Rhosgobel Tent At TOT

[Aragorn]

The human psyche has become rotten to the core.

Or, has the fruit rotted away to reveal that which always was?

That is a very good question, Brother. I have actually been pondering on that for almost three decades already.

This is going to sound very dark, but if we look at the "official" explanation of what sets humans apart from all other animals on this planet, then the claim is that humans have sapience while other animals do not. But then why are those other animals, who lack this sapience, not as depraved and evil as humans? Could it then really be true that evil is indigenous to the human psyche, and that it then takes a considerable amount of good — which has now begun waning again as of the 20th century — just to keep this evil subdued and balance things out?

It's a painful idea to contemplate.

[Wind]

I think that man has the potential for both good and evil. Sometimes either one prevails, at least for a time.

The population of Earth is mostly immature and I think darkness has taken over, but not all hope is lost.

Everything goes in cycles... Also this planet will be just fine without us, we need Gaia more than she needs us.

[modwiz]

I really enoyed this thpughtful interview. Jason has some info about Freud that I did not know. His wanting to declare psychic abilities as ket to understanding the unconconcious/Id. It was blocked.

The Freud part is at 38:00 minutes.

Prometheus and Atlas, Author: Jason Reza Jorjani - Hiding spirituality with Descartes, Kant, Freud.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQWKcwxkdMc

[modwiz]

[modwiz]

"You can dance. You can dance. Everything's under control."

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QDKLglEP5Y

[modwiz]

The visuals in the video are amusing.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm51ihfi1p4

[modwiz]

I like the skirts better than the boots.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pV-iL-1mjf8

[modwiz]

No pyromaniacs were injured in the making of this song.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3eC35LoF4U

[PurpleLama]

That is a very good question, Brother. I have actually been pondering on that for almost three decades already.

This is going to sound very dark, but if we look at the "official" explanation of what sets humans apart from all other animals on this planet, then the claim is that humans have sapience while other animals do not. But then why are those other animals, who lack this sapience, not as depraved and evil as humans? Could it then really be true that evil is indigenous to the human psyche, and that it then takes a considerable amount of good — which has now begun waning again as of the 20th century — just to keep this evil subdued and balance things out?

It's a painful idea to contemplate.

I have been chewing on an idea for quite a while now.

One way to interpret the temptations of Christ, which occured while he was fasting in the desert, can all be attributed to the human mind.

He was a human- turn these stones to loaves.
He was a prince/king- worship me and have domion over all this kingdom.
He was a holy man- jump from this height and test God's favor.

These are all things than a human mind would readily come up with, indeed none of us who are truly honest with ourselves can see anything else arise from the machinations of our own personality/ego.

As an aside, as for sentience and good versus evil, the Little Fuzzy sci-fi series by H. Beam Piper are quite excellent. I read those as a kid, and in turn read them to my own kids.

[Aragorn]

I have been chewing on an idea for quite a while now.

One way to interpret the temptations of Christ, which occured while he was fasting in the desert, can all be attributed to the human mind.

He was a human- turn these stones to loaves.
He was a prince/king- worship me and have domion over all this kingdom.
He was a holy man- jump from this height and test God's favor.

These are all things than a human mind would readily come up with, indeed none of us who are truly honest with ourselves can see anything else arise from the machinations of our own personality/ego.

I agree, and as the matter of fact, I had been thinking about this very same thing only a few days ago.

Of course, the Church had to attribute those temptations to the Devil, because they could not have Yeshua be anything less than holy, even though he lived a human life. He had to be holy, so as to widen the gap between him and the mortal sinners left under the care and strict supervision of the Roman Catholic Empire. "He was holy, but you sinners are not." That was the tactic.

But it is true: those are all very human thoughts; not necessarily sprung from evil, but rather from purely logical/abstract thought and the innate opportunism — read: the instinct of looking untoward whatever allows one to thrive — of all sentient beings.

Roughly speaking, one could call it the survival instinct, albeit that it's a little more complicated than that. In a way, one could even regard it as an intuitive experience of game theory — that same game theory as what underlies market economics.

