Russ Allen, Kyle Allen, Marty Garza, UFOs and ET |566|

That's good. It means there should be room for us to illuminate some new things for one or other or both of us.
  • In what way would you say our metaphysics differs?
  • Are we even using the word "metaphysics" in the same way?
I take a fairly standard view that metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of being, beings, time, space, and causality. What about you?

Metaphysics — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

I appreciate the sentiment, and the same in return.

I define metaphysics as it was originally defined - "beyond the physical." My statement was based on my provisional assumption you have some sort of materialist and/or scientist/physicalist world view. I hope I am wrong but that's where I make my bet based on what I've read.

If I had to put a label on my world view I would say, pansychist/spectralist. I describe the reality I am experiencing as a quantum computational information processing system which is programmable by some of the very denizens that are experiencing it. I see conflict as a fundamental. Competing world views is a prime conflict (thus I am open to evolving my views).

I fight (meant metaphorically) on the side of the life force. My primary spirituality currently emulates the teachings of the Gathas of Zarathustra.
 
I define metaphysics as it was originally defined - "beyond the physical."
That approach leads to serious problems, it has for centuries, and you'll find there's still no consensus on it. The best I've been able to do is sift it all out to where what you're labeling "metaphysical" is better described as the "supernatural". If you don't think there's such a thing as the supernatural other than in fiction, then metaphysics collapses back into the far end of physicalism ( not to be confused with materialism ), and that far end includes the concept of naturalism ( which is where I'm at ).
My statement was based on my provisional assumption you have some sort of materialist and/or scientist/physicalist world view. I hope I am wrong but that's where I make my bet based on what I've read.
It's as described above.
If I had to put a label on my world view I would say, pansychist/spectralist. I describe the reality I am experiencing as a quantum computational information processing system which is programmable by some of the very denizens that are experiencing it. I see conflict as a fundamental. Competing world views is a prime conflict (thus I am open to evolving my views).
Spectralist? I only found a reference to a musical school of thought. Perhaps you could elaborate?
I fight (meant metaphorically) on the side of the life force. My primary spirituality currently emulates the teachings of the Gathas of Zarathustra.
You mean this stuff?
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/religion/f2001/docs/GATHAS OF ZARATHUSTRA.htm

If that's the case then it appears to be more of a religious moral code than an existential philosophy. So yes indeed — very different.
Panpsychism also has it's share or problems e.g. The combination problem.

It seems from my starting point in naturalism, that those problems get smoothed out as the existential hierarchy forms. Stuff like Gods and concepts like morality all arrive well after nature provides the space.
 
I see conflict as a fundamental. Competing world views is a prime conflict (thus I am open to evolving my views).

I agree. But do you walk the walk... Have you changed your view of Darius I based on the evidence I provided you from the Behistun Inscription?
 
It seems from my starting point in naturalism, that those problems get smoothed out as the existential hierarchy forms. Stuff like Gods and concepts like morality all arrive well after nature provides the space.

Seems like you're assuming a starting point of the cosmos though...
I think the Big Bang is probably nonsense. An idea based on some assumptions, such as that the red shift of light in the universe must mean the universe is expanding. Even the Big Bang idea was by a Christian priest.
 
Seems like you're assuming a starting point of the cosmos though...
Not exactly. The Cosmos isn't Nature per sé. It's just a bunch of stuff in a place.
I think the Big Bang is probably nonsense.
Despite a lot of recent hype, the Big Bang remains the leading theory for explaining our observable universe for several good reasons. It might be wrong. But it's far from "nonsense". The only "nonsense" part ( to me ) is the idea that it's space itself that's causing the expansion. That looks to me like a fudging of the numbers so as not to break General Relativity.

That being the case, everything that technically makes the Big Bang theory what it is breaks down, except for the idea that the observable universe is expanding and was therefore much more compact at an earlier time — and that idea is at the heart of the theory. The eggheads just want it to fit into general relativity so badly that they're in a state of wilful denial over space itself being static.

