Is Westworld our world?

Discussion in 'Extended Consciousness & Spirituality' started by AryaS, May 6, 2018.

  1. AryaS

    AryaS Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2017
    Messages:
    233
    Thank you for the elaboration, dpdown. I think I understand a little better. I guess I'm still trying to understand how the concept of evil or a moral universe fits into this panpsychic/pantheistic worldview -- if at all? If all of consciousness is just evolving and learning and adapting -- and we are essentially little fractal consciousnesses within a larger consciousness (but still having all of its parts within us, somewhere), then I presume that even acts of what most of us would consider to be "great evil" in the physical realm are just learning/evolutionary experiences and just another (amoral) aspect of consciousness exploring itself -- what a Jungian might say, exploring our Shadow Self? So in your opinion, is this world just the individual and collective consciousness exploring its own Light and Shadow? With the ultimate end being, what, a total understanding of its/our entire (amoral) nature? Or is there no end -- is this all cyclical, ever evolving, a snake swallowing its own tail forever?

    I do see a somewhat similar concept with the study of the Kabbalah -- the consciousness evolution towards Keter and then beyond into the Ein Sof -- that which has no form or separation but is pure consciousness. But I have issues with these kabbalistic/panpsychic models in that it doesn't allow me to reconcile the subjective experiences of (a majority of) NDE experiencers and others having powerful positive spiritually transformative experiences who speak of an ultimately moral universe, with the primary energy being "Love"?

    I feel I have to toss out what NDE'ers are claiming as either wishful thinking, delusion, or deception (intentional or even as a result of trickery by higher consicousness beings who want to keep humanity in this loop of human suffering for whatever reason....). Because the less subjective evidence of reality here on this plane does suggest to me either a completely amoral evolving consciousness -- or some form of Dualism that would allow for separate higher beings of good/evil.

    Going to get some more strong coffee now!
     
    Mishelle, dpdownsouth and hypermagda like this.
  2. hypermagda

    hypermagda Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2016
    Messages:
    218
    LOL! I actually posted those links in a reply to YOU here on Skeptiko, and you even commented on them before clicking on them, saying that I should not post links to ISIS propaganda websites, whereby I reassured you that obviously I would never do such thing - they were links to absolutely "kosher" sites.

    My post in question is #59 in this thread: http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...w-insight-about-consciousness-350.3839/page-3

    I am astonished that you seem to imply that millions of Hinduists throughout the ages had an "axe to grind" (and Buddhists, too, only they do not believe in reincarnation but in "rebirth", which to me sounds more or less the same, despite the subtle distinction) . How do you know that those few experiencers you place so much trust in do not have "an axe to grind", too?

    Incidentally, here's an account of what reincarnation is about according to Hinduism. There is zero choice involved, and it's certainly not about experiencing a "fun" ride in material life (as a Jew in Auschwitz? Or maybe, for some, as their Nazi tormentors! I'm sure some people would be happy to enjoy THAT sadistic thrill !!!)

    http://www.hinduwebsite.com/reincarnation.asp

    I am not saying THIS (Hinduism's) is the Absolute Truth, of course. Frankly I don't even believe in reincarnation: I am agnostic about it. But I don't see how this ancient, certainly less uplifting but extremely important (considering how many people have lived and still live by it) "data point" should be completely ignored in favour of more recent, consolatory "reports" which don't even make sense in the face of the harsh reality faced by the vast majority of human beings (let alone animals, who are also sentient beings) throughout the centuries (and today, too).
     
    AryaS likes this.
  3. hypermagda

    hypermagda Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2016
    Messages:
    218
    Wow, AryaS, I want to like this post of yours a million times! Very clear and convincing.
    I, too have been researching the Kabbalah in depth in the past year (and much more of course) and have come exactly to the same conclusions.
    Of course, mine continues to be a working theory, because I take a (genuine, ie non dogmatic) "scientific" approach to all this, and will continue to be open to consider new data and ideas until I die, but I certainly endorse your analysis 100%.
     
    Laird and AryaS like this.
  4. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,453
    Yeah I realise what happened - I couldn't recall reading those accounts, but forgot that that was for that reason! Maybe my little grey cells are diminishing in number as well - who knows!

    I think all religions have an axe to grind. Their have a dogma rather than explore the truth as we try to do here. I meant nothing more than that.

    I have yet to read your link about Hindu reincarnation, but I want to say that it is very hard to really get a satisfactory explanation of the larger reality. I mean, what is it all for?

    It is all right to talk about purifying the soul - but why? My gut feeling is that we need an answer that is a bit broader than a moralistic one can ever be.

