The one thing we know for sure from thousands of years of experience is that sitting with the guru under the pear tree isn't a sufficiently scalable solution.

Yes, I don't disagree with your thoughts, or Unenlightened's thoughts on the intractable nature of the problems humanity is dealing with right now. Or how mysticism, spirituality, or religious ideologies are unsuitable means to run the world. What I'm getting at is that people who have reached some level of peace and wisdom in themselves (which I expect is a fair few), would be able to steer the course of humanity through the coming difficult period reasonably successfully. Were they to be in positions of power. It is not inevitable that we are going to have a collapse of civilisation during the next few decades, but the way we are going, it is looking that way and the big problems we are going to have to deal with have barely begun, as yet.

As to the root of the problem, it is not in over population and starvation as Unenlightened suggested. Although that is something which will need to be managed. It is in our systems of government and the way that developments in society and the media has either corrupted, or hollowed out the institutions. To the extent that only despots, fools and clowns are finding their way into positions of power.

This either has to be corrected somehow, or things are only going to get worse. And I'm sure I don't need to remind you how easily humans turn to conflict and war.

I was there in the mid 90's when the ascension tapes came out. It was a heady time. I knew Sandy Stephenson who was the leading light in the New Age movement in the UK at the time, so am familiar with the ideology. The way I view and viewed it was that these people and movements were finding ways to express something they had and were experiencing at the time. There was some exploration of consciousness expansion going on, but I suspect no one really had any deep insights but rather found some way that worked for them.

Personally I took it all with a pinch of skepticism, which I would do with any ideology, as I am only interested in collecting ideas and have mystical approach to the esoteric side, or issues.

As an overview I see that that movement along with other movements, such as the rapid developments in social media and the adoption and development of virtual living in gaming etc as expressions of some kind of consciousness expansion which we are going through at the moment. Unfortunately, it is coinciding with a time of global turmoil in which the integrity of the civilisation we have built up is at risk and the spectre of natures cure of a pandemic has arisen.

Would that I could be a fly on the wall with one of those ascended masters right now. It would be an eye opener, I'm sure.

Well if you are not hungry, then hunger is not a problem for you. But it is quite a big problem for a lot of people. But the people in leadership roles is a reflection of the nature of humanity. No one can lead without having followers.

So if Sargent Bilko became president that would be good for the world because he is a reflection of a part of humanity? You are essentially saying that we've got the governance we deserve. Like the president of Belarus for example. Or the German people were crying out for someone like Hitler at the beginning of the 20th Century.

I don't see how anything you are saying is addressing the issue I am raising. Other than trying to say that it is pointless to even try, perhaps.

Everyone agrees about one thing - "it's not my fault". Unfortunately everyone is wrong about that.

Its like we're on a race to the bottom.

Humanity has only one problem and that is humanity.

Yes, that is quite an obstacle. Which is why I said that they might not have an interest, because it is humanity's problem, that they let things take their course.

but it is an internal problem and a great leader can only make it worse.

I don't think you can conclude this. The main problem, at the moment is not things like feeding the poor etc. But our systems of political control and the quality of the people in those roles are more of a problem. Anyway, things don't have to be this way and people might initiate change in a more constructive direction, so if the right person gets into the right position they can make considerable changes in the fate of humanity.

I am leading towards the idea of esoteric thinking, which is engendered in the Theosophical movement. The questioning of what might be going on behind the scenes.

What did I say about withdrawing from the world? I missed it.

It is implicit in the instruction given in the quotes from phrophets you have provided.

I am not referring to removing oneself physically from the world. But, intellectually and psychologically. A process of introversion.

We could sort all that out for everyone in a year or less. It is a trivial logistical problem of redistributing resources.

Yes, I agree. Well, are you going to lift a finger, or shall I?

I jest, but seriously, who is going to provide this redistribution in a timely manner? You see, the fortunes of the human race, are a real time event. They are happening here and now at speed. Even if it is just a logistical problem, if the course of human history is to be steered in a constructive direction, it has to be done now in the moment. If there are ascended masters, prophets out there, now, in this moment. Would they just turn a blind eye to our fate,? or would they take an interest, of some kind?

Is the plight of humanity of any importance to these prophets? Or is it an irrelevance, because it is a natural process, or something? These are interesting questions.

Yes,I would agree that Jesus and other masters, even if the idea of ascension is a myth, would certainly wish to help others as compassion was a central message of these teachings.

Yes, compassion for all beings. Bhuddists strive not to harm any other being, indeed, to help, where they can. In Hinduism, each person seeks to teach and/or spread compassion and wisdom. In Christianity, the redemption, or saving of humanity is more explicit. This implies the helping, the guidance of our fellow man. To bring forth heaven on Earth.

