Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 37

Thread: 50 Shades Of Greys.....A tribute to Seikhu Kishi

  1. #16
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Location
    None of your business
    Posts
    1,226
    Thanks
    4,319
    Thanked 8,564 Times in 1,218 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Catsquotl View Post
    not offended. just wandering.

    I have trouble seeing any animate being. whether cloned or otherwise as not being worthy of basic human compassion. the fact the grey go through an awful effort to remain alive tells me they have a fear of dying. that puts them on the same page with every human basics. The fear of death is that which made us evolve and seek out answers too.

    should we sink to annihalation because of what they do to us. or can we rise above that.

    with love
    eelco
    Clostridium difficile also seeks to remain alive.

    Compassion is a natural result of empathy. Empathy is a function of the soul, of two souls together. What has no soul cannot receive empathy however much you might like to send it. It is like talking to the wall because you cannot stand to ignore bricks whose stubborn determination to hang on in there seems like a sign of life.

  2. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Seikou-Kishi For This Useful Post:

    Breeze (14th September 2013), GCS1103 (14th September 2013), Highland1 (15th September 2013), jimmer (17th January 2015), Spiral (14th September 2013)

  3. #17
    Eelco
    Guest
    First off i feel I have to mention I have no memory of ever being abducted or even been in contact with a Grey. So with that in mind all I am saying is just conjecture.

    I have written about eliminating a nest of reptilians before. They were definitely not Greys and looked something like warhammer snotlings. When I conjured up a vortex to mother earths aurora( with her help) they seemed quite happy to jump in and be “recasted” as I’d come to understand it.

    Over the years I have met with different points of view about the Greys and it seems that in time the prevailing wind is one that characterizes them as not having a soul and thus not worthy of existence.

    That notion alone is something I fail to agree upon on face value.

    In that I do not feel I am condoning any mishap the grey are doing to us. I do not.

    Just as I do have some slight remorse every time I or one of my children have to take antibiotics. I do feel for them. Whether that feeling is shared or not is besides the point as far as I am concerned.

    So it is my soul or me that feels empathy, without the need for it to be returned by another soul.

    The fact they were made like Frankenstein, or a Gollem does not change the fact that they have some kind of life/ rudimentary animation?. The fact they are able to device ways in order to get what the need or want does suggest some intelligence. That alone to me suggest I should investigate further until deciding they are not worthy to be animated.

    I stand with those that are harmed by them as well as by them that are harmed by us. Sharing in the mysteries and 10.000 sorrows of being alive

    With Love

    Eelco

  4. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Eelco For This Useful Post:

    Breeze (14th September 2013), Highland1 (15th September 2013), Seikou-Kishi (14th September 2013), Spiral (15th September 2013)

  5. #18
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Location
    None of your business
    Posts
    1,226
    Thanks
    4,319
    Thanked 8,564 Times in 1,218 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Catsquotl View Post
    First off i feel I have to mention I have no memory of ever being abducted or even been in contact with a Grey. So with that in mind all I am saying is just conjecture

    ...

    With Love

    Eelco
    Thanks for this post.

    I did a quick google images search and snotling looks like a goblin or something. Is this accurate?

    As for the greys... you know I know what you're saying. In the same way that you say saying they are not soulless is not condoning their behaviour (they're two completely separate things, you're right), when I say that they are soulless, it is not condemning them or judging their nature. In the same way, just because I say that they are soulless, it does not follow that anything can be done to them. I say that there are two victims in any injustice: the person subjected to the injustice and the one who inflicts it, because the one who inflicts it makes himself unjust (or at least "the sort of person who does X"). So if somebody thought that it was an easy leap to say "greys are soulless or ontologically inferior, therefore it doesn't matter if we enslave them and make them work for us", I would not like to live in that world either. Even if I believed that the greys were soulless and thus not really able to care about their slavery, there is the parallel: do I deserve better than being a slave master? I think I do.

    When somebody cheats on their partner... I am quite liberal with my distaste. But I think for all the cheated-upon dislikes what has happened, they can move on, find somebody better (or be single) and be perfectly fine. The person who cheated will carry around the stain of being a cheat for the rest of their life; where ever they could go, they could never get away from the fact that they put their lust over their fidelity.