[Wind]

I agree, and as the matter of fact, I had been thinking about this very same thing only a few days ago.

Of course, the Church had to attribute those temptations to the Devil, because they could not have Yeshua be anything less than holy, even though he lived a human life. He had to be holy, so as to widen the gap between him and the mortal sinners left under the care and strict supervision of the Roman Catholic Empire.

That's why he also had to have a virgin birth to a woman instead of being born out of the most natural thing meaning sex between a man and a woman who loved each other or the Original Sin. Also he had to physically ascend to heaven with his mother and not die like a mortal even though he supposedly died on the Cross and then was resurrected. All of those are just metaphors turned into literal interpretations so that we would have a figure to worship. At worst it was about controlling people with the fear of damnation and hell if you didn't believe in Jesus and the strict doctrine which the Church taught. In reality that has nothing to do with the state of Christ consciousness which Yeshua had attained and one could argue that every single human being can attain. "Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father."

[PurpleLama]

I did fail to elucidate the underlying point of my post.

The idea I have been chewing on is to wit: The human mind itself is the Devil. So, the Devil tempting Christ was just the normal operation of his human consciousness..This is a follow on or expansion on the "their mind" concept, moving it into a more accessible context for most people.

The spiritual self being at its core "the observer" of nondualism, the silent serenity of that state of being, the coarseness of normal human consciousness has only ever been the impediment and distraction.

It is only the operation of such a (devil)mind that would ever introduce belief as the requirement for entry into heaven and oneness with Christ/God, and further the conflation of what constitutes faith with belief, the trap is fully set. Belief has one very important factor, it will shape and mold and even reject incoming experiental data. One thing which is surely beyond normal human conception is the sublime experience of what should be normal divine experience/conception/realization, and any presupposed belief will neccessarily limit if not outright prohibit the perception of what is immediately before us.

Comflating belief with faith is especially insidious. On the one hand we have an operation of mind which as observed above will readily act as a filter on incoming experiential data, on the other hand faith is the data itself.

Use the chair you are sitting in as an example, or the floor beneath your feet. No belief, indeed no thought at all, is required for the chair/floor to continue to support your weight. THAT is what faith is, a certain knowledge, something so implicit in your intuitive grasp of reality that right now, as you are reading these words, questioning it could not be further from your mind. It just holds your weight, whether you believe it or not.

You can, however, believe very well that that chair/floor is too old, too rotten, to ever support your weight. Believing so, you would not ever come to sit/stand in the first place, therby preventing anything like certain knowledge.

All this is illustrative of this psycho-spiritual interpretation I have been working on, or rather, that has been working on me.

[Aragorn]

I did fail to elucidate the underlying point of my post.

The idea I have been chewing on is to wit: The human mind itself is the Devil. So, the Devil tempting Christ was just the normal operation of his human consciousness..This is a follow on or expansion on the "their mind" concept, moving it into a more accessible context for most people.

Yes, I agree with that, albeit that this Devil — a word that etymologically actually stems from the German "Teufel", which in turn was the contraction of the article "das" ("the", genderless) with the noun "Eufel" ("evil" or "mishap") — is not the same thing as the evil I myself was referring to in post #5686. The evil I'm referring to is much more complex and not as practically oriented as the one you speak of here.

What you speak of is the opportunism I myself referred to in post #5695. It is a practically oriented form of evil, because it serves the survival of the being in which the subjective consciousness dwells.

The evil I was referring to in post #5686 is not survival-oriented. It can be lust-oriented, or sadism-oriented, and it is strong enough to be psychopathic in nature, i.e. it coldly ignores the wellbeing and/or survival of the individual's peers, and in that, it differs from what is commonly perceived as animal cruelty. Predatory animals kill out of a need for survival, and their consciousness is not wide enough to have any concept of ethics, while that of humans does or should have such an awareness. Therefore, the cruelty of animals is more of a basic instinct, unhampered by intellect, as opposed to the cruelty of humans.

Hence my perhaps rhetorical question whether evil — as I describe it here — would be innate to the human psyche, given that animals do not exhibit these psychopathic traits.

