Understanding the religious mindset

[Lacewing]

seems to me that the [evolution of human culture and awareness naturally offers more potential to consider

I might just agree with your here depending on the context of what your are suggesting, could u provide an example?

Based on our past interactions, I have no interest in playing with you. I don't care if you agree with me, and I'm not interested in drumming up some sort of example for you. If the statement doesn't make sense to you as I presented it, I don't think there's any more I care to say.

[Lacewing]

There is nothing to be remembered, except within the illusory dream of separation ( knowledge)
This apparent split from the whole is an illusion

Yes, thoughts of separation fuel our human stories and ideas.

Is memory a human-based concept of something to refer back to based on a linear model?

I don't know what you mean.

I'm just suggesting that memory is a human concept -- and it seems based on our linear model of life: looking/thinking "back/elsewhere" rather than being present now.

[Dontaskme]

I'm just suggesting that memory is a human concept -- and it seems based on our linear model of life: looking/thinking "back/elsewhere" rather than being present now.

Ah, ok thanks, I see what you mean...As I see it, there are only concepts - which are always known now, by the only knowing there is which is consciousness. Concepts are not known by the concept known, for example: a human is a concept known, that cannot know, because the concept ''human'' is already being known by consciousness which is another word for this knowing of knowledge as and when it arises, on demand for it..aka memory.

I can only say that there is one state I know for certain, beyond any doubt whatsoever.. In this present now, this knowing awareness exists. Beyond that, everything else seems a relative, provisional conceptual story that arises out of it, but I know not how.

Being wholly present now is pure concept free not-knowing awareness. Knowledge on the other hand, is always on demand via memory, which is not the present, because the immediate present is the ''knower'' or the ''observer'' the ever present witness.

The memory however, is always of past tense, the memory is a story, ... in other words, the story is an overlay upon this immediate ever present screen of awareness, a story that can appear and disappear and reappear.....all the while the witness is ever silently now, always this present lurking behind the story, and inseparable from it, but is not it, except in the conceptual dream of separation of knower and known..... Does that make sense?

Sorry for long reply. I just can't help it.


.

[DPMartin]

Don't you think man's understanding of "truth" changes over time?

How does man progress or see anything else if he always stares in the same direction?

well either one is looking for the truth, or something else, and the truth is always in the same direction.

That's kind of a small model for the vastness that we are part of, don't you think?

nope the majority at one time thought, (note what men think) the world was flat, but it always, was always is, and always will be true the earth is a sphere. the truth is always in the same direction and its not in the direction of what men like to think.

[Lacewing]

the story is an overlay upon this immediate ever present screen of awareness.../ ...Does that make sense?

Yes. The story is invested in, as if it were the whole reason for, and path to, fulfillment... yet it rarely delivers. Instead, it often seems to turn into an obstruction.

[Lacewing]

well either one is looking for the truth, or something else, and the truth is always in the same direction.

That's kind of a small model for the vastness that we are part of, don't you think?

nope the majority at one time thought, (note what men think) the world was flat, but it always, was always is, and always will be true the earth is a sphere. the truth is always in the same direction and its not in the direction of what men like to think.

And what if we look from the perspective of the Earth not being solid, but rather made up of particles? Where is the "sphere", then?

What is the model/density/perspective that you base truth on?

[seeds]

I do wonder how close to the surface awareness is at this time in human evolution. Some (perhaps many) appear to be playing games while wearing elaborate costumes. In which case, it seems useful to mock the costumes to identify that for what it appears to be. When enough people call out the charades, maybe they lose their appeal.

I don't think it's a "game" to them. I think that they are truly stuck in a lower level of consciousness that fools them into actually believing whatever delusional worldview they see when they close their eyes and look within.

And yes, I do agree that when all else fails, mocking (or even punishment) may be necessary, as long as the "mocker" understands that whatever position they are coming from, that it too may also be delusional (albeit better and more enlightened).

On this forum, it takes a lot of effort to maintain such charades while deceptively dancing around very good points to the contrary that are brought up for discussion. I think a lot of people are more aware than the positions they cling to.

I don't know, Lacewing. Considering the level of conviction with which some of the members assert their views (take the Trump supporters, for example), it is obvious that "awareness" (in the metaphysical sense) is not a part of their overall package. Again, I reiterate my earlier suggestion...

...like some alternate version of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, most humans are simply not conscious enough to realize that they are not conscious enough to comprehend the depth and degree of their somnambulism.

I would never go into a church to argue with some dear little old lady quietly holding her Bible...

That's because you are a good and loving person who clearly is in possession of a great deal of wisdom.

Nevertheless, I cannot help but to have noticed that you find it curious (even incredulous) as to why that little old lady would believe in...

...ancient imaginings and stories, as if they could possibly be more relevant than what is evident and present today?

However, that brings me back to the question of what you personally think is "evident and present today" that that little old lady would be willing to accept as a replacement for the beliefs that she holds dear?

I mean, we can't just say "...look, the mythological nonsense you believe in is crazy..." and just leave it at that. So, from a practical standpoint, I am asking you, what reading materials, or what modern-day concepts would you literally place in her hands in exchange for her Bible?

-- whereas, someone who is making a big stink in public and just asking to be argued with may have other motives they are serving. Why carry on the performance in such a telling environment OTHER THAN to feed an absurdly insatiable ego that is hellbent on denying its