    When I say they are soulless, it is not a value judgement. I do not hate them, I feel nothing for them, which frankly seems to be the appropriate response. I do not say it either as a hyperbolic sort of insult the way we say it of depraved people. When I say they are soulless, I mean that there is a gap between the physical and the source. Everything originates in the spiritual source, and the way matter can be simple or complex, so too can this underlying "mindfulness" fabric be gathered together in simple patterns or complex patterns. Human bodies are very complex arrangements of matter. In the same way, a human soul is a very complex arrangement of "soul stuff". This is in contradistinction to the greys, whose bodies are complex like ours, but there is no complexity of soul stuff behind it, only a vague and ill defined sheet.

    This is because they do not come from the source the way we do, they come from humans. Humans have a spiritual creative faculty, but whatever is created by us by definition must be inferior to us. I know I keep using the phrase, but there's not really a better way of saying "ontologically inferior". Their existence is of a lower order. It is not hateful to say that amino acids are more complex than carbon dioxide, or to say that a human body is more complex than an amoeba's. In the same way, to say that the greys are ontologically inferior is to acknowledge that their existence (their ontology) depends upon human existence, and is less complex than it.

    Nothing at all can be absolutely soulless in the broadest possible sense of a soul in which everything in the world has a soul. If soul-stuff were a fabric, they would be sackcloth and we would be tapestries of cloth of gold. A human soul is infinitely complex, colourful and intricate, theirs is bland, empty and undifferentiated. I know the temptation is to feel sympathy for these creatures. It sounds absolutely horrible to think of something soulless desperately trying to arrange a soul for itself. In fact, I'm pretty sure there's a mangaka somewhere eagerly doodling away along those lines lol. But you view that shallowness and emptiness from your perspective, a perspective which knows only depth and fullness. Have you ever felt apathy? I do not mean an irksome feeling of boredom, I mean sheer nothingness, the yawning chasm. The emptiness is painful and can only be described in contradiction like "a deafening silence"

    But even that is not close to it. For one thing, it is not possible for us to be as empty as they are. We can approach it but we can never reach it. At the same time, apathy of that deeply wounding sort is only as painful as it is because our nature is fullness and brilliance. They do not feel pained by their situation the way you would feel pained in their place, or even just looking on. The pain humans feel with apathy can be very strong, and I include physical pain as well as emotional pain — but we only feel this because this emptiness is not our native state. We do not sit here lamenting the feelings our computers will never feel. You have children, don't you? Do you ever look at their stuffed toys and say "it's a shame they'll never love them back"? Of course not, because we know better.

    In the same way, grey aliens come somewhere between your children's stuffed toys and humans: they have all the physical reality and complexity to them that humans have, but like the toys they have none of the soul's reality or complexity. That is, although we can look at stuffed toys and say "they're not real the way I am real", we cannot at first glance do the same with the greys because all the information of the physical senses says that they are real the way we are real. The difference is that on a spiritual level, we realise them to be human creations as surely as the toys are.

    This is what I mean when I say if there is one in your room, you can be pretty sure it's really there. Closing your eyes and saying there's no such thing as monsters won't make it disappear. The human conscious created toys, and so the human conscious can recognise their true nature, but greys were created by a higher spiritual faculty and so it takes a higher faculty to recognise the creation. To put it another way, your higher faculties are so completely convincing to your lower faculties that the greys seem in all ways to be completely real to those lower senses. Imagine giving a blind man a ball and telling him it was red. How could he ever contradict you? The superior sense can deceive the inferior sense so completely that the unreal seems real until you step back and get the broader view — this is essential for human incarnation, of course; if we do not believe physical existence has some reality to it, how will being here ever mean anything?

    This is also why I think a person's behaviour to the greys is different than how they treat their kid's toy or how ruthlessly they turn off the film they're watching and see the characters extinguished. Down here, we know that the toy and the film characters are not real, but all the evidence of our senses tells us that the greys are. We cannot abuse them and use this as an excuse because even as we said it, we would be doubting it.

