Consciousness and the Paranormal

[michaelangel1453]

If we four were sitting around a table I'd feel no loss away from technology and cut and paste and links. Soupie, not answering those because they're pretentious. You know it and I know it.

But i ask my questions again about a simple subject and would like answers as to sources, practices, texts, anything to understand. The quotes:

1. From thread Consciousness and Magic: "...I am an Occultist...I am from 'another country'"

2. From phil, sci, and the unexplained: "As an Occultist I am on the Path of Knowledge."

What do those claims really mean, Tyger?

Panprotopsychism, indeed.

 

[smcder]

If we four were sitting around a table I'd feel no loss away from technology and cut and paste and links. Soupie, not answering those because they're pretentious. You know it and I know it.

But i ask my questions again about a simple subject and would like answers as to sources, practices, texts, anything to understand. The quotes:

1. From thread Consciousness and Magic: "...I am an Occultist...I am from 'another country'"

2. From phil, sci, and the unexplained: "As an Occultist I am on the Path of Knowledge."

What do those claims really mean, Tyger?

Panprotopsychism, indeed.

I'd like that - the four of us sitting around a table - it would be a different conversation. A more polite one, I'd wager.

But for now all of us are online and we make the best of it.

 

[smcder]

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

Ok -

Well, you were asking about monism and pantheism ... Did you have a question about that? Monism holds that there is only one stuff and pantheism equates God and the universe ... So I think that's the connection.

 

[Tyger]

If we four were sitting around a table I'd feel no loss away from technology and cut and paste and links. Soupie, not answering those because they're pretentious. You know it and I know it.

You pick and choose - and with a simple dismissal, you slide out from answering the questions. In other words - on your terms - or no answers.

Could you explain how these questions are 'pretentious'? Or by saying so, do you mean they are too hard for you to answer? Show your chops. Show you do indeed have a grasp of all this material - have 'read all the books' - as you have up to this point indicated on this thread.

But i ask my questions again about a simple subject and would like answers as to sources, practices, texts, anything to understand. The quotes:

1. From thread Consciousness and Magic: "...I am an Occultist...I am from 'another country'"

Ooopsie, a no-no (and Randall would know that!). You do not copy-and-paste from another thread. If you have a question from another thread, go over there - find the post, quote it, and ask your question on that thread, not this one.

2. From phil, sci, and the unexplained: "As an Occultist I am on the Path of Knowledge."

What do those claims really mean, Tyger?

Same answer - it is not okay to pull from elsewhere. If you have a question about a post on Ufology's thread, ask over there, not here.

Panprotopsychism, indeed.

And that means......?

 

[smcder]

If we four were sitting around a table I'd feel no loss away from technology and cut and paste and links. Soupie, not answering those because they're pretentious. You know it and I know it.

But i ask my questions again about a simple subject and would like answers as to sources, practices, texts, anything to understand. The quotes:

1. From thread Consciousness and Magic: "...I am an Occultist...I am from 'another country'"

2. From phil, sci, and the unexplained: "As an Occultist I am on the Path of Knowledge."

What do those claims really mean, Tyger?

Panprotopsychism, indeed.

We all need to answer the questions put to us - keeping an image in mind of the four of us at a table is a good idea ...

It's harder to look someone in the eye and tell them you aren't going to answer their pretentious questions than to do so given the anonymity of the internet.

 

[michaelangel1453]

Yeah Soupie got me got me on the protopantheisticmonism of the subspecies constitutional republicanism. Very slippery there on the rules, huh, when direct questions are made about your claims to being an occultist, whatever that is.

Primarily though you need to deal with your references to randall. Im not randall and i know you are still burning petulant over him for some reason i don't know or care. You owe him a big apology. So kwitcher bawling and infantilism about him. Hes clearly the maturer one of you two.

Im going to let you fellows get back to your special paths to great knowledge. I do agree with steve though. Around the table i think we'd or i know i would say who gives a flying leap. What got me is you guys parsing terms and claiming special enlightenment about the nature of reality or is it non reality. All over the map, whether you acknowledge it or not. Got pretty silly. Funny thing is that you guys never that i saw really dropped the gloves and had at it. Too much coyness and prettiness and agreement. When youre like that whats the purpose and what learning goes on? The subjects ripe for a good old fight.