An idea based on some assumptions, such as that the red shift of light in the universe must mean the universe is expanding.
The red shift was a major breakthrough in astronomy — not an "assumption".
Even the Big Bang idea was by a Christian priest.
The Big Bang theory actually dates farther back than that to various versions of the Cosmic Egg. In Chinese Taoist mythology the universe is said to have emerged from an egg in the form of the god Pan Ku.
 
Last edited:
The red shift was a major breakthrough in astronomy — not an "assumption".

The red shift is real. But I meant it's an assumption that it means the universe is expanding... Maybe the light in the universe just tends to have a red tinge

The Big Bang theory actually dates farther back than that to various versions of the Cosmic Egg. In Chinese Taoist mythology the universe is said to have emerged from an egg in the form of the god Pan Ku.

Good point about other traditions... like the breathing in and out of Brahma too

So it does lend credence to the Big Bang. I conceed that)
 
The red shift is real. But I meant it's an assumption that it means the universe is expanding... Maybe the light in the universe just tends to have a red tinge
I did find an article on CREATION.com challenging the theory of expansion based on red shift data: A review of: Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science by Halton Arp It's highly controversial, but worthy of mentioning.


Related:
Good point about other traditions... like the breathing in and out of Brahma too. So it does lend credence to the Big Bang. I conceed that)

I think the key phrase there is "lend credence to". There's lots of reason to support the idea of a Big Bang, but ultimately no "proof", and FWIW, I'm finding myself in the uncomfortable position of having to do a little backpedalling.

If, as a number of sources I checked are correct, and the contemporary view of the Big Bang has evolved from the original, and if a significant number of astronomers think it still has a ways to go, and if I agree that some stuff ( like expanding space ) is entirely nonsensical ( at least to me ), then what's left? How much goalpost moving does science get to do before we have to admit that it, along with whatever we personally believed about it, is wrong?

Conclusion: Generally speaking, other types observations in addition to redshift measurements support the idea that the observable universe is expanding. However that alone doesn't prove that a "Big Bang" event happened. Also, the redshift phenomenon is not as much of a clincher as has oft been promoted, and given that other explanations are at least possible — we cannot rule out the possibility that a "Big Bang" type event was not the genesis of our observable universe.

Alternatives: The old version of the steady state model cannot be right either — because the universe just isn't that "steady". So where does this leave us? It seems that given that Big Bang type events are possible, that they probably occur out there somewhere, and maybe one did occur within our observable universe, but maybe some other stuff is going on that we have yet to learn about. There's no question that we're missing some pieces of the puzzle.

6 Alternatives to the Big Bang Theory
 
Last edited:
I agree. But do you walk the walk... Have you changed your view of Darius I based on the evidence I provided you from the Behistun Inscription?

My view was based on the times and the comparison of the other major cultures / civilizations of the times. The most important factor for me was how women were viewed/treated. In fact there were women commanders or admirals in the military (Immortal Guard / Persian Navy). Women were property holders. They had their own estates and employed people. They held personal seals which they signed their letters with. Women were paid at the same rate as men for specialized labor.

Darius valued the Court Philosopher and at one point invited Heraclitus to become such. Heraclitus writings on Nature hold many parallels to the thinking of Zarathustra (non- existent in Greek thought at that time). The coiner of the term "philosopher" was Pythagoras who spent more than a decade studying under the Magi (Zoroastrian priests) in Babylon (the administrative capital of Iran) only returning to his native Samos after it was conquered by the Persian Empire. The concept of philosophy wasn't a thing until after Pythagoras spent his time studying "the religion" of Zoroastrianism natively known as Mazdâ Yasnâ - "Wisdom Worship" a doctrine which views the rapport between humanity and Ahurâ Mazdâ (Lord Wisdom) as an intimate friendship.

The treatment of animals (especially "animal sacrifice") was opposed and laws were codified which, for example, made the abuse of certain animals, such as cruelty towards dogs, a capital offense.