But the solutions to psychic hunger aren't perfect or permanent. When we're physically hungry we eat something. And then we have to eat again in a few hours. This goes on our entire life, the need to eat never ends. And so addressing physical hunger, and psychic hunger, isn't a glamorous business but instead just routine maintenance of a bodily function.

Because the readily available solution isn't glamorous, philosophers will likely lose all interest and continue on their becoming trips, to where they already are.

Nicely put. I would add the idea that it's not just the thinking that causes the psychic hunger in this analogy, but the development of an ego within the personality of the person. This ego requires nourishment as well and tying to the post (discipline) of a reasonable and humble being.

Yes, it is an unpopular message, and always has been.

But what you imply is the message is not infact the message. You are confusing the teaching that in order to progress towards personal enlightenmet one must withdraw from the world and find the answer/route internally. With the idea that these ascended prophets have a disregard, or are indifferent to the plight of humanity as a whole. The later does not follow from the former.

When Jesus states that in order to go with him, one should deny himself, he is referring to the day to day concerns of that individual within the society at large and his internal narrative and concerns. This is what he is asking the disciple to deny, to leave behind. In favour of the cross of redemption. The cross is a complex symbol to unravel, but as it is used here, it is referred to as the burden of the acceptance of the human condition and the suffering entailed in the relinquishing of that by a human, in real time, within a real cultural setting and all that that entails (by implication, that society would inevitably crucify, or perform some equivalent act, on such a person).

Everyone wants to go up, and no one wants to go down.

But if humanity is left to go down, the majority will be going down. It seems inefficient to me, when just one person lifting a finger could reverse this.

Perhaps the real problem here is that in a few years whites will be in the minority in the US. More whites are dying than being born.

"we're dooomed" as said by Frazer in Dad's army.

I would take issue with your conclusion. On the assumption that these ascended masters are really ascended, which is implied in your comment (unless you are engaging in parody, which is fine with me). Then, one is also accepting a cosmogeny of evolving souls etc etc. I know that the Eastern prophets come across as indifferent to the plight of the ecosystem and by implication the race of humanity in favour of personal enlightenment. I would suggest that this is a naive presumption. Also that Jesus did act in the world and ask people to reform society and by implication to intervene in the management of humanity. Jesus is asking us to lift a finger, to cross the road to help that old lady.

I wouldn't say that, because duty implies conflict and division. But in this field, if one does not live according to one's understanding, then one hasn't really understood.

That's not how I was using the word duty, perhaps I should have said ought to.

Anyway, do you cross the road to help an old lady struggling with her shopping?

My point is that there are a large number of people who have the (shall I say) wisdom to know how humanity should move forward in a constructive way. Meanwhile humanity is going to hell in a hand cart under the direction, of despots, clowns and idiots. Should these wise folk lift a finger, or just sit there and descend into hell with the rest of them?

In answer to the question of whether I I found it fulfilling I think that it enabled me to hold onto my own sanity and I might have otherwise become unwell mentally. Nowadays, I enjoy reading esoteric literature but with an open but questioning spirit.

I found it useful as an entry point into some of the ideas of Hinduism and Eastern religions in general. Along with a means by which to break free, within my own mind, from the rigid conditioning of the Western narrative. Something very constructive.

I can't imagine how I would have developed without such an alternative view on the world as presented in our society.

Also, I find it a useful narrative in discussing mysticism, which is devilishly difficult to discuss in forums like this.

I don't really read K. any more, because the message is so very simple and all the complications are my own.

I agree, but is there not a duty for people who get the message to apply it in their lives to some extent? Or more broadly, as we as intelligent beings with agency, can alter the world (ecosystem). Surely some wisdom ought to be applied in the corridors of power, or in the direction of humanity. Or otherwise, surely, we are doomed.

While I am not sure that all esoteric systems can be taken literally, I think they do offer an interesting alternative and I keep an open mind towards the idea of spirit guides and the possibility of ascended Masters, who include Jesus, the Buddha and Saint Germain.

I agree with this, although I think it important not to try to define what is going on behind the scenes, because we cannot know for certain, just what is going on and what, or for why, our existing in this world we find ourselves in has come to pass.

I have found a problem with exposing esoteric thinking to philosophical scrutiny, because the philosophical process inevitably reduces it to some kind of psychological figment of the human mind. Also that the majority of philosophers seem to have come to the implicit assumption that reality, existence and it's explanations are within the preview of science and scientism. Resulting in any other kind of epistemology being disregarded out of hand as just another figment.

I would happily discuss this further, while putting this philosophical scepticism to one side for a while.

Do you think your interest in these areas has enriched your life at all?

You have more optimism than me regarding the mental acuity of Americans.

I was referring to UK folk, I'm already despairing about US folk.

Exhibit A, above.

I see it loud and clear.

Just substitute the word Commy for antifa. Those damn Commies coming out of the woodwork.