    There really is no need to get angry (or do I misread your emotions) we are all floundering about with ideas!

    I would feel very cautious about downloading ISIS material, and yes, I certainly don't want links on this site, because the security forces have a hell of a tough job, and I don't want to get in their way, or for then to become concerned about us. I agree, that makes it a bit difficult to explore this topic!

    Feel free to PM me.

    David

    David
     
    dpdownsouth and hypermagda like this.
  5. hypermagda

    hypermagda Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2016
    Messages:
    218
    David, I have no definitive answer either, or I wouldn't be here on this Forum :) but I am convinced that the only thing one can and should try and do is analyse ideas and see if how they match the data (especially of our shared experience) and then discard them or at least rank them based on the likelihood of their explanatory power.

    As I hope I have demonstrated, the "choosing to incarnate for the thrill" theory is extremely poor in explanatory power. Which does not imply at all that those "experiencers" did not have those experiences! But reports of subjective experience are not sufficient evidence - by far - or we should blindly believe in all sorts of wildly incompatible theories about "what is it all for".

    Their reports, as far as I am concerned, are subjective spiritual experiences, just like those terrorists' dreams; their reports, too, happen not to match the 'data' of our shared experience not only on a moral but also on a logical level - though in a very different way, of course.

    They are interesting subjective data, sure, but they must be compared and contrasted against our shared experience in this material world, which after all is the most relevant set of data we have (though certainly not the only one).

    I am not angry but I certainly am very passionate about critiquing theories which blatantly disregard or clearly fail to even begin to explain the key data point of the suffering inherent in the very functioning of the material ("natural") world. I do this consistently, as you know, with reference to ANY kind of theory, so this is not against "you". :)

    And don't worry, I can sympathise about the state of your little grey cells....I'm not getting any younger either, you know :)

    Edit - in addition: you attribute axes to grind to religions, and of course I agree, but even "New Agers" or people without a specific religion have "axes to grind".
     
    Laird and AryaS like this.
  6. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,453
    Agreed!
    I am not sure I am totally convinced.

    1) Ordinary, otherwise decent people will watch the most horrendous things on film while eating popcorn! Personally I don't know how they can do that, I avoid violent films, but they do, and I suggest that reading a novel or watching a film is a milder form of the process of reincarnation.

    2) We don't know how a life may look from outside. What gores on here may look trivial compared with what happens out there! I know that seems outlandish when we think of extreme events like the holocaust, but if everyone gets up after they die and dusts themselves down, maybe they just say "Wow that was a rough one!" just as we all do after a nightmare. There may be a powerful analogy with the process of dreaming.

    3) If the idea is to experience things like suffering, maybe people 'out there' cooperate to make these things happen - like people might cooperate to devise a tough boot camp.
    One problem is that that approach can easily slide into, "ignore the data - here is what I believe". This happens over and over again - materialism and all the various splinters of religion use this trick!

    David
     
    dpdownsouth likes this.
  7. hypermagda

    hypermagda Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2016
    Messages:
    218
    With regard to your last sentence, with all respect, are you 100% sure you are not selectively ignoring data yourself, as I have tried to show you with the example of Islamic terrorists or reincarnation according to Hinduism etc? It's easy to see the faults in other people's approaches and fail to notice them in oneself.

    In reply to your 3 points above (but then I'll give up, because, as they say, you can lead a horse to the water but you cannot make it drink....If, despite the many logical and ethical arguments I have already presented you wish to continue to think that that far-fetched hypothesis is still plausible, and moreover that if the horrors of this material world are self-inflicted, then they are perfectly OK, it's your choice)

    1) "Ordinary, otherwise decent people will watch the most horrendous things on film while eating popcorn! Personally I don't know how they can do that" So you are generalising from a certain set of people and making it a universal characteristic, even if it does not even apply to yourself! And moreover these people would be watching something which THEY KNOW is not real, ie nobody is being actually harmed in the movie - so how can this be used as an analogy with reality in our material world, where people experience pain and suffering for real, both physically and morally??
    Not only that - this theory would require that " the real you" is some mysterious, totally different "you" that is so alien to the David you identify with (and his likes and dislikes) that you have no idea how "he" could like what you most definitely dislike. This is a very bizarre concept (let alone an unfalsifiable one) of "self", so much so that it is virtually meaningless, and certainly useless when used in a sentence like "I chose this life myself", just as the word God which means all things to all people.