So yes i got a little nasty i'll admit it. A bit nasty with twain and woody allen. And yes God is a taboo word among you, unless qualified with a link to gosh that one was a riot: Christ-Impulse!! Cant be direct cant get into that. Yet whether mans consciousness created the universe well thats ok and gets beaten into the ground yet is absurd on the face of it.

So you guys have at it. I see it IS time to leave when Randall gets drawn into it. And no, tyger im NOT Randall.

 

[michaelangel1453]

Our posts were simultaneously sent Steve. Again, i do extend apologies where i got a bit nasty. Easy to extend one to steve. He clearly has a gentle streak in him i see again and again. Not so easy to soupie and tyger though i cant say i didnt stir up the coals with you two. You gave as good as you got. And no tyger. Please realize im not randall. Wow what got you two after each other. I need to find that thread if one exists to show why. Whatever your feelings toward him you cant believe hed do that. Ok. Bye guys and i'll leave you alone.

 

[Tyger]

Our posts were simultaneously sent Steve. Again, i do extend apologies where i got a bit nasty. Easy to extend one to steve. He clearly has a gentle streak in him i see again and again.

Exactly what Randall would say. Steve - interesting that you were able to pick that up so quickly, I don't think Steve introduced himself to you. Smcder was always very kind with Randall, like one is with those suffering. Randall appreciated it.

Not so easy to soupie and tyger though i cant say i didnt stir up the coals with you two.

Is that what you think you were doing - stirring up coals? What long ago fire do you believe was being stirred? Do you know Soupie? Do you know me?

You gave as good as you got.

Not so. I have never once been impolite or rude to you. I have never once used unpleasant language. (Same was so with Randall - but like Randall, you seem eager to put the discourse at that level). I asked you very legitimate questions regarding context - which you decided you could/would not supply. Your choice.

And no tyger. Please realize im not randall. Wow what got you two after each other. I need to find that thread if one exists to show why.

A bit disingenuous, methinks. Another example of your game playing. Given the two threads you mentioned - and that you have read this thread from the very beginning (that's what you indicated) - you must know what Randall is about and what has taken place vis-a-vis him and several posters.

Whatever your feelings toward him

I don't really have feelings towards him - he can be frustrating like a not well-behaved toddler wreaking havoc in the china closet. He is a very odd duck who, like you, can play games, and who, like you, takes up a lot of text time with convoluted rhetorical dance steps, but he never actually discusses what's on his mind - again, very much like you. Or more correctly, he has an agenda but is never direct and through circuitous means attempts to lasso the unwary poster into his Scientology-like rhetorical devises.

you cant believe hed do that. Ok. Bye guys and i'll leave you alone.

Leave if you wish - you are always welcome to participate in the discussion in a productive way. I trust you really will leave us alone. I must say, though - you are extremely easy to discourage.

 

[michaelangel1453]

You are a nasty bit of work. I am not Randall so sod off you infant. For randalls sake understand im not him. You persist and thats why im leaving this thread and no i dont specifically remember whatever got you so pissed off at him. I see you kicked him when he was down on that narcap thread. Oh whoops this makes me sound like randall.

Youre a little boy. Get over randall. Im not him but yeah by saying that i guess you mean i protest too much. Sod off you little creep. Man youre really pissing me off now. Why dont you talk to randle. Be a man. Now im gone. Be paranoid if you want. What a girl.

 

[Tyger]

Yeah Soupie got me got me on the protopantheisticmonism of the subspecies constitutional republicanism.

You're funny. Maybe you aren't Randall - because Randall doesn't have a sense of humor whatever, at all. Nope, not Randall, guys.

Very slippery there on the rules, huh, when direct questions are made about your claims to being an occultist, whatever that is.

We are discussing ideas. Someone might say they are a Christian in the course of conversation - that doesn't suddenly become a point of debate. What one shares is their business alone. Someone might say they are a Muslim or a Buddhist - I don't then start grilling them about that. Or possibly Jewish - I don't then want to know all about Shabbat. We keep to the ideas.

I guarantee that wherever an occultist was mentioned a description of that was attendant on the mention.

Primarily though you need to deal with your references to randall.

Hmmm......maybe.......

Im not randall and i know you are still burning petulant over him for some reason i don't know or care.

Glad to hear it. If you say so, I'll go with that.

You owe him a big apology.

I don't think so. The guy tried to get me banned or something - so I think it's him who needs to apologize.

So kwitcher bawling and infantilism about him. Hes clearly the maturer one of you two.