It's interesting drawing the comparisons with the UK, the right wing is following the same path, but is a few months behind and the society is not quite so fractured. So it is easier to distinguish the ideology and people who have drunk the cool aid. Because the people who haven't are just normal folk, who are a bit bemused with all these people loosing touch with reality and spouting such nonsense. Their ring leaders are right now trying to paint the Black lives Matter movement in the UK as some kind of antifa organisation. I doubt it will stick though, because everyone knows there is no such animal and the fools who fall for it will become more and more exposed for the fools they are.

This truly is the functioning of a backward, primitive species.

The use of religion by politics was constructive in the development of civilisation. It's perversion into nihilist militant extremism is a recent development, one which will be stamped out I expect.

They should take a leaf out of our book over the pond works well for us in the UK.

With "god did it" and "supernatural magic" anything goes. :sparkle:
Could literally be raised to explain anything, and therefore explains nothing.
Might as well be replaced with "don’t know", which incurs no information loss.
Is not itself explicable, cannot readily be exemplified (verified), does not derive anything differentiable in particular, and has consistently been falsified in the past.
Literally a non-explanation.
That's ↑ not a dis/proof, but just explicates the vacuity of such utterings.

I'm familiar with the arguments against assertions of god did it.

But you haven't answered my question, is there anything in philosophy which justifies the opinion that there is no supernatural element in our origins?

Are you in favor of this particular vapid ex nihilo interpretation of the big bang theory? Given the only people I here espouse it are pop-science journals (to layman) and perhaps also creationists or rather poorly literate apologists.

Enlighten me? Either there is a singularity, or some other fudge (poetry). You still have the same problem.

Can you account for any opinion that there is no supernatural component in our origin, I can't see one?

If the idea of gods seems absurd to a person, how does the idea of something coming from nothing not also seem absurd?

Quite, we are all in the dark about our origins, which means there are a large number of questions, or issues which we can't answer, or resolve.

That is the essence of my problem with the term "supernatural."

I entirely agree. Some people think though that the supernatural element is the creation of something out of nothing.

Nice speech from Obama.

We should remember that the mod's are just trying to archive the forum in a credible way for posterity. This might come across as weird sometimes, but we're all struggling right now, with this virus (please excuse the sarcasm).

P.s. I too bow down to the Unenlightened one.

Consciousness is not necessary in general because there's a (simple) possible world without — that's the (simple) logic.

I presume you have noted that I am not making an assertion, but rather critiquing the positive assertion that consciousness is not necessary for existence.
All I need to do to achieve this is to remind you of the philosophy of idealism, in which it is considered that consciousness (mind) is primary and the physical world we find ourselves in is some kind of mental projection, is contingent on the mind and consciousness of the beings who experience it. I know this is a big ask and it's not my personal philosophy. But The cogito accepts this possibility.

I think, therefore there is something.

The something cannot to divorced from the being doing the thinking. The whole natural world described by science is in a sense a nursery rhythm, narrative, or poetical flourish in the way this mind experiences this something.

In other words, you are saying that something we do not understand is responsible for something else that we also do not understand.

Sounds like a quantum physicist, or a Astro physicist.

The sentence "consciousness is necessary for existence" is poetry and as such cannot be assigned a truth value.

You can't diminish the existential considerations of our origins, as an artistic flourish. It's there in the philosophy, philosophy is an open minded exercise, not one of limitation of thought. One might also say that the notion that the singularity in the Big Bang event popped into existence from nowhere, is a poetical flourish in spite of how illogical that is.

This assertion fails

Punshhh

Why?

I already answered this, we don't have sufficient information about existence to determine that consciousness is not a necessity. This is self evident.

consciousness [...] is [...] logically necessary to exist

— 3017amen
I can't speak for 3017amen, but there are philosophical arguments that consciousness is primary to the experience of existing, idealism for example.

As I have said before, my position is that we don't know and can't say what is entailed in our origins.

2. say, R3 is a self-consistent whole, a possible world, non-contradictory

From our position of ignorance of the nature of our existence, our world, we cannot consider such things as alternative worlds to the extent that such notional worlds can answer questions about our world. Basically it is more speculation about possibilities, subject to human frailty.

So something that we don't know what it is - is necessary for something else that we don't know what it is?

It is you who made a claim that consciousness is not necessary for existence. How do you know that this is the case in nature? I did not make a claim, I am considering possibilities. Possibilities which may be the case, because we don't know the nature of our origins, there are numerous possibilities. From our position of ignorance we cannot say that one or more of the possibilities is definitively not the case. The best you can do is put the case that human frailty did it, but that goes both ways.

I can explain why consciousness is good evidence for the existence of God, should a God exist. Also that we cannot use philosophy, science, or logic to answer the question of whether a God is involved in our existence, or is not.

But consciousness is not necessary for existence.