    2) ""Wow that was a rough one!" just as we all do after a nightmare. There may be a powerful analogy with the process of dreaming."
    David, do you voluntarily choose to have nightmares because you enjoy the thrill?? Do you know anybody who does? I think this analogy makes no sense whatsoever, because
    a) we do not choose our ordinary dreams (I am not talking about lucid dreaming, and even in that case, I very much doubt lucid dreamers look forward to immersing themselves in nightmares!)
    b) we don't dream for thrills. We actually don't know why we dream, but it's considered to be very unlikely that dreams have emerged from natural selection just because they provide us with exciting entertainment (which moreover they rarely do)

    3) "If the idea is to experience things like suffering, maybe people 'out there' cooperate to make these things happen - like people might cooperate to devise a tough boot camp."
    Wait - now you are conveniently changing theory, from "incarnation as a funfair" to "incarnation as a school/bootcamp". I've seen people do this before,when purporting that "we chose to be here", once they run out of arguments. This second theory of course definitely begs the key question that you have been dodging throughout this exchange, and that I will try to make more explicit here:

    WHY would (as you suggest) "people out there" (?????) come up with the idea of "experiencing things like suffering" in the first place, and given that there has been plentiful suffering on this planet, why continue to experience it for millions of lives??
    Or (moving to the hypothesis of reality as a bootcamp) why would it be absolutely necessary or even a good idea to undergo training in such a tough bootcamp which requires people experiencing extreme, horrific "nightmares" such as the Holocaust etc etc?? Are you not taking it for granted that it MUST make sense somehow, even if it certainly does not appear to make sense to US, so much so that you have to come up with a "you" which is not really you and other "conceptual acrobatics"? Incidentally, this impossibility to make logical or moral sense of what we experience is the reason why almost each and every human being that has ever existed has sought answers, mostly issuing reassuring promissory notes to oneself and others about some benevolent purpose that we are not able to see - if the reason had been so plain to see, we would all agree on it, right? Bottom line: whatever reason it is, it is very unlikely to be about us or our enjoyment or entertainment or even "education". (And when I say "us" I mean us in the reasonable, common sense of the term: me, you, any human being who is born and dies without even knowing what we are doing here).

    And, even supposing that there is some kind of educational purpose to this material world as a "bootcamp", would in your opinion the means justify the end, and not contradict it entirely? Would YOU (and I mean you, David, not the "unknown, incomprehensible you" that even David doesn't understand) have devised such a cruel bootcamp, if you were the "creator" of our material reality? Would the rape of a single child in the whole history of mankind not in itself invalidate the benevolence of whatever consciousness has devised this grotesque and moreover mysterious boot camp??

    I rest my case.
     
    Laird and AryaS like this.
  8. AryaS

    AryaS Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2017
    Messages:
    233

    Thanks, Hypermagda -- I am really enjoying your responses in this thread as well. And I too only have "working theories" and am definitely open to new data and ideas about the nature of this reality and of what "god" might be. I also like the idea of laying out various theories in this thread and analyzing what the weaknesses/implausibilities and strengths are of each. I think you've made a great case against the Earth as Bootcamp and/or the Earth as Chosen Playground theories -- neither of which explain why evil/suffering/misery would be a) chosen by some or b) continually necessary for our collective/individual growth. The trauma born of deep suffering, in my opinion, produces nothing but more trauma -- and perhaps the psychotic/disassociative breaks necessary for mind reprogramming (MK Ultra).

    One of the ideas that I have been considering (and dismissing and reconsidering....lol) has been the alien/archon hypothesis -- like the stuff David Icke puts out. Now, before you run away screaming, let me explain that when I first came upon the Icke stuff, I thought it was complete nonsense (except for the elite pedophile allegations, most of which I believe have proven to be true) -- and much of his weirder stuff is still hard for me to consider without feeling slightly sheepish/silly. Having never personally come across an alien or UFO (or an angel or demon for that matter), I worry that even being "open" to this hypothesis suggests my credulity. But since we are discussing "god" and "consciousness" and the simulated world hypothesis of Westworld and the possible nature of reality here, I'll throw it out for discussion/analysis/critique. This theory does at least take into consideration the problem of "evil" on this planet. It goes something like this:

    Humans have been manipulated/genetically modified for eons by higher consciousness beings. Some theories suggest we were created to be actual physical slaves to a higher race of beings (ala William Bramley or Zecharia Sitchin's theories), but others suggest that we are, literally, batteries or energetic food ("loosh") to higher level beings or even advanced AI (a la the Matrix movies). The latter theory is of course Gnostic in origin, with analogies/connections to the Archons allegedly spoken about in the Nag Hammadi biblical texts. Under this "loosh" theory, the suffering we experience here is desirable and often orchestrated because the energetic vibrations of misery/fear/trauma/suffering are more "tasty" to these darker higher beings (call them demons, archons, aliens -- whatever name doesn't make you feel too silly). I believe Robert Monroe of Journeys Out of the Body/OBE fame spoke of such higher dimension energetic vampires as well. He may even have come up with the word "loosh."