The spiritual self being at its core "the observer" of nondualism, the silent serenity of that state of being, the coarseness of normal human consciousness has only ever been the impediment and distraction.

It is only the operation of such a (devil)mind that would ever introduce belief as the requirement for entry into heaven and oneness with Christ/God, and further the conflation of what constitutes faith with belief, the trap is fully set. Belief has one very important factor, it will shape and mold and even reject incoming experiental data. One thing which is surely beyond normal human conception is the sublime experience of what should be normal divine experience/conception/realization, and any presupposed belief will neccessarily limit if not outright prohibit the perception of what is immediately before us.

Comflating belief with faith is especially insidious. On the one hand we have an operation of mind which as observed above will readily act as a filter on incoming experiential data, on the other hand faith is the data itself.

Use the chair you are sitting in as an example, or the floor beneath your feet. No belief, indeed no thought at all, is required for the chair/floor to continue to support your weight. THAT is what faith is, a certain knowledge, something so implicit in your intuitive grasp of reality that right now, as you are reading these words, questioning it could not be further from your mind. It just holds your weight, whether you believe it or not.

You can, however, believe very well that that chair/floor is too old, too rotten, to ever support your weight. Believing so, you would not ever come to sit/stand in the first place, therby preventing anything like certain knowledge.

All this is illustrative of this psycho-spiritual interpretation I have been working on, or rather, that has been working on me.

While I agree with your observation/contemplation, I would posit adding another definition to the word "faith" — not as a substitute for your definition, but as an addition to it — namely that faith can also be an irrational neuropsychiatric response that isn't necessarily supported by either belief or by empirical or intuitive experience, as in the case of the thorough religious indoctrination that most humans have been exposed to in the last 6'000 years, whether it be Judaism, Christianity/Catholicism, Islam, Hinduism or whatever.

In a way, it could be regarded as a belief, but then it is a belief that the conscious mind is not necessarily 100% convinced of. For instance, you may consciously think that the whole "fire & brimstone" thing is bullshit, but your indoctrination subconsciously instills you with fear of the "fire & brimstone" thing as some kind of "what if it's actually true" contemplation. And this religious indoctrination can and does indeed reach much deeper into one's subconsciousness than one would suspect, as testified by the countless near-death experiences of people who claimed to have been atheists but who upon their NDE then came to meet Yahweh, or Satan, or Archangel Michael, and so on.

In other words, the indoctrination can be an effective (re)programming of one's subconscious beliefs towards things that the individual has no conscious faith in. And yet, this too is then referred to as faith — in the religious sense of the word. So the conflation of belief and faith is in fact not so exceptional once you start incorporating the different layers of consciousness as available to the average human being during their lifetime. It may even be that it's not so much a conflation as a transition between two shades of the same thing.

[PurpleLama]

All very well said, as usual, Strider.

For the faith vs belief question, what I am pointing at is perhaps a meaning or definition that is lost to time and manipulation. Think more along the lines of "what if the scientific method were applied to spiritual/psychic phenomena" and it would begin to get closer to what I am driving at. Your addition is valid, of course, but as applied to the conventional wisdom as to the meaning of the word.

While we lack real evidence (that we can recognize as such) that high scientific principles operated in ancient times, we do have real objects that defy modern engineering. As much as in the Bible, we have the term faith applied to miracles such as healing the sick, raising the dead, walking on water, in the idea that I am having, such would also be applied to how do we move a 500 ton stone and align it simultaneously to magnetic north and some constellation in the sky. It is a real physics of consciousness that is utterly lost, so now we have relativelt nebulously collective memory of something like faith, or magic, or miracles.

[PurpleLama]

As for my use of the term devil, substitute Satan (the accuser- the part of the mind which accuses- which also DOUBTS and disbelieves the truth) and Lucifer (lightbringer- bringer of wisdom or enlightenment- be careful what you wish for) as you will, whichever word you use and thereby whichever etymology applies, such will yeild only more information and applicability, richness if you will, of the concept.