As opposed to the Greeks who displayed various forms of political organization such as Democracy (mob rule), Oligarchy (rule of the wealthy), Timocracy (martial law), Tyranny (the arbitrary rule of one absolute dictator), Iran had operated under a well-established tradition of the alliance between the philosopher and the king. All the way back to Zarathustra's relationship with Kavi Vishtaspa. This is a system of sovereignty grounded on the reverence for Wisdom.

Another example was that when a land was conquered, the sovereign was brought in to become an adviser instead of killed.

These are just some of the reasons I respected this civilization relative to the others known at the time. My preferred system of sovereignty would be much like what Pythagoras attempted to establish in his latter days in Italy - a meritocracy wherein the most intelligent and competent people are making policy on the basis of expert knowledge and under the guidance of a single chairman who is essentially a philosopher-sovereign (queen or king).
 
That approach leads to serious problems, it has for centuries, and you'll find there's still no consensus on it. The best I've been able to do is sift it all out to where what you're labeling "metaphysical" is better described as the "supernatural". If you don't think there's such a thing as the supernatural other than in fiction, then metaphysics collapses back into the far end of physicalism ( not to be confused with materialism ), and that far end includes the concept of naturalism ( which is where I'm at ).

It's as described above.

Spectralist? I only found a reference to a musical school of thought. Perhaps you could elaborate?

You mean this stuff?
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/religion/f2001/docs/GATHAS OF ZARATHUSTRA.htm

If that's the case then it appears to be more of a religious moral code than an existential philosophy. So yes indeed — very different.
Panpsychism also has it's share or problems e.g. The combination problem.

It seems from my starting point in naturalism, that those problems get smoothed out as the existential hierarchy forms. Stuff like Gods and concepts like morality all arrive well after nature provides the space.


To answer this all I use the term "spectralist" to suggest I view the greater reality as spanning a spectrum as opposed to something like dualism. For example, to separate "natural" from "supernatural" is a dualistic view whereas I view that which many wish to call "supernatural" as simply less understood (by most) aspects of the spectrum... all founded by consciousness. All sciences originated out of philosophy and it wasn't until the enlightenment when a particular "discipline" (like physics) became broken apart from philosophy. To me, the critical aspects of philosophy (which cannot be simply looked at as a disconnected part from the rest) is ontology, epistemology, beauty, ethics and politics. A true philosopher (IMO) is deeply involved in each of those aspects.

When you start out be saying something like "That approach leads to serious problems..." I have to ask, for who? For yourself? Certainly you can't apply that statement universally as I know many who have no problems with that approach and I have none since I adopted it.

It's my opinion that Zarathustra's teachings could never be understood by simply reading the single translation you linked to above. I know a brilliant scholar who spent ten years comparing multiple translations whereby he was able to distill the essence of the man's teachings. He's my teacher and mentor.
 
I did find an article on CREATION.com challenging the theory of expansion based on red shift data: A review of: Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science by Halton Arp It's highly controversial, but worthy of mentioning.


Related:


I think the key phrase there is "lend credence to". There's lots of reason to support the idea of a Big Bang, but ultimately no "proof", and FWIW, I'm finding myself in the uncomfortable position of having to do a little backpedalling.

If, as a number of sources I checked are correct, and the contemporary view of the Big Bang has evolved from the original, and if a significant number of astronomers think it still has a ways to go, and if I agree that some stuff ( like expanding space ) is entirely nonsensical ( at least to me ), then what's left? How much goalpost moving does science get to do before we have to admit that it, along with whatever we personally believed about it, is wrong?

Conclusion: Generally speaking, other types observations in addition to redshift measurements support the idea that the observable universe is expanding. However that alone doesn't prove that a "Big Bang" event happened. Also, the redshift phenomenon is not as much of a clincher as has oft been promoted, and given that other explanations are at least possible — we cannot rule out the possibility that a "Big Bang" type event was not the genesis of our observable universe.

Alternatives: The old version of the steady state model cannot be right either — because the universe just isn't that "steady". So where does this leave us? It seems that given that Big Bang type events are possible, that they probably occur out there somewhere, and maybe one did occur within our observable universe, but maybe some other stuff is going on that we have yet to learn about. There's no question that we're missing some pieces of the puzzle.