    To give an example, say you had been flirting with a strange woman through emails and text messages and all behind your wife's back. Say this built up and you sent her pictures. In swoops your wife with all the pictures you've sent and accuses you of cheating: in reality, the mystery woman with an interest in you was your wife. You could legitimately say that you hadn't sent any pictures to other women, but since you thought you had, that idea, although true, would not relieve you of guilt. I think of the greys the same way; for all I know they're really not ducks, if they're quacking like ducks and I cannot help but be convinced that they are ducks despite my knowledge and yet throw poisoned bread out onto the water, then I am guilty not because anything objectively wrong took place, but because I am almost certain to have believed on some level that what I was doing was wrong: if I believe they are ontologically equal beings and treat them badly, it does not exculpate me to realise that they are not ontologically equal*.

    (* When I say "inferior" and "equal", and so on, I always mean in this ontological sense. I realise the phrase has long since become hackneyed, but I want to use it rather than imply that I am making a value judgement when that is not the case)

    Ideas that might help elaborate on my meaning might be garnered in acquaintance with "justified true belief" and the "Gettier problems". Essentially, in the theory of knowledge in philosophy, there was a definition of knowledge as "justified true belief". An idea was knowledge if it was accepted (believed), if it was true, and if belief in the idea was justified. (How one determines what is true, what is belief and what is justification are three completely separate questions). The Gettier problem was found by an obscure philosopher called Edmund Gettier, who realised it was possible to have justified true belief that wasn't knowledge.

    As an example. You get out of your car and go into your house, where you think you're alone. Unbeknownst to you, your wife is home. She slips out, gets in your car drives into town, then she comes home, parking your car exactly where you'd parked it. You sit down and believe that your car is outside, that belief is justified because you remember leaving it there, and that belief happens to be true. That idea might help to clarify what I mean a little, if I make any sense at all.
    Last edited by Seikou-Kishi, 15th September 2013 at 13:24.

  6. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Seikou-Kishi For This Useful Post:

    Breeze (14th September 2013), Highland1 (15th September 2013), Ineffable Hitchhiker (14th September 2013), jimmer (17th January 2015), Spiral (15th September 2013)

  7. #19
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Posts
    364
    Thanks
    2,237
    Thanked 2,484 Times in 364 Posts
    Hello to everyone reading this thread,

    My weekend is exceptionally busy, but I just wanted to touch base quickly and say, I have just spent the last 2 hours reading every post on this thread (finally at long last I found a quiet window of time to read this; I have been wanting to do this since it's inception on the old TOT).

    WOW, Seikou-kishi, I had no idea you had decided to write a thread on this level of understanding; I personally find it very nourishing.

    Also I find this so very, very promising that this type of discussion has progressed 'openly' without any knee jerk reactions bleating out the popular controlling killer catchphrase "fear porn!" that intentionally kills the discussion and thread. Such deep level discussions are so important, yet unfortunately rarely gets to see the light of day because social consciousness wants fluffy light talk that makes them 'feel' good - unbeknownst missing the point that this very subject level is very much a part of the human conscious awakening (re-remembering) and understanding 'whys', 'reasons' and significance of BEcoming mind-full, self responsible, sovereign, co-creator god BEings again.

    Thank you S-K, I so enjoy reading your posts of nourishing knowledge and experiences.

    Thank you Russ for saving these most valuable posts, so those like myself who missed it, could now read it. And thanks also to the members who have been asking some very deep questions on this subject. This is certainly a thread where great gems of knowledge reside.

    I will return to this thread in a few days to engage in this very enlightening discussion with you all.

    Seikou-Kishi my mind is spiraling right now in many different directions and angles, a space where my contemplations has not gone before - thank you!

    Bright Blessings
    Breeze X

  8. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Breeze For This Useful Post:

    Highland1 (15th September 2013), Ineffable Hitchhiker (14th September 2013), jimmer (17th January 2015), Seikou-Kishi (15th September 2013), Spiral (15th September 2013)

  9. #20
    Eelco
    Guest
    Quote Originally posted by Seikou-Kishi View Post
    Thanks for this post.

    I did a quick google images search and snotling looks like a goblin or something. Is this accurate?
    Yes very much so.


    Thank you S-K for your thorough explanation.
    Much of what you say does make sense. I am glad you make the distiction stating what you persieve as fact (Greys are soulless) and your judgement or idea of what should be done about them.