This assertion fails, because we don't know what existence entails, so we can't discern any role in it played by consciousness.

unless you are some sort of pantheist

This is a straw man, no one is suggesting that everything is conscious, or pantheism.

This line of reasoning is called "God of the gaps"

Straw again, This only applies when someone attempts to justify a belief in the existence of God. I was simply pointing out that consciousness is good evidence of God, should we exist in a world created by God.

Can you show me how we can come to exist and be conscious in this world without its being created by a God?

Gavin Williamson* can't resign, or be sacked, however bad the mess gets, because if he does, the spell is broken. Going right back to the lie on the side of the bus and the breaking point poster.
The Rubicon was crossed at Barnard Castle, there is no way back now, no resignations, no apologies, no accountability, no sign of the Prime Minister. They can only accelerate, the closer to the cliff edge we get, the faster we must go.


*Gavin Williamson is the education secretary in the UK, presiding over the A level grade debacle. One of the Yes men in Johnson's populist government.

Well, OK, you can engage - it's just going to be meaningless - as is pretty much everything you've said so far in this conversation

That's not fair, you haven't addressed 3017amen's central point, which is a legitimate concern.

Namely that consciousness is good evidence of God, that consciousness is necessary for [our] existence and that it's origin, or its presence, is not explained, or accounted for philosophically.

How can there be mass voter fraud through postal votes if there are very few postboxes and those that there are, are not used. it doesn't make sense?


The populists in the UK suffer from the same paranoia. They repeatedly claim that there is a risk of mass voter fraud through postal voting. But there has never been any evidence of it. They can't even explain who would become involved in it, why they would do it.

I should have seen this before I replied to him. I would like to have seen him squirming, although, I expect he would have just adopted the usual evasion and trolling tactics. Equally he will read my post, but be unable to reply, how frustrated he will be.

jesus is describing his version of ",truth" to his disciples. Saying IS describing.

Well yes he was describing a kind of truth, but the way he was describing it explicitly explained how it was a truth not known through intellectual description, or human description of direct human experience. Look at the passage again, with the rest of the relevant text;
"Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?” Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.” Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.” Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.” John 14:5-10"

Can you read and understand what is being said through the words? Jesus is specifically explaining how his disciples will, can and already do know the truth of himself and God through living with him. There is no describing things going on in the way Jesus knows the truth of God, it is visceral, it is real experience primary to any mental apprehension, or description of it.

I read this as jesus being an Elitist political priest.

Jesus was not a priest, he was someone who experienced some kind of divinity and tried to convey it, its truth to those around him. Also, he was not political, although he did seek to expose political corruption from time to time.

In John 14:6 Jesus says to his disciples "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

Jesus is alluding to another kind of truth, other than by description. How do you read this?

I see art as a social enterprise, although that includes artists, as individuals, having a great deal of freedom in their work. Whether this individual work is regarded as good, or valid art, is then assessed by the social enterprise once it becomes exposed to society.

I do consider though, there there is timeless art produced sometimes, which is always regarded as great art whatever the social conditions. Because it has achieved some transcendent standard of perfection. For example early Greek, or classical art.

I would also stress that beauty is linked to the human experience of the beauty of people, who are regarded by society as beautiful. Also in the human experience of nature as regarded as beautiful by society. This can also become timeless like the great art I just mentioned.

Perhaps this timeless quality could be described as archetypal.

I agree that art and beauty are separate as you say. But that there is some cross over, where art leans towards beauty and beauty can be nuanced by art. Again this is a social and cultural phenomenon.

I think it is important in such a discussion to make a distinction between what is beautiful, or of artistic merit, to an individual and what is regarded as such by the artistic establishment, or society. For example the development of conceptual art, a movement which was driven by the establishment, although some individual artists embraced it. There was a kind of arms race of legitimacy in which artists participated in competing efforts to come up with novel, deep, or superior conceptual expressions, installations, or performances. Many viewers and artists reject this project and regard it as art devouring its own tail. Resulting in the artistic establishment losing its way and losing touch with real artists and traditions.

I'm facing facts, accepting the fact that we are not equipped to answer the questions of our origins does not mean we are somehow giving up, lost, or trying to make something out of nothing. We still have the full cannon of human knowledge, science etc, to exercise our minds, to entertain, to stimulate us. I am interested in knowing what we don't know and identifying things that some profess to know, but in reality can't know. Also, identifying other means of knowing than via intellectual knowledge.

And what about the vulnerable groups in our populations? You know those transplant patients on immunosuppressants, those with cystic fibrosis, emphysema those with underlying health conditions which will seriously compromise their response to Covid etc etc? Or the excess deaths due to other conditions like cancer while the hospitals are full of Covid patients?

These people can be grouped under the heading of vulnerable groups. In the UK, this group is about 2 million, in a population of 67 million. Should we just forget about them, for some other reason?

So it is crazy to say, "it is its own causality".

That's cleared that up.