6 Alternatives to the Big Bang Theory

Excellent post!!
I had Halton Arp's work in the back of my mind too)
 
To answer this all I use the term "spectralist" to suggest I view the greater reality as spanning a spectrum as opposed to something like dualism. For example, to separate "natural" from "supernatural" is a dualistic view whereas I view that which many wish to call "supernatural" as simply less understood (by most) aspects of the spectrum.
That's fair enough. The physicalist view is essentially the same thing, wherein you get naturalism out at the far end of the "spectrum".
.. all founded by consciousness.
Not sure what you mean by that. Are you subjective idealist — the idea that everything that exists is purely the product of the mind? If not, then what "consciousness" are you talking about? How do you define "consciousness"? It's often used by mystics as a buzzword that upon closer inspection has no real meaning. It's just sounds "mystical".
All sciences originated out of philosophy and it wasn't until the enlightenment when a particular "discipline" (like physics) became broken apart from philosophy. To me, the critical aspects of philosophy (which cannot be simply looked at as a disconnected part from the rest) is ontology, epistemology, beauty, ethics and politics. A true philosopher (IMO) is deeply involved in each of those aspects.
I'd quibble a bit over the "true philosopher" part, but I agree with the spirit of the comment in that the intellectually honest truthseeker is obligated to take into account all evidence and avenues that can advance an understanding of the issue at hand.
When you start out be saying something like "That approach leads to serious problems..." I have to ask, for who? For yourself? Certainly you can't apply that statement universally as I know many who have no problems with that approach and I have none since I adopted it.
When I use the phrase "That approach leads to serious problems", it's not a question of for whom. It means that internal issues within the concept itself result in instability or incoherence. For example, in the case of defining "metaphysical" as "beyond the physical" — ( your own words ), by definition, you immediately enter into a state of dualism ( the physical and whatever the "meta" represents ), which you later discard in favor of a "spectrum". You can't have it both ways because they're mutually exclusive concepts. If x is within the "spectrum" then x is not "meta x"
It's my opinion that Zarathustra's teachings could never be understood by simply reading the single translation you linked to above. I know a brilliant scholar who spent ten years comparing multiple translations whereby he was able to distill the essence of the man's teachings. He's my teacher and mentor.
It's not necessary to understand everything about a teaching to be able to place it relative to other concepts or ideologies. I don't need to know everything about Judaism, or Christianity, or Raelianism, or Matrixism either. I just need to know enough to answer the question at hand. Anything else is a Gish gallop argument.

This doesn't invalidate whatever personal enlightenment you might get from whatever teachings you undertake. It just means that being a high priest in x doesn't automatically translate to being right about problems concerning y.
 
Last edited:
My view was based on the times and the comparison of the other major cultures / civilizations of the times. The most important factor for me was how women were viewed/treated. In fact there were women commanders or admirals in the military (Immortal Guard / Persian Navy). Women were property holders. They had their own estates and employed people. They held personal seals which they signed their letters with. Women were paid at the same rate as men for specialized labor.

Darius valued the Court Philosopher and at one point invited Heraclitus to become such. Heraclitus writings on Nature hold many parallels to the thinking of Zarathustra (non- existent in Greek thought at that time). The coiner of the term "philosopher" was Pythagoras who spent more than a decade studying under the Magi (Zoroastrian priests) in Babylon (the administrative capital of Iran) only returning to his native Samos after it was conquered by the Persian Empire. The concept of philosophy wasn't a thing until after Pythagoras spent his time studying "the religion" of Zoroastrianism natively known as Mazdâ Yasnâ - "Wisdom Worship" a doctrine which views the rapport between humanity and Ahurâ Mazdâ (Lord Wisdom) as an intimate friendship.

The treatment of animals (especially "animal sacrifice") was opposed and laws were codified which, for example, made the abuse of certain animals, such as cruelty towards dogs, a capital offense.