    This theory about higher beings feeding off our trauma energy would certainly align with David's suggestion above that "other people out there" might be helping to make suffering happen -- but without the ultimately benevolent aim that David seems to imply in his post. I too, have a problem with ascribing any higher/unfathomable"benevolent" purpose to genocide, child sexual abuse, rape, torture, murder etc.

    There are, of course, many unanswered questions and remaining problems with this theory, which I'd like to break down here if anyone is willing. It also still begs the question: If there are "higher consciousness beings" out there feeding off of us, then who is higher than THEM -- and what is the nature of that higher or ultimate Consciousness?

    I don't know -- just another theory I'm considering in my quest to understand the problem of evil and the nature of reality. I sometimes think that it makes far more sense just to accept the materialist worldview -- that "god" in any form does not exist, that evil is simply the result of human greed and the desire to profit off the resources/labor of others, that the random evil and suffering that happens to some of us is just the luck of the birth draw, and that we truly are just some random, freak biological anomalies in a meaningless Universe. This theory avoids the frustrating exercise of trying to figure out who the HELL created this planet of inequality, suffering, misery, and the constant killing of other life forms just to survive.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2018
    Laird likes this.
  9. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,453
    Of course I am not 100% sure - but the data is complicated enough that there might be some loose ends. For example, maybe the ISIS stories were made up to impress other possible extremists. You can't get all the data to come together - and indeed I don't think you know what the answer is.

    Regarding Hinduism, I think it highly likely that it is at least based on some nugget of truth about re-incarnation, but just as neither of us accepts Christian teaching as a whole, I think that the way religions develop it is doubtful if any are reliable.
    Some NDEers report almost immediately feeling detached from the physical world. One man reported on his death-bed visions, that ordinary life is a sort of hoax. The analogy between ordinary life/dreams may and life out there/ordinary life, may be close. In other words, the reality of different kinds of experience may be a matter of degree or perspective.
    Well some people like to watch a late night horror movies before going to bed! I guess it is a sort of dare. Come to think of it, there are some internet crazes where kids dare each other to injure themselves in various ways. There is that sort of impulse in people.
    No but I wouldn't be surprised if the are VR games where you have to fight off a tiger, and suchlike.
    Really I am just as puzzled as you are - the only difference between us, is that I don't rule out one option because it seems repulsive.

    Clearly our life on earth must seem vastly different from the perspective out 'out there' (assuming always that there is such a 'place'). It really is hard to know. Children enjoy stories involving wicked witches that lure them into their houses. Those stories always imple dark unmentionable horrors - possibly an oblique reference to rape. We all seem to play with horrors that we would hate to confront in 'reality'.

    There is no need to give up on this conversation, I wonder what you think of the Hindu conception - I mean that is pretty cruel, but I suppose you don't feel as bad because it isn't people choosing to inflict it on themselves.

    David
     
    dpdownsouth likes this.
  10. AryaS

    AryaS Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2017
    Messages:
    233
    Have you seen the Westworld series, David? The hosts are put through all kinds of real trauma -- rape, murder, seeing their child killed, etc... -- and then once they "die," they are brought back to the labs of the Westworld creators, and given a momentary recap, where they are told it was all just a "dream" -- before they are sent back, once again, to repeat the same suffering/trauma -- either in a recurring or new character -- all for the "pleasure" of the human visitors. Being told that our world is a "hoax" of some sort really doesn't sit well with me -- when the physical pain, emotional trauma, starvation, deprivation, suffering, is all too very real. Seems more likely to be a deception to get us to keep repeating the cycles and feeding the psychopathic "creators" in some unknown way.
     
    Laird and hypermagda like this.
  11. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,453
    It is on Sky TV in Britain, and I don't have Sky, so the answer is no!

    Hopefully I get the general picture.

    Somehow I don't believe the whole thing is done for the pleasure of some beings (human or otherwise). Your view (based on Westworld) is really distopian - do you really think this is the true nature of reality?

    David
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2018
    Steve likes this.
  12. AryaS

    AryaS Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2017
    Messages:
    233
    David -- I don't know what the "true nature of reality is" and don't think many of us can say that we do. But it does seem to me that there are people who do have a better understanding of the nature of this reality than the mass of us, and it also seems to me, given the absolutely bat-shit crazy nature of the world, that they are using this superior knowledge to manipulate the rest of us towards some sort of dystopian end game. Whether or not this is "divinely" inspired or orchestrated by "higher level" beings (or "God") -- and whether this is something we can escape once we know how to activate our own higher levels of awareness -- is the big question for me. The article I posted at #1 goes pretty deep and a lot of it resonates with me. Have you read it?
     