    So if somebody thought that it was an easy leap to say "greys are soulless or ontologically inferior, therefore it doesn't matter if we enslave them and make them work for us", I would not like to live in that world either.
    This was the point I was trying to make earlier on.

    I am having a herd time accepting their soullesness though. I find myself unable to come up with a (to myself) believable animated entity that would be without any kind of hint of a soul. It is making me wonder again what this souls stuff is all about.
    Bo Yin Ra writes about it as stuff to and may have shaped my views on it a bit.(been years since i read that part)

    Anyway what we call our soul. The intricately complex soul we humans try to embody to the more simpler manifestations of soul that are out there in the multiverse..
    Its not fixed.. My soul is for ever changing, accumulation more or less soul stuff at times. Unrealized soul falls away whilst new possibilities and soul bits arise. Much like the ebb and flow of life..
    Life like the ocean in that sense will have the same amount of soul-stuff as the ocean has water. The bit I embody differs at times. like a raindrop that was able to grow or shrink in size( to make a very faulty picture)

    One more thing about empathy or loving-kindness
    It really isn't about the other ones recieving it. It is about myself giving it freely, fully and totaly.

    with Love
    Eelco
    Last edited by Eelco, 15th September 2013 at 03:52.

  10. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Eelco For This Useful Post:

    Breeze (15th September 2013), Highland1 (15th September 2013), Seikou-Kishi (15th September 2013), Spiral (15th September 2013)

  11. #21
    Eelco
    Guest
    I have been going over the posts and started several replies.
    each time I had written down something and read on you explained perfectly what my reply stated.
    So I stopped my efforts and can only commend you on your deep and throrough understanding of this matter.

    I think I see now, and from that realize how the Grey are like a dream. A nightmare that will end when we wake up from our self-chosen slavery to fear..
    All that is needed is for us to wake up.

    With Love
    Eelco

  12. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Eelco For This Useful Post:

    Breeze (15th September 2013), Highland1 (15th September 2013), Seikou-Kishi (15th September 2013), Spiral (15th September 2013)

  13. #22
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Posts
    364
    Thanks
    2,237
    Thanked 2,484 Times in 364 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Catsquotl View Post
    I have been going over the posts and started several replies.
    each time I had written down something and read on you explained perfectly what my reply stated.
    So I stopped my efforts and can only commend you on your deep and throrough understanding of this matter.

    I think I see now, and from that realize how the Grey are like a dream. A nightmare that will end when we wake up from our self-chosen slavery to fear..
    All that is needed is for us to wake up.

    With Love
    Eelco

    I totally agree with your words Catsquotl – Seikou-Kishi has answered everything from all angles in these posts for those who have the patience to re-read and absorb carefully all that he is saying. This is a masterpiece of work.

    The term ‘soulless’ can spring up a whole host of thoughts and confusions in one’s mind especially as we have a history here on Earth were the term Soulless has been terribly abused to justify controlling slavery over souls.

    So in the little time I have today, I thought I would share a very simple example of a soulless entity that comes to my mind from personal experience. I say soulless entity but in truth it is more liken to a ‘echo’, ‘shadow’ or ‘phantom’. What also will become clear is that our thoughts really do matter as you will see by the following example.

    I have a friend I have known for the past 13 years, he is a dear soul, yet unfortunately most of his waking state is consumed by alcohol. Over the past 8 years I have refused his telephone calls if he is drunk and non compos mentis – I just don’t have time to waste on conversations that will be forgotten in 2 minutes or time to listen to nonsensical ramblings.

    So over the past 8 years, respecting my rule, he has sat in his chair at home thinking how he would like to speak to me about ‘something’ countless times over on a daily basis. Each of these singular thoughts started to accrue within his energy fields and then into the Morphic Fields. They also had a thought tag associate with me.

    As the years when on, at some point this energy cloud of specific thought became strong enough to become a ‘shadow form’ and created an exact shadow form of my friend that would hang around outside a window in my house.

    To clarify, this shadow form was not my physical friend, but created purely from his repetitive thoughts. This shadow form had no mind, intelligence, life force or soul – it was a lost shadow thought form with only one operative, the urge to speak to me – but no sense of what it wanted to speak about.