As opposed to the Greeks who displayed various forms of political organization such as Democracy (mob rule), Oligarchy (rule of the wealthy), Timocracy (martial law), Tyranny (the arbitrary rule of one absolute dictator), Iran had operated under a well-established tradition of the alliance between the philosopher and the king. All the way back to Zarathustra's relationship with Kavi Vishtaspa. This is a system of sovereignty grounded on the reverence for Wisdom.

Another example was that when a land was conquered, the sovereign was brought in to become an adviser instead of killed.

These are just some of the reasons I respected this civilization relative to the others known at the time. My preferred system of sovereignty would be much like what Pythagoras attempted to establish in his latter days in Italy - a meritocracy wherein the most intelligent and competent people are making policy on the basis of expert knowledge and under the guidance of a single chairman who is essentially a philosopher-sovereign (queen or king).

Much of it sounds good on paper, but the proof is in the pudding... As Darius admitted in his inscription, many didn't want to live under his rule,... so they were tortured and killed.

Many people simply don't want to live in an empire. The logical step for the current ruling class is either genocide through outright slaughter or genocide through transhumanism, to destroy our humanity and independence......
 
Excellent post!! I had Halton Arp's work in the back of my mind too)
I'd never heard of him, but as per my usual attempts to verify the validity of counterpoint, I took it upon myself to see what other sources supported your comment, and this is one of those rarer days when I've been forced to rethink my position and update it accordingly — thank you !
 
Much of it sounds good on paper, but the proof is in the pudding... As Darius admitted in his inscription, many didn't want to live under his rule,... so they were tortured and killed.

Many people simply don't want to live in an empire. The logical step for the current ruling class is either genocide through outright slaughter or genocide through transhumanism, to destroy our humanity and independence......

I shared my most preferred system of sovereignty above and clearly, there seems to be nothing like that anywhere on Earth at this time. My concern is that unless there is a counter to the direction we are headed that would captivate the hearts of those who have the power to shape our globe, we will end up with a nightmare along the lines you just described. That's been my whole point. No civilization sets a perfect example and doubtfully no future civilization will do so either. My favored response is not to oppose globalism (because I see it as what will eventually emerge if we don't destroy ourselves first) but instead to see the system I described above become the form of global governmental management. With the well presented arguments that the technological singularity is rapidly approaching (and accelerating exponentially), I don't want to see the singularity level technologies in the hands of the folks you and I agree are striving to emerge as dominant (along with their agendas - rapid depolulation of a huge percentage of terrestrial humans and borgification of the survivors.) In addition, I can see "them" (the winners) forcing the survivors into a feudal agrarian society where they live as gods and we survivors live as slaves. Not that we aren't already slaves... just less so in recent times, a t least in the minds of those who don't see the covert/overt control systems.
 
I'd never heard of him, but as per my usual attempts to verify the validity of counterpoint, I took it upon myself to see what other sources supported your comment, and this is one of those rarer days when I've been forced to rethink my position and update it accordingly — thank you !

I like such days when new vistas open up... Thanks for your constructive critiques too)
 
I shared my most preferred system of sovereignty above and clearly, there seems to be nothing like that anywhere on Earth at this time. My concern is that unless there is a counter to the direction we are headed that would captivate the hearts of those who have the power to shape our globe, we will end up with a nightmare along the lines you just described. That's been my whole point. No civilization sets a perfect example and doubtfully no future civilization will do so either. My favored response is not to oppose globalism (because I see it as what will eventually emerge if we don't destroy ourselves first) but instead to see the system I described above become the form of global governmental management. With the well presented arguments that the technological singularity is rapidly approaching (and accelerating exponentially), I don't want to see the singularity level technologies in the hands of the folks you and I agree are striving to emerge as dominant (along with their agendas - rapid depolulation of a huge percentage of terrestrial humans and borgification of the survivors.) In addition, I can see "them" (the winners) forcing the survivors into a feudal agrarian society where they live as gods and we survivors live as slaves. Not that we aren't already slaves... just less so in recent times, a t least in the minds of those who don't see the covert/overt control systems.