    Laird and hypermagda like this.
  13. dpdownsouth

    dpdownsouth Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2017
    Messages:
    209
    @AryaS & @hypermagda

    Thank you both for the challenging perspectives! Please excuse my laziness in replying to you in one go (I feel there is a lot of crossover in your views), and for outlining my thoughts in paragraph form.... but first, a few things:

    I hope no one thinks I come across like a new-ager! If so, I'll be very offended. :)

    I am not denying the existence of evil, or the possibility of evil 'entities', maybe even very powerful ones.

    I cannot even begin to speculate on ultimate purposes!

    My only point has been that suffering on a certain level of existence does not necessarily imply ultimate amorality or immorality.

    The 'choosing a life thing' has become a red herring in this thread, imo.... it's not something I'd bet my house on, but it's come up 'in the data' and is definitely worth chewing over in the appropriate spirit (like David Bailey is).

    I'm still thinking all this stuff through.

    OK!

    Process, evil & self-determination: If we zoom out a little and go pattern on the cosmos, we notice a number of traits that are present absolutely everywhere and at every scale: Holism (wholes are made up of smaller wholes), a preference for complexity, transcendence (wholes transcend the sum of their parts, sometimes creatively), and novelty. I'd also like to add to the list, perhaps more tentatively, a drive towards coherence as the mathematical branch of dynamical systems does seem to show 'chaos' as tending to gravitate toward a form of coherence.

    Looking at biological life (and, under some panpsychist philosophies, matter) we may also claim that self-determination seems to be key.

    The history of the cosmos does read as an exercise in maximising the above traits, and, to me, this implies an attractive force at play - pulling the random and chaotic toward certain outcomes.......

    Anyway, all of the above screams process!

    So, it's not a stretch to say that process is perhaps fundamental to existence (including the sub-atomic). Even states/dimensions/realms (dreams, afterlife, etc.) that seemingly have very elastic relationships to linear time involve a form of progression and process.

    To me, this view does away with any strange questions like: Why would we choose this? Why would God design this? and on. Instead, we can say, everything emerged through an infinitely complex and mysterious process of becoming that is pulling towards the maximisation of certain qualities and characteristics.

    That's not to say that our actions (or dreams?) over time could not have 'designed' this dualistic realm, but not in a simplistic manner. (Incidentally, I don't think Mr. Bailey is suggesting the 'other side' set up a committee and hired some engineers.)

    Also, holism, complexity, transcendence, novelty, coherence, and self-determination do seem to hint at some sort of implicit morality. Couldn't you do worse than interdependence, interconnectedness, a balance between habit and novelty, the possibility of transcendence and the right to individual self determination as a philosophy of life?

    Now, in this Process, how do you allow for self determination without the potential for negative action? In my view, you can't. The two have to go together. Thus I can imagine how negative states/behaviours/entities/whatever could arise in a process that could have broadly moral aims.

    Subjective data, NDEs & lies: It's worth noting that most of the things that make life worth living are subjective, and they certainly can have objective effects. Though you're right about the trickiness of this type of data. But there are scientific methods for extracting the patterns and regularities from the subjective.... leaving you with what amounts to a kind of consensus reality.

    With that in mind, David makes a very good point when he reminds us that NDErs experience a vastly changed perspective on earthly suffering (this is almost universal). They also often describe the NDE state as "more real than real".... that ties in with David's dream analogy. These changes in perspective are experienced by a version of the self not very different from the earthly one, it does not make them an entirely different being as some suggest.

    Surely we have to take all this into consideration.

    NDEs are, imo, too intense, too strange, too regular, and too often contain veridical elements to be written off as wish-fulfilment or delusion. As for the idea that NDErs are being lied to? Well, why? Why would world creating higher entities need to lie to keep us ensnared? Why tell a thousand different versions of the same lie, doesn't this undermine the believability of the lie? Why give guidance, often implicitly, of how to live a more fulfilling life? Why inject meaning into the experience of life?

    Kabbalah, mysticism & karma: I am not very familiar with Kabbalah. But I am fairly familiar with the Christian and Islamic versions of Abrahamic mysticism, and they certainly heap loads of moral superlatives on their imagined ultimate non-dual state. I'd be surprised if traditional Jewish mystics didn't do the same. Don't Hindus describe the final, undifferentiated state as ultimate bliss (certainly a value judgement) or some such? If the posit of amorality comes from the existence of very bad feelings, what does an ultimate very, very good feeling suggest?