    Thankfully these type of thought form shadows are harmless and easy to neutralise.

    My physical friend had absolutely zero idea his passing thoughts secret in his mind had even created this shadow – let alone that such a thing was possible.

    This is a very simple example of how our thoughts really do matter. As I understand it, this planet is one of the training grounds for co-creator gods, and one of the first lessons is to understand the power of our thought and how to be consciously mind-full in ALL ways.

    What Seikou-Kishi is writing about re the Greys many people experience is fascinating and very deep in meaning as the topic enters into a collective Morphic Field of thought shadows, (as I understand this). I will return to this thread when I have more time.

    I hope my simple story makes sense explaining the difference to an entity that has a Soul and Spirit oppose to a shadow-form/echo/phantom.

  14. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Breeze For This Useful Post:

    jimmer (17th January 2015), Seikou-Kishi (15th September 2013), Spiral (15th September 2013)

  15. #23
    Eelco
    Guest
    I was thinking about some of the questions raised in this thread.
    Especially the hints at Soul-stuff. My own thoughts about that like your phanthom figure makes me just throw it out here, even though It may not tie in with the Grey matter at all.(pun intended)

    So a few years ago when i was contemplating Karma or Kamma I had the realization that every thought which was ever thought has within it the drive for completion(back to source?). My idea is that somehow thoughts are made up of the same soul-stuff we embody in more intricate and complex manifestation. So with that it becomes even more apparant we should take care of what we think. As it is the basis for what we encounter as parts of our soul externalized.

    Every thought we thought and don't allow to complete either through transforming it or acting it out will somehow stay bound as a soul-experience that needs to be experienced. If Reincarnation exists or even if it doesn't every new birth on earth, every new life will somehow conjure up its own thoughts and soul experiences, but also gather thoughts that are waiting for completion.

    Your phantom and even our fears made flesh in Greys are thus made up off soul-stuff.
    The chinese have this concept they call Chi/Qi or Ki in japanese. In its most basic translation that words means "basic stuff". The more I think about it the more I believe that Qi is basic stuff is soul.

    I think its time to look at some transformative meditations... Breathing in all "evil" Transforming it in my heart and breathing out blessings of happines, peace and joy.

    With Love
    eelco

  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Eelco For This Useful Post:

    Breeze (15th September 2013), Seikou-Kishi (15th September 2013), Spiral (15th September 2013)

  17. #24
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Posts
    364
    Thanks
    2,237
    Thanked 2,484 Times in 364 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Catsquotl View Post
    ...Every thought we thought and don't allow to complete either through transforming it or acting it out will somehow stay bound as a soul-experience that needs to be experienced. If Reincarnation exists or even if it doesn't every new birth on earth, every new life will somehow conjure up its own thoughts and soul experiences, but also gather thoughts that are waiting for completion.

    Dear Catsquotl, I so love your deep thoughts!

    Yes you are right, this ventures into the subject of Soul and Life Reviews.

  18. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Breeze For This Useful Post:

    jimmer (17th January 2015), Seikou-Kishi (15th September 2013), Spiral (15th September 2013)

  19. #25
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Location
    None of your business
    Posts
    1,226
    Thanks
    4,319
    Thanked 8,564 Times in 1,218 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Breeze View Post
    Also I find this so very, very promising that this type of discussion has progressed 'openly' without any knee jerk reactions bleating out the popular controlling killer catchphrase "fear porn!" that intentionally kills the discussion and thread. Such deep level discussions are so important, yet unfortunately rarely gets to see the light of day because social consciousness wants fluffy light talk that makes them 'feel' good - unbeknownst missing the point that this very subject level is very much a part of the human conscious awakening (re-remembering) and understanding 'whys', 'reasons' and significance of BEcoming mind-full, self responsible, sovereign, co-creator god BEings again.
    I am glad too; I have been very grateful for the level of maturity involved in discussing this topic and the ability of people not to assume that x automatically implies y. When I was younger, I received an education both in philosophy and in the more nuts-and-bolts critical thinking. I was taught to find the argument and trim the fat, so to speak, and it has always been in my nature to do this but I realised there were names for it. There are true arguments and then there is a lot of dressing. This dressing generally takes the form of unsound arguments, value judgements, and breaches of things like the fact-value gap (the is-ought gap)1. As an example, people often respond to comments on emotive topics with the phrase "that's offensive" — it's not an argument by the philosophical or rational definition, it's an appeal to emotional (it's very obvious to see how people who's arguments are dissected fall back to a position of complaining about a perceived insult).