I take it back - maybe you are Randall.

Im going to let you fellows get back to your special paths to great knowledge. I do agree with steve though. Around the table i think we'd or i know i would say who gives a flying leap.

Well its clear from what you say that we wouldn't be sitting around the table for a very long time. Enough time for a quick cup of coffee perhaps. About it.

What got me is you guys parsing terms and claiming special enlightenment about the nature of reality or is it non reality. All over the map, whether you acknowledge it or not. Got pretty silly.

It's silly to you because you can't follow it, that's not saying it is silly. In point of fact a good deal goes over my head - I just pay it no mind. I'd probably be a better person - more adept of mind, for sure, as well as knowledgeable - if I did knuckle in and read everything presented here - but fact is I can't. I've got work that requires a lot of my time.

Funny thing is that you guys never that i saw really dropped the gloves and had at it. Too much coyness and prettiness and agreement. When youre like that whats the purpose and what learning goes on?

Interesting ideas around what enables learning. Intellectual debate is not a fist-fight.

The subjects ripe for a good old fight.

Well, had you been able to articulate your thoughts - maybe. As it stands, nothing.

So yes i got a little nasty i'll admit it. A bit nasty with twain and woody allen.

Why was that? Out of the blue - what bothered you so much? was it the language - does it feel high-falutin? Too erudite? To use your word 'pretentious'?

And yes God is a taboo word among you,

Not that I'm aware. We've mentioned God and gods a-plenty.

unless qualified with a link to gosh that one was a riot: Christ-Impulse!!

Saying 'a riot' is not articulating any thoughts. There is nothing in your text except emotional reactions.

Cant be direct cant get into that.

Do you have a question about the Christ Impulse? Is that it? Ask.

Yet whether mans consciousness created the universe well thats ok and gets beaten into the ground yet is absurd on the face of it.

Okay now you have stated an opinion - finally. I can talk about why - as an idea (not my belief) - the idea that humanity is creating - is intriguing and 'ties up loose ends'. Is this what you want to discuss?

So you guys have at it. I see it IS time to leave when Randall gets drawn into it. And no, tyger im NOT Randall.

Maybe - or maybe if you can actually state your views, a conversation can ensue.

 

[Tyger]

You are a nasty bit of work. I am not Randall so sod off you infant.

Lost your sense of humor, I see. You certainly have that humor in spades when you are directing it at others - not so much when you need it to absorb hard truths directed at you. I guess we know what we're dealing with. You come on this thread with considerable attitude and you can't take even one ounce of push-back - and polite push-back, at that.

For randalls sake understand im not him. You persist and thats why im leaving this thread and no i dont specifically remember whatever got you so pissed off at him. I see you kicked him when he was down on that narcap thread. Oh whoops this makes me sound like randall.

I hardly did that. I simply agreed with Ted Roe's expression of his experience on the thread. Someone needed to concur. I saw that what Mr Roe was subjected to was familiar, certainly for me regarding Randall on numerous threads. That was all. Randall was already 'down'. In fact, he was back 'up' on the site after a temporary ban. I never said a word until he was back on the site - so I said nothing when he was 'down', when he was gone. I never 'kicked him when he was down'.

Youre a little boy. Get over randall. Im not him but yeah by saying that i guess you mean i protest too much. Sod off you little creep. Man youre really pissing me off now. Why dont you talk to randle. Be a man. Now im gone. Be paranoid if you want. What a girl.

Well, I'm glad we got that sorted. A tad touchy - about something.

 

[Soupie]

 

[Soupie]

Well, you were asking about monism and pantheism ... Did you have a question about that? Monism holds that there is only one stuff and pantheism equates God and the universe ... So I think that's the connection.

Yes. Substance Monism doesn't of necessity lead to Pantheism; I'm a Substance Monist, but not (necessarily) a Pantheist. However, if one believes in the existence of a personal or impersonal God and is a Substance Monist, one must by necessity be a Pantheist. Or, if one is a Pantheist, then one must be a Substance Monist.

I think it may be time to put this thread to rest for its own good. We probably jumped the shark about 20 pages ago. Regardless, I've immensely enjoyed the discussion, and I could go on for 100 more pages. Perhaps the few of us sincere participants can start another at some point in the future. One can never be introduced to too many ideas/concepts imho.

 

[Soupie]

linking for later reference - gotta sign off the laptop

Cycorp AI - Business Insider

Interesting.