    Perhaps mystics, NDErs, etc. cite love so often as it is the closest earthly match to this experienced state (be it ultimate or not).

    Also, isn't the whole conception of karma an exercise in moralising?

    Prison planet: Yeah, I dunno. On the balance of probabilities, this sounds unlikely to me. All my 'NDErs being lied to' objections apply here. Also, the retaining of a degree of memory between incarnations (like in WW) only makes sense if you're trying to evolve consciousness. Why would what are effectively paranormal cattle ranchers do this? Why would the world we inhabit be a mix of bad and good? Why make us comfortable in-between incarnations? WW solves the problem by writing in a benevolent creator and a psychopathic exploiter (I got this understanding from the article), so that would be like creating two equally matched super beings at the head of our reality. To me, like I wrote earlier in the thread, this is making the ultimate in the image of a very large human being (or two).

    And the idea's explanatory power of suffering? Maybe, but the traditional paternal conception of God does a more comprehensive job and does it much more simply, imo. He (it would have to be a he, wouldn't it? :)) makes good, and hands out suffering. Why? Because He knows what's best. Solved!

    ANYWAY, that's about it.

    Thanks again.

    EDIT: I don't buy the paternalistic God thing, btw.
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2018
    Laird, AryaS and David Bailey like this.
  14. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,453
    Well there are certainly some manipulative individuals trying to twist things, but that leads us back into politics - and you know where I stand on that - so let's not go there in this thread!
    (correction: the following sentence had the second word 'not' omitted - I hope nobody was confused)
    Bearing in mind that I have not viewed any of this series- and I am fairly sure I would not want to, let me say:

    This sounds like a clever way to depict some pretty awful acts - rape etc - in a sanitised, intellectual way. The idea that viewing such acts is somehow OK if it is part of an 'intellectual' program may sound cynical, but I am sure it went through the producers' minds. I try to imagine myself watching such a program with my partner or my parents (who are dead). I think the discussion would go something like, "That is disgusting - David why are you watching scenes like that?", "No, you don't understand, the is a program about the nature of reality, and the way the mind might be wiped clean of past events only to relive them!" I don't think I would have a leg to stand on in such a discussion, even if I didn't cave in and turn the stuff off.

    I suspect that any competent author reading, say, Skeptiko, could string together a heap of ideas like that, sugar the product with really disgusting scenes, and sell multiple series. It doesn't mean that they have any deeper insight into fundamental reality than you or I.

    Since it is claimed that J. Edgar Hoover was blackmailed over his homosexuality by the Mafia, and that he in turn used underhand methods to control others - possibly including presidents, the idea that prominent people are given an opportunity to perform various evil acts for lust, and are then subsequently blackmailed, does not seem improbable to me (BTW that is not meant to imply that I think consensual adult homosexual activity is evil). However, you don't need any deep insight into reality or psychic skills to use such techniques.

    At the risk of repeating myself, every time we choose to read a novel, we decide to fling ourselves into another life or lives. This act seems suggestive to me - we are very ready to play at being someone else - right back to the playground where we played cops and robbers or cowboys and Indians. That is a part of human nature, and we are not averse to throwing ourself into some pretty evil roles. I think this may be a pale reflection of the choosing of a life scenario - if in fact it actually happens.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...ls-astonishing-hard-dismiss-make-believe.html

    A lot of the comments are worth reading too. I was also struck by how easy it was to find that story with a quick GOOGLE - I always thought such cases were rarities - but maybe not!

    Playing an evil person doesn't seem at all evil from the level above - all I am suggesting is that there are multiple levels (at least three, with us at the middle layer), and each lower level has a dream like, inconsequential quality to it as viewed from the level above.

    David
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2018
    dpdownsouth likes this.
  15. dpdownsouth

    dpdownsouth Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2017
    Messages:
    209
    In case anyone wants to know what AryaS is talking about.... this (rather synchronistically) popped up on my YouTube recommends today:

     
    Laird likes this.
  16. nbtruthman

    nbtruthman New

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2013
    Messages:
    284
    This statement stood out at least for me. A sort of moral relativism. I disagree completely. Evil acts are fundamentally, existentially, evil - anywhere and anytime. I think even playing at evil makes one evil at least in some sense. For an extreme example which proves the point, torturing a baby to death is the quintessence of evil no matter what level of consciousness. If this is not the case, then extreme cruelty is conditionally condoned based on the point of view of a presumably detached witness rather than being based on the actual human experience. This would be along the lines of typical New Age stuff - teachings that "there is no badness, suffering is temporary" and so on (which of course assumes a detached amoral soul consciousness not the human perspective).
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2018
    hypermagda, AryaS and Laird like this.
  17. AryaS

    AryaS Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2017
    Messages:
    233
    .