I agree with the majority of what you're saying. My main contention is that even if one could choose a relatively auspicuous leader from history under whose government you might live, in your example Darius, well that's a guy who's invading other countries, crushing multiple revolts, mutilating peoples faces and crucifying them... Including many people in the Persian heartlands btw

If I were to choose an auspicious leader it might be Marcus Aurelius, who (if we are to believe his meditations) seemed like a true philosopher king. But who immediately followed him? -- Commodus. And not long after him, the Severans......

So even if you could choose an almost ideal government in historical terms, the chance of it being long-lived magnanimity is vanishingly small.

Then if it's a truly global tyranny you're living under, what land is there to find refuge?......

I'd rather risk being conquered by an external enemy than live under a totalitarian tyranny with no escape.
 
I agree with the majority of what you're saying. My main contention is that even if one could choose a relatively auspicuous leader from history under whose government you might live, in your example Darius, well that's a guy who's invading other countries, crushing multiple revolts, mutilating peoples faces and crucifying them... Including many people in the Persian heartlands btw

If I were to choose an auspicious leader it might be Marcus Aurelius, who (if we are to believe his meditations) seemed like a true philosopher king. But who immediately followed him? -- Commodus. And not long after him, the Severans......

So even if you could choose an almost ideal government in historical terms, the chance of it being long-lived magnanimity is vanishingly small.

Then if it's a truly global tyranny you're living under, what land is there to find refuge?......

I'd rather risk being conquered by an external enemy than live under a totalitarian tyranny with no escape.

Now I understand the communication error I will take responsibility for. I was referencing the advanced "good" relative to the times. Darius, if he were the sovereign of Earth today and did the things you listed would be another tyrant and our "world government" would not reflect what I stated above was my preferred government. The society of those times had great good (I listed many features) relative to elsewhere at those times. In addition, my preferred government would bring limits to the various technological advancements and ensure the transhumanism (of our worst nightmares) is avoided. But if the now mostly dormant psychic capacity of humanity were awakened, and a maximal trust society could emerge, those who do not make the ethical leaps, if they possesses significantly magnified psychic powers would have to be dealt with IMO. I see no other option. Read Mishlove's book, PK MAN, for an example of a human such as this - a story about Ted Owens.
 
Now I understand the communication error I will take responsibility for. I was referencing the advanced "good" relative to the times. Darius, if he were the sovereign of Earth today and did the things you listed would be another tyrant and our "world government" would not reflect what I stated above was my preferred government. The society of those times had great good (I listed many features) relative to elsewhere at those times. In addition, my preferred government would bring limits to the various technological advancements and ensure the transhumanism (of our worst nightmares) is avoided. But if the now mostly dormant psychic capacity of humanity were awakened, and a maximal trust society could emerge, those who do not make the ethical leaps, if they possesses significantly magnified psychic powers would have to be dealt with IMO. I see no other option. Read Mishlove's book, PK MAN, for an example of a human such as this - a story about Ted Owens.
I really appreciate your approach to being solutions orientated, and open-minded with the back and forth.

But I still value independence, danger, adventure, the unknown, vs a totalitarian, tightly controlled society from above.

Perhaps this is me being selfish, that I know from my personality that I wouldn't do well under any totalitarian system. I question authority too much and would probably be one of those eliminated
 
I really appreciate your approach to being solutions orientated, and open-minded with the back and forth.

But I still value independence, danger, adventure, the unknown, vs a totalitarian, tightly controlled society from above.

Perhaps this is me being selfish, that I know from my personality that I wouldn't do well under any totalitarian system. I question authority too much and would probably be one of those eliminated

Thanks. I want to make sure you saw that I shared the form of government I prefer and it is anything but totalitarian.

Regarding the emergency I mentioned (I see the onrushing technological singularity as an emergency the globe has yet to address), Jorjani released today a short video outlining the emergency as well as the world view Promtheists share (and I am a Prometheist).

Please, give it a listen and then comment on it -

 
Back
Top