Consciousness and the Paranormal

[smcder]

There isn't a he among us who identifies as an "esoteric occultist".

 

[smcder]

Is that the elephant?

 

[smcder]

I'm trying, really am, but you two are a riot:

Interminable insertions of quotes and links interspersed with your own bad writing, then this:

"Very Langan-ish"

Response: "Pantheism"

Speaks volumes, but not of what you think.

Actually I thought exchange was in a PM so I can see how it would be confusing.

 

[smcder]

Why does Monism seem to be connected philosophically to Pantheism a la Spinoza and Langan (and others?), or is that just a coincidence?

Pan-en-theism ... ;-)

Panentheism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[michaelangel1453]

One of you has directly stated that he is an occultist, and paraphrasing here, that human history was contemporaneous with dinosaurs and beyond, that there is one substance, that creation is due to the human mind, that human consciousness affects substance... again paraphrasing, but the claim is that he is an occultist. Or, well, this thread is loaded with essentially the notion that belief in "monism" enables humans through contemplative/meditative practices to achieve a degree of divinity. I'm not against introspection or meditation, but you fellows can't really deny that you have spoken specifically about knowledge and practice of certain techniques which allow you to reach/attain a state closer to, well, godhead.

I'm asking for detailed specific practices, whatever, you do to expand/achieve your consciousness toward this.

The elephant, part of him, is yes, God as a separate and freestanding being apart from creation and reality but the creator of it and of us.

I think I've been clear, not coy about, this.

 

[Tyger]

Let me ask you three, especially the one of you who I believe has described himself as an esoteric occultist who through study and implementation of wisdom and techniques in texts and through perceived wisdom has attained/is attaining a greater consciousness and a greater awareness of reality...please stop me, really, but you get the drift.

Leave the links and quotes behind and very specifically in great detail tell me what an esoteric occultist studies and practices. Not meant to be inflammatory, genuinely curious.

I see this constant reference to monism as an excuse to portray yourselves as gods in the making, because of course humans have the capacity you fellows talk about possessing to some degree to emulate because, well, you're of divine substance too.

So, would the esoteric occultist get very, very (very!) specific about what he is and does as such a person.

This is Randall's MO - to a 'T'. You know you are not suppose to be engaging in this way - you have been asked not to.

There is no 'he', there are no claims, there are no personal manifestos to be had. We are discussing ideas, no more, no less.

As when dealing with Randall - one has to ask that you read the links, read the conversation. The answer to all your questions is therein - but you have to work for the answers - you have to do the intellectual heavy lifting. There is no way around that. But if you are in fact Randall's sock puppet account I know you will not accept this answer and will continue the prodding and poking. This should be interesting.

Rather - please give your thoughts on all the items you mention: esoteric occultist, wisdom, techniques, greater consciousness, greater awareness of reality - as these items have been brought up by many on this thread - not just one poster who you seem to want very much to get into a dialog with. Everyone has freely discussed the topics. You should be no different. Join in, please.

 

[Tyger]

One of you has directly stated that he is an occultist, and paraphrasing here, that human history was contemporaneous with dinosaurs and beyond, that there is one substance, that creation is due to the human mind, that human consciousness affects substance... again paraphrasing, but the claim is that he is an occultist. Or, well, this thread is loaded with essentially the notion that belief in "monism" enables humans through contemplative/meditative practices to achieve a degree of divinity. I'm not against introspection or meditation, but you fellows can't really deny that you have spoken specifically about knowledge and practice of certain techniques which allow you to reach/attain a state closer to, well, godhead.

I'm asking for detailed specific practices, whatever, you do to expand/achieve your consciousness toward this.

The elephant, part of him, is yes, God as a separate and freestanding being apart from creation and reality but the creator of it and of us.

I think I've been clear, not coy about, this.

Not helpful at all. Take a post - quote it - and respond to the ideas therein. You are balling up innumerable ideas brought forth by many posters - not one poster, but many.

You've also created - fabricated, really - a strawman - and want to discuss your fabrication. Cannot do. Sorry.