    Thank you dpdown -- lots of interesting things to think about in your response. I think your Process idea is very interesting and attractive on many levels -- but opens up quite a few questions for me. First, I don't really see how any drive towards coherence hints at some sort of "implicit morality"? Rather, it suggests amorality to me -- as I discuss below. And of course, even with this theory, there's still the unanswerable chicken/egg question of who/what started this entire "complex and mysterious process of becoming that is pulling towards the maximization of certain qualities and characteristics." I think I'm stuck on THAT plot point -- because it seems it's either: a) some meta/intelligent Being/beings; b) the random Big Bang (give me one good miracle), from which all matter/consciousness sprouted; or c) All of Us Collectively -- except we don't know it.

    Second, you mention "self determination" -- but who is selectively doling out this necessary aspect so that we can make conscious moral/immoral decisions? Was this just a freak accident? Because it seems that only higher level fractals are given the "gift" of conscious self-determination -- lower level fractal beings seem to operate largely on autopilot or instinct -- and largely with only survival and reproduction in mind. We know that cats don't lose sleep over playing with their prey before killing/eating it, so under this Process concept, do we evolve towards a state of conscious self-determination and the ability to consider morality/impose moral judgments?

    Let's assume that's the case for now -- and that at each level of this Process, individual fractals become more and more empowered to make conscious choices. This doesn't necessarily imply a move towards morality however. To the contrary, what if, as we move towards some kind of unity/coherence, we (at least those of us who can self-determine and have the power to impose our Will on others) discover that it is far more efficient and effective to be "evil" -- i.e., to absorb/destroy other fractal components of the whole and/or to bend other fractal consciousnesses to one's Will? If this is the realization, both collectively and individually - then isn't the Ultimate Consciousness or Ultimate Coherence, at the very least amoral -- and perhaps literally evil (think Death Star), at least from our current human perspective? So perhaps everything emerged into motion (but by who/what/how?) -- with self-determination (at least among higher level fractals) necessary - either: a) in order to see which aspect of Itself would prevail (which Wolf is fed); or b) unconcerned about the moral outcome -- as long as it is the most efficient/effective for Coherence?

    On the other hand, I do see a scenario where whatever fractals are left finally realize that, without cooperation, everything dies. So maybe there is a Moral at the end of the Story -- but it's been and will continue to be a long suffering road getting there.


    Well, we are lied to on a daily basis here on Earth by those with greater resources/intel/power than us for a variety of understandable and unfathomable reasons - so it's not hard for me to envision higher level fractals also doing things to deceive and corral us -- for whatever purposes. Moreover, going back to your Process theory -- assuming that we are evolving into beings who can self-determine -- isn't it reasonable to assume that we are not at the top of the Universal food chain, both mentally and physically? And if so, we only have to look at our own varied human behavior and views towards lower fractal living beings to answer the question of why there might be intentional deception. As humans, some have decided that consuming (some) animals is acceptable and don't give a moment's thought to what that means. Some of us object/refrain entirely on moral grounds, and some of us object to inhumane treatment but will still consume animal flesh under certain conditions ("free range, cage-free, grass fed, humanely raised, hunted oneself, etc"). And beyond this, some of us try to study/communicate with animals, to understand them, to work with their intelligence (e.g., dolphins). Thus, isn't it possible that higher fractal beings have the same varying ethical/amoral/immoral views towards us? (So, for example, with respect to your question about remembering incarnations -- only a very small percentage of humans purportedly have this recollection -- and only a fraction of people purportedly have NDE's -- so if such higher level fractals/god/what-have-you are/is trying to evolve consciousness, it's been an extremely inefficient system thus far, with most people having to trust others' alleged experiences. It currently makes more sense to me that some higher level fractals are potentially helping, while some are actively oppressing any evolution in consciousness....).

    I can't say I buy into the theory, but I don't see this concept of "energy harvesting" as any less plausible than a white haired personal God doling out justice and mercy that millions actually believe in and are willing to kill for -- or any less plausible than the often similar concepts of angels, demons, incubus/succubus, astral negative beings, etc... Angelic/demonic/astral travel encounters with negative astral energy being experiences have also been recorded throughout history -- so why would we give more credence to the positive NDE'ers and not the negative "spiritual" experiences? And if they are both true, what does this also say about the nature of this reality? I'd like to hear more about how your Process theory takes into account these potential negative entities, if you don't discount them (as you say)? What do they "do" as negative beings? What is their function/goal/evolving process? How do they interact with us? What powers to affect our world might they have?

