ad nauseum.

See Stan Groff as a prime example.

Someone mention Bruce Seigel upstream - A good guy who I used to talk to a lot about these matters, but another Blobbist for sure.
I tend to agree - though I suppose it might look different from
They deny the reason they were created. They seem to hate their own existence, even if they deny that is the case.
Yes - I agree - we are presumably here for a purpose, and it isn't to deny ourselves.
David
 
IMO, the Buddhists and other blobbists - especially of of the new age bent - are basically getting it wrong. They deny the reason they were created. They seem to hate their own existence, even if they deny that is the case.
Hatred is certainly harmful. I'd place the addressing of hate as a more vital topic than esoteric matters.
 
#4 Deception and Evil
The biggest deception that occurs is when we deceive ourselves. We try to understand what we perceive with our senses and we make up stories to explain it, usually not by using logic, but by contriving scenarios that minimize cognitive dissonance. Sometimes the stories are true, sometimes they are fiction.
People have a tendency to see evil where it does not exist. The arguments made by the other side in any debate will always seem to be wrong, even if those arguments are defending a legitimate opinion. This can create the impressionism that the underlying opinion is wrong when it is actaully not right or wrong it is just an opinion. Explanation below ...


Why Won’t They Listen? ‘The Righteous Mind,’ by Jonathan Haidt By WILLIAM SALETAN SUNDAY BOOK REVIEW MARCH 23, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/the-righteous-mind-by-jonathan-haidt.html
The problem isn’t that people don’t reason. They do reason. But their arguments aim to support their conclusions, not yours. Reason doesn’t work like a judge or teacher, impartially weighing evidence or guiding us to wisdom. It works more like a lawyer or press secretary, justifying our acts and judgments to others.​

Scott Adams, who in addition to being the author of the comic strip Dilbert, is a trained hypnotist. In an interview on FoxNews@Night with Shannon Bream on March 19, 2018, Scott Adams explained that hypnotism teaches us that people don't use logic to make decisions even though we think we do. (2:59: youtu.be/vLhcrbtbCEg?t=2m59s):
We humans ignore facts but we think we don't. The great illusion of life is that we're rational beings making rational decisions most of the time. But when you become a hypnotist, the first thing you learn is that that's backwards and that mostly we're deciding based on our team, our feelings, our emotions, irrational reasons, we make our decision and then we rationalize it no matter how tortured that rationalization is."​

https://www.economist.com/news/book...g-knowledge-between-minds-making-people-think
People overestimate how well they understand how things work. Direct evidence for this comes from the psychological laboratory. The great Yale psychologist Frank Keil and his students first demonstrated the illusion of explanatory depth, what we call the knowledge illusion. He asked people how well they understand how everyday objects (zippers, toilets, ballpoint pens) work. On average, people felt they had a reasonable understanding (at the middle of a 7-point scale). Then Keil asked them to explain how they work. People failed miserably. For the most part, people just can’t articulate the mechanisms that drive even the simplest things.​
The arguments made by the other side in a political debate will always seem to be wrong, even if those arguments are defending a legitimate opinion. This can create the impressionism that the underlying opinion is wrong when it is actaully not right or wrong it is just an opinion.

I see political debates as debates between people who have chosen a side and then use reason to defend that side. But ultimately they are defending an opinion. Both sides have legitimate opinions and no amount of data or logic is going to make someone change their political opinion any more than it could cause them to change their favorite color or flavor of ice cream.

The issue of abortion is a clear example. Is the unborn baby a human that deserves the same human rights and legal protections as someone who has been born? That is always going to be a matter of opinion and "logical" arguments don't have the force necessary to change someone's mind.

The problem is that people have different standards for what is acceptable evidence. They are willing to believe any tenuous hypothesis or weakly supported theory that supports their side but cannot believe evidence when it goes against their side. So they may have a legitimate opinion but they end up supporting it with what seems to the other side as utter nonsense -their evidence may be good or poor but it will always seem nonsense to the other side.

I think our society would be a lot better off if this was understood better in the general population so that people could recognize that different opinions are not wrong or stupid or evil even if the arguments seem to flawed.

The arguments made by the other side in a political debate will always seem to be wrong, even if those arguments are defending a legitimate opinion. This can create the impressionism that the underlying opinion is wrong when it is actaully not right or wrong it is just an opinion.
 
Top