THis article just showed up in my stream today:

The first conscious machines will probably be on Wall Street | The Mitrailleuse

 

[smcder]

I would love for us all to hang out here or another thread -though at this point I don't think there's anything we can't post here ... We've gotten to know and respect one another and I think that's valuable - hard to find I think on the web ... And we've been pretty civil throughout, also not to be taken for granted. Plenty of new ideas and lots of old ones to give more time to.

Take a break and if you've a mind to, come back and see if anyone's around but by all means stay in touch!

(Cue end music to "Cheers" and Sam turning out the lights)

 

[Burnt State]

Well, before Sam runs away with the tips for the night try to convince him to hire these people to complete an indexing of the thread as it's one of the more fascinating ones in the forum's archives and worth providing ins and outs of the labyrinth for the casual reader. Well done, all.

Twin Oaks Intentional Community - Book Indexing

 

[smcder]

Yes. Substance Monism doesn't of necessity lead to Pantheism; I'm a Substance Monist, but not (necessarily) a Pantheist. However, if one believes in the existence of a personal or impersonal God and is a Substance Monist, one must by necessity be a Pantheist. Or, if one is a Pantheist, then one must be a Substance Monist.

I think it may be time to put this thread to rest for its own good. We probably jumped the shark about 20 pages ago. Regardless, I've immensely enjoyed the discussion, and I could go on for 100 more pages. Perhaps the few of us sincere participants can start another at some point in the future. One can never be introduced to too many ideas/concepts imho.

Right - I think it was linked in particular to Spinoza ... But he also comes out of a long Jewish philosophical tradition - "atheism" doesn't mean what it does now ... That's what I like about the Philosophy without any Gaps podcasts. Greek, Hellenistic, Jewish, Islamic and all the intermingling of ideas - you get a sense of how some of the ideas we take for granted came to us in some pretty circuitous ways and not from pure objective reason. I think that's a bit why I press you on monism - it's a philosophical position with a history - not an empirical or scientific one. Doesn't mean it's wrong but I think one should know the options.

The same with God - If someone says they don't believe in God I wonder how they could know all the possible conceptions of God?

Two examples: I'm a thoroughgoing atheist when it comes to Zeus. I have less problem with AAs idea of a higher power. But I do struggle a but with folks who want to put all that credit on the subconscious mind.

"Came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity."

"The alcoholic at certain times has no effective mental defense against the first drink. Except in a few cases, neither he nor any other human being can provide such a defense. His defense must come from a Higher Power."

"Follow the dictates of a Higher Power and you will presently live in a new and wonderful world, no matter what your present circumstances!"

The idea that some higher part of the self (I mean here strictly psychologically, my brain - a subconscious part) could be this higher power ... Well, where was it before? And in too many other cases people seem to be saying that you have a saintly genius quietly slumbering deep in your mind just waiting to come to your aid.

But ... Maybe so.

Disclaimer: I am not an AA member.


But atheism and materialism are by no

 

[smcder]

Well, before Sam runs away with the tips for the night try to convince him to hire these people to complete an indexing of the thread as it's one of the more fascinating ones in the forum's archives and worth providing ins and outs of the labyrinth for the casual reader. Well done, all.

Twin Oaks Intentional Community - Book Indexing

Encore! Encore!

At least a curtain call - take a bow folks ...

(No animals were harmed in the making of this thread.)

 

[Tyger]

Encore! Encore!

At least a curtain call - take a bow folks ...

(No animals were harmed in the making of this thread.)

Steve, are you suggesting we close the thread? Actually - oddly enough - early today I approached one of the moderators to do just that because I was thinking it's gotten too big. On other chat sites I've been on, a thread that approaches 100 pages is closed with a final post from a moderator, linking to the new thread or threads. The new thread has an initial post with a link to the old thread for those interested.

I have a sense you see the thread as closing - is that your opinion? Maybe we should have Goggs do the honors? I'm okay with that - I think the thread is too big myself. I think it will implode at some point.

This could be 'Consciousness and the Paranormal Part 1' -
the new thread could be 'Consciousness and the Paranormal Part 2'.

Or we just splinter into several different limited topic threads - I actually think that is the better plan. Maybe there is a 'Consciousness and the Paranormal' Category with all the threads in one spot. Ideas.

 

[smcder]

No, I was saying I wanted to hang around ...but I think closing this thread and having a category and either a part 2 or several topic threads would work.