    I remember being in a debate when I was studying normative ethics. There were three people on each team (the two teams together being the entire class lol) and my team had to defend Utilitarianism (the greatest happiness to the greatest number) while the other team had to defend Kantian Deontology (categorical imperatives and duty-theory). Now for all I disagreed with most ideas of Deontology, I preferred it over Utilitarianism because the latter failed (and still does, in my opinion) to make any distinction between baser ideas of happiness like pleasure and higher ideas like Aristotlean Eudaimonia.

    Anyway, I was the captain of my team because I wasn't backwards in coming forwards when it came to debating (lol). My teammates were mutinous by the end because I was just as likely to point out the speciousness and unsoundness of their arguments as the arguments of the opposition. In a debate between those interested in philosophy, the goal in my opinion is the enjoyment of pure reasoning; winning is political, not philosophical. To me, such a debate is a mental exercise, an indulgence in mental gymnastics. The one who deserves to "win" such a debate is the one whose reasoning is the soundest, not the one who says what we want to hear.

    At the end of the debate, it was decided that I had been the best debater and frankly I think that was an accurate decision. I'll always remember though at the end my teacher asked me if the debate had changed my opinion at all (because the Utilitarian team won the debate). I said "I still favour Deontology over Utilitarianism, if that's what you mean, but if I'd been waiting for the other team to convince me, I'd have been waiting an age" lol. There was one person on my team I thought of as a bit of a dishonourable or misguided debater because he made an argument that was speciousness personified and freely admitted afterwards that he'd known that before he said it. When it was my next turn to speak, I'd made a list of all the arguments I'd heard, from both sides, and why each of them was illogical. Values are partial, logic is impartial.

    The person I'm talking about complained to me that I wasn't a very good captain for pointing out the errors in my own team's reasoning. I told him that was a politician's complaint, not a philosopher's.


    1 the fact-value or is-ought gap is a gap between statements which reveal something about the world and the way this doesn't automatically lead into a value judgement. For example, the argument "the Aztecs are uncivilised, thus the conquistadors should Christianise them". Even if it is true that the Aztecs were uncivilised, and even if it is true that Christianisation would civilise them (even if it were the only possibility of civilisation), it doesn't follow. I'm afraid that this also appplies to good things such as the idea "there are hungry people in the world, thus we should feed them". I bridge this gap by realising two things about logic: first, that logic is not an objective, global truth independent of value; and second that arguments do not exist in a vacuum, but rather in relation to people as argument-makers and argument-subjects.

    And so I bridge the gap with a personalising hypothetical imperative. Take the example of feeding the hungry. Between the x of "there are hungry people in the world" and the y of "thus we should feed them", I insert my hypothetical imperative: there are hungry people in the world, and if we are the sort of people who feed the hungry, we should feed the hungry people in the world.

    This also relates to my saying that any ontological inferiority of greys doesn't necessarily imply anything about how we treat them. The "personalising hypothetical imperative" I use to bridge the fact-value gap in this instance would be "and if we are the sort of people who enslave/abuse our (ontological) inferiors... " and I do not want to be the sort of person who does that, thus for me the answer is clear. It's also up to every rational person to ask themselves, however, if they are such a person and I cannot answer it for them, but I can say something else about myself: I am not the sort of person who could watch people enslaving or abusing their (ontological) inferiors without intervening. Technically, the hypothetical imperative is a merging of a hypothesis and the value of the fact-value pair.