 

[michaelangel1453]

First of all, you're very wrong. And I just posted.

 

[smcder]

One of you has directly stated that he is an occultist, and paraphrasing here, that human history was contemporaneous with dinosaurs and beyond, that there is one substance, that creation is due to the human mind, that human consciousness affects substance... again paraphrasing, but the claim is that he is an occultist. Or, well, this thread is loaded with essentially the notion that belief in "monism" enables humans through contemplative/meditative practices to achieve a degree of divinity. I'm not against introspection or meditation, but you fellows can't really deny that you have spoken specifically about knowledge and practice of certain techniques which allow you to reach/attain a state closer to, well, godhead.

I'm asking for detailed specific practices, whatever, you do to expand/achieve your consciousness toward this.

The elephant, part of him, is yes, God as a separate and freestanding being apart from creation and reality but the creator of it and of us.

I think I've been clear, not coy about, this.

I've not had such an experience - I usually practice breath meditation, centering prayer, body awareness and Metta - I've not had an experience of unity consciousness or union with the Godhead.

 

[michaelangel1453]

"the deep work in esoteric occultism"

"initiate themselves into higher realms of consciousness...that knowledge of the subtle realms is 'occult'"

"these entities represent a non-human intelligence/consciousness"

One of you said the first two, another the third. Just asking for specifics as to how you know these things.

 

[smcder]

Was it quoted from another source? Steiner maybe?

 

[Tyger]

"the deep work in esoteric occultism"

"initiate themselves into higher realms of consciousness...that knowledge of the subtle realms is 'occult'"

"these entities represent a non-human intelligence/consciousness"

One of you said the first two, another the third. Just asking for specifics as to how you know these things.

When you come to a post - hit 'reply' and the post will come up as a quote in your post - just to explain if you don't already know.

Obviously, the person you are quoting needs to see their whole post, the context for the comment and the whole post within the stream of the conversation to be able to intelligently answer.

For someone whe wants all these 'specifics' you are one for a great deal of lack of specificity yourself. Why all the coyness? Why not address yourself to who you want to dialog with? Why not actually quote a post?

 

[Soupie]

Pan-en-theism ... ;-)

Panentheism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Hm, interesting.

I don't follow such arguments about God and the nature of God, as I for one am not sure an omniscient, omnipotent being exists. Thus to argue about whether the universe is God, whether God is the universe, whether God created the universe, etc. is not something I can engage in. In other words, I think one must first believe in an omniscient, omnipotent God and then hold a belief such as Panentheism.

Re: Monism and Langan:

Physics and Metaphysics - CTMU - Cognitive-Theoretic Model of theUniverse - Christopher Michael Langan

CTMU monism says that the universe consists of one “dual-aspect” substance, infocognition, created by internal feedback within an even more basic (one-aspect) substance called telesis. That everything in the universe can manifest itself as either information or cognition (and on combined scales, as both) can easily be confirmed by the human experience of personal consciousness, in which the self exists as information to its own cognition…i.e., as an object or relation subject to its own temporal processing. If certain irrelevant constraints distinguishing a human brain from other kinds of object are dropped, information and cognition become identical to spatial relations and time.

 

[smcder]

When you come to a post - hit 'reply' and the post will come up as a quote in your post - just to explain if you don't already know.

Obviously, the person you are quoting needs to see their whole post, the context for the comment and the whole post within the stream of the conversation to be able to intelligently answer.

For someone whe wants all these 'specifics' you are one for a great deal of lack of specificity yourself. Why all the coyness? Why not address yourself to who you want to dialog with? Why not actually quote a post?

Yep - give us a post - I'm willing to answer any questions.

 

[michaelangel1453]

I will endeavor to do that. Difficult on my device. However, begs the question. There's how many pages on how many threads from you fellows and you've clearly established the guidelines of copypastequoteanswewithcutpastelinkquotationmarksbedamned so when I who has seen some themes asks for specifics I'm admonished to persist with that oftentimes crazy system. Also...