    And a PS: I don't believe anything -- just tossing out ideas -- and looking for a theory of everything that truly resonates.
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2018
    dpdownsouth, Laird and hypermagda like this.
  18. AryaS

    AryaS Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2017
    Messages:
    233
    .
    Actually, you are right on this David -- it is a pretty gruesome series -- lots of gratuitous violence/bloodshed. It's not half as bad as the series Altered Carbon (on Netflix), which I had watched for the interesting concepts -- i.e., in the future, we are all able to "resleeve" our consciousnesses into new bodies (well, at least the wealthy can). But the series is so violent and disturbing that the interesting idea was clearly just an excuse to traumatize and desensitize people to more violence. I keep watching WW, however, because of the "maze" aspect. In WW, the hosts and the antagonist of the show are all searching for the center of the maze -- the place where ultimate meaning will be found. I'm crazy for thinking that a show like this is going to provide me with metaphysical answers -- but that's what I'm hoping! :)

    This again made me think that we are in some VR simulation that at some point long ago we decided to make "too real" by upping the stakes/adding real pain and suffering instead of keeping it a role play game. And now we can't get out or stop the game.
     
    Laird likes this.
  19. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,453
    Well of course, it isn't me being a moral relativist, I am just trying to discuss possible theories regarding the big picture.

    To take your very extreme example of torturing a baby to death, I would guess that if you were unfortunate enough to dream that scenario, you would wake up horribly shaken, but you would get over it and carry on as normal. Dream events simply don't carry the same weight as events in consensus reality, and are considered imaginary. However nobody really knows what dreams are, or how we will view our lives after they are over.

    If we assume Michael Newton's view of reality for the sake of argument, everyone, including the baby (referring to your example) went into the situation by choice - knowing what would happen, and all survived to discuss what they had learned from their respective lives! I mean the real question is whether this is really what happens on not.

    I do agree with everyone that this view of reality has some very troubling aspects - but rather less than theories involving Archons, I would say!

    More generally, I would say that no theory of why extreme suffering is allowed to happen can make comfortable reading. Learning that the Archons want to feed of the negative vibes doesn't sound too attractive, the materialist concept that absolutely nobody is in overall control - bad stuff happens, sounds both unpleasant and inconsistent with NDE reports, and Newton's theory is worrying because it implies that people in great pain, chose to be like that! Theologians are also tortured by this question.

    I.e. you really can't assess any of these theories by whether they feel comfortable!

    David
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2018
  20. AryaS

    AryaS Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2017
    Messages:
    233
    Actually, I find the concept of "we chose our lives -- it's all a game" theory to be far more troubling than the Archon theory. The "choose your life theory" sounds to me like a New Age mind control program, where victims are blamed for their suffering (you "chose" this life/abusive parents/abject poverty, etc.) and suffering is justified/minimized (it's all just a dream/role/hoax -- so just "enjoy" the ride you chose). For the baby murdered, the woman raped, the child starved/beaten/abused, the persons living with extreme deprivation, it is such an offensive theory -- and seems to exist solely to allow others to take advantage of some and act in ways that we would simply not allow if we were courageous enough to stop it. And those finding this theory wanting/unsatisfying cannot help but continue to rage at whatever entity would set this horrific cycle in motion -- and wonder why continued eons/cycles of war, suffering, slavery, deprivation, rape, cruelty etc. continue to be necessary to educate -- or entertain -- our souls. Haven't we "learned" enough yet? To me, this is just as bad as the christian suggestion that we should suffer here on earth b/c there's some fabulous afterlife waiting for us -- just another control mechanism for those who really know what's going on and who benefit from the fact that the rest of us don't.

    If the Nag Hammadi texts are to be given any credence (and they were supposedly authenticated as old or even older than canonical biblical texts), the archons have been around for a long time -- and simply imply some kind of negative force interference with or control of our world. The name "archons" has now become the subject of ridicule b/c it's connected to controversial people like Icke -- but simply replace the name with "negative entity" or "demons" or "demonic forces" -- and suddenly there's a lot of recorded data for the existence of such negative entities -- including in some negative NDE experiences and certainly reported in the psychedelic community.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archon_(Gnosticism)

    Personally, I think it's almost impossible to ascribe the creation of this reality to something that is "all good." The objective evidence is overwhelming that there is both good and bad. You really have to twist and justify things to ascribe all the extreme bad to something ultimately "good," whereas it is pretty easy to see either an amoral universe -- or some form of dualism (as above so below).
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2018
    Laird and hypermagda like this.

Share This Page