    Hypothetical Bridging of the Fact-Value Gap:
    The fact is in red (whether or not it's a true fact is irrelevant for the examples), the hypothesis is in green and the value is in blue. The hypothesis and value together form the hypothetical imperative (in cyan) only where the hypothesis is true:

    There are hungry people in the world, if I am the sort of person who feeds the hungry, then I should feed them
    There are hungry people in the world, and I should feed them

    The greys are ontologically inferior beings, if I am the sort of person who enslaves or abuses the ontologically inferior, then I should enslave or abuse them
    The greys are ontologically inferior beings, and I should enslave or abuse them

    As you can see, the imperative only follows if the hypothesis is true: we should only feed the hungry, clothe the naked or house the homeless if we have decided that we are the sort of person who does that. At the same time, we have to have agreed that we are an enslaver or abuser of our inferiors before we can attack the greys.

    These arguments are very basic in that there is only one example of each part. An argument might be based upon multiple facts, involve multiple hypotheses about ourselves and lead to multiple possible actions. Even in the simplest example, there is a hypothesis of "and if I believe that the fact is true"; there might be hungry people in the world, and I might be the sort of person who would feed them, but even if I am such a person, if I believe that all the people in the world are well fed, I cannot do anything.


    Sorry that was a very long diversion, but that is where I am coming from. So often we see people making statements about how things are as though it necessarily leads to something else. I am glad that the members here are able to divorce the question of whether or not the greys are ontologically inferior from all the other questions like how we respond to them. Kids have a really good response to that lack of logical integrity: so what? They may or may not be ontologically inferior, that implies nothing about how we respond to them.

    Frankly, I think if humankind gets its affairs in order, the greys will naturally wane into oblivion and from a purely pragmatic point of view we don't "have" to do anything about them. A fact like the greys' ontological inferiority can have "factual" implications (the way the factual idea of a bottle of water in the freezer has the factual implication of freezing), but not moral or value-based implications without help from hypothetical constructs. An "is" can lead to any number of "ises", but not to a single "ought/should" without at least one "if", and all human personality hangs in those "if"s.

  20. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Seikou-Kishi For This Useful Post:

    Breeze (15th September 2013), jimmer (17th January 2015)

  21. #26
    Eelco
    Guest
    Dear Seikhu-Kishi,

    I bow to your wisdom and knack of explaining exactly what you wish to explain..
    I honestly am at a loss for words that can express the wonder and deep respect I have for the way you are able to express yourself..
    This one is in the for those with ears that hear...


    With Love
    Eelco

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to Eelco For This Useful Post:

    Breeze (16th September 2013)

  23. #27
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Location
    None of your business
    Posts
    1,226
    Thanks
    4,319
    Thanked 8,564 Times in 1,218 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Breeze View Post
    Also I find this so very, very promising that this type of discussion has progressed 'openly' without any knee jerk reactions bleating out the popular controlling killer catchphrase "fear porn!" that intentionally kills the discussion and thread. Such deep level discussions are so important, yet unfortunately rarely gets to see the light of day because social consciousness wants fluffy light talk that makes them 'feel' good - unbeknownst missing the point that this very subject level is very much a part of the human conscious awakening (re-remembering) and understanding 'whys', 'reasons' and significance of BEcoming mind-full, self responsible, sovereign, co-creator god BEings again.
    Sorry, all that blithering and I still haven't finished with this quote (lol).

    I completely agree. The only qualification I would like to add is that being co-creator god beings is the essential quality of humanity. Creating isn't something we do like a carpenter shaping wood on a lathe, it is something that happens automatically by the very fact of our existence. Finding an "instance of holistic humanness happening in the world" that doesn't create is like looking for a light that does shine. Humans emanate creation like a light source emanating light and we emanate this creation even when we forget that that is our nature. We do not have to re-initiate the human creative faculty like getting in a car and turning the ignition, we have to realise that the car is moving and has always been moving and put our hands back on the wheel.

    Creation isn't a question of human doing, but of human being and we can no sooner stop creating than we can stop being.

    Quote Originally posted by Catsquotl View Post
    I am having a herd time accepting their soullesness though. I find myself unable to come up with a (to myself) believable animated entity that would be without any kind of hint of a soul. It is making me wonder again what this souls stuff is all about.
    Bo Yin Ra writes about it as stuff to and may have shaped my views on it a bit.(been years since i read that part)
    Take a look at human procreation. When a baby is born, that body has been created in the womb by material supplied by both parents. The soul and spirit of the baby, however, are not created. Humans are able to further their own species by creating bodies of their own kind, but a soul has to come in from outside. If a human spirit wishes to be incarnated on earth, it enlists the help of spirits to generate a body for it, but two spirits do not come together and generate a third spirit. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as reincarnation because each soul would be created by sex (an absurdity) and we would live in a world in which Darwinism reached up to the highest levels of existence. If two humans together can create a single body, why can't the human race collectively create a race of bodies?