Rudolph Steiner was a crackpot on a number of things. Yet he's the proud titleholder to acres of wasteland on this thread from you fine fellows.

Also, when Langan was mentioned my ears perked up, though granted I may have missed his first invocation. Then, my gosh, i just see a few posts above that that crackpot Christopher Langan was meant. It shows the level of discourse here sometimes.

I thought THOMAS Langan of the University of Toronto was meant. Passed away a couple years ago. Like his books.

 

[Soupie]

"these entities represent a non-human intelligence/consciousness" ...

Just asking for specifics as to how you know these things.

If entities such as God(s), demons, angels, faeries, aliens, etc. exist as commonly defined by humans, then logically they would be non-human (which means not human) intelligence/consciousness (which means, roughly, the ability to think).

Now, if you would be so kind:

Which aspects of QST do you disagree with?

Which aspects of Constitutive Russellian Panprotopsychism do you disagree with?

Which model of consciousness do you prefer?

Which of Langan's concepts do you disagree with and why?

How do you define "God" and why?

 

[smcder]

I will endeavor to do that. Difficult on my device. However, begs the question. There's how many pages on how many threads from you fellows and you've clearly established the guidelines of copypastequoteanswewithcutpastelinkquotationmarksbedamned so when I who has seen some themes asks for specifics I'm admonished to persist with that oftentimes crazy system. Also...

Rudolph Steiner was a crackpot on a number of things. Yet he's the proud titleholder to acres of wasteland on this thread from you fine fellows.

Also, when Langan was mentioned my ears perked up, though granted I may have missed his first invocation. Then, my gosh, i just see a few posts above that that crackpot Christopher Langan was meant. It shows the level of discourse here sometimes.

I thought THOMAS Langan of the University of Toronto was meant. Passed away a couple years ago. Like his books.

Lol - that's kind of funny, but you have to remember it really has become a very informal conversation between a few people, so yes it would be confusing from the outside. And I think we all write what we can, when we can between everything else we have going on in our lives - no one here is pretending to be an expert that I can tell but maybe it appears that way to you.

Nice name-drop on Thomas Langan. Yes, C Langan gets a pretty rough go on the Wikipedia talk pages and many other places.

Now, if we go any further with this discussion, you'll need to ask nicely and drop the insults. I am interested in what you have to say but you need to talk to me like an adult. Can we agree to that or are we done?

 

[smcder]

linking for later reference - gotta sign off the laptop

Cycorp AI - Business Insider

 

[Soupie]

Mike, you appear to hold your own view on the issue of consciousness and the paranormal. I'm not sure what it is as you haven't shared, but based on your insistence that several participants and various thinkers cited here are "crackpots" who need "upbraiding" you appear to be one who, I'll guess, subscribes to Consensus Science or mainstream Christianity.

You seem socially retarded in the sense that you expect others to behave and think in very specific ways, meanwhile failing to uphold your own expectations, and then expressing — from what I can amusedly gather — genuine surprise when people react negatively to you, haha. I get it; you have thoughts in your head, and you don't understand/realize that we don't know what those thoughts are. It's called Theory of Mind.

 

[Tyger]

I will endeavor to do that. Difficult on my device. However, begs the question. There's how many pages on how many threads from you fellows and you've clearly established the guidelines of copypastequoteanswewithcutpastelinkquotationmarksbedamned so when I who has seen some themes asks for specifics I'm admonished to persist with that oftentimes crazy system. Also...

You'll find it's a practice common to this entire chat site, more or less, where conversations are on-going. So, when in Rome.....

P.S. Not many here have a lot of time for aimless explorations. To the point is best.

Rudolph Steiner was a crackpot on a number of things. Yet he's the proud titleholder to acres of wasteland on this thread from you fine fellows.

Ah, correction: Rudolf Steiner. So you don't like the chap. This thread has gone on for close to 120 pages - I believe Mr Steiner has taken up perhaps 2 of those 120 pages, and most of that only very recently. Clearly a red flag for you, however. To each his own.

All I can say - because there is not much (meat) to take up in your observation.