    If we do not have the power to create a spirit, which must come from the source itself, the races of bodies we create because we do not have our hands on the steering wheel of our highest faculties will be bodies created not for the habitation of a spirit. And on the level of spirit which recognises the human creation of the greys, no spirit is going to consider a grey a worthy body. So many incarnated humans express desires about future lives. Some want to come back a king, others as powerful animals, but who has ever said they want to come back as Pinocchio? Look at me, I'm a real boy!

    Part of me suspects that this is the motivation behind transhumanism, trying to get the human spirit used to the idea of existing in artificial bodies — the hope being that as human conscious art created a robotic or cybernetic body for the human mind to inhabit, so might a human spirit deign to inhabit a biological but artificial body which a human superconscious art had created.

    As surely as the human mind acknowledges everything which it creates as false, so too does the human spirit acknowledge everything which it creates as less real than it. I think of human spirits as very much in school to becoming plenipotentiary creators. Could you imagine what deep crap we would be in if human beings, full of darkness, had the ability to create a race as vile as the greys that we also our equals, with all the powers of the human spirit? We'd be an absolute menace, to ourselves and anything around us.

    And so, right now, they are not the same as we are and never can be for all their attempts to change that. They are the shadows that dance on the wall of our Platonic cave; as soon as we leave the cave and take our light with us, they will by their very nature disappear. It is not an act of destruction or of hatred, merely a change of perspective. They will not die out as humans cruelly abolish their existence, we will merely move from the idea that they exist to the realisation that they never did.

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to Seikou-Kishi For This Useful Post:

    Breeze (15th September 2013)

  25. #28
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Posts
    364
    Thanks
    2,237
    Thanked 2,484 Times in 364 Posts
    I am either having a weird moment here after returning from seeing my friend tonight, clicking into this thread many hours later on............... where is my last post (and including others) that have disappeared that I saw and read beforehand (around 6pm-7pm)............. Am I doing deja vu or is this a new timeline or just a computer glitch? Where have the posts gone?????????????????????

    I obviously need to create my day with more focus and intent as my friend would advise to stop such inconsistencies.

  26. #29
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Posts
    364
    Thanks
    2,237
    Thanked 2,484 Times in 364 Posts
    [QUOTE=Seikou-Kishi;734]Sorry, all that blithering and I still haven't finished with this quote (lol).

    I completely agree. The only qualification I would like to add is that being co-creator god beings is the essential quality of humanity. Creating isn't something we do like a carpenter shaping wood on a lathe, it is something that happens automatically by the very fact of our existence. Finding an "instance of holistic humanness happening in the world" that doesn't create is like looking for a light that does shine. Humans emanate creation like a light source emanating light and we emanate this creation even when we forget that that is our nature. We do not have to re-initiate the human creative faculty like getting in a car and turning the ignition, we have to realise that the car is moving and has always been moving and put our hands back on the wheel.

    Creation isn't a question of human doing, but of human being and we can no sooner stop creating than we can stop being. [/QUOTE}


    I totally agree Seikou-kishi with your words, thank you for pointing this out.

    I see in my post I omitted the word 'conscious' co-creator god BEings again - it was a typo error slacking behind my mind pace/speed. BEing Conscious makes all the difference. I should have re-read my post before clicking 'go'.

    We are always creating, it is a natural state of Beingness whether it is conscious of unconscious. Smile.

  27. #30
    Eelco
    Guest
    Hi,

    Aww there were some beautiful posts before here. In skillfully wrenched,crafted and transmuted english to get to some deeper truths..
    Ah wel.. Let it Be as someones mother used to say.

    With Love
    Eelco

  28. The Following User Says Thank You to Eelco For This Useful Post:

    Breeze (16th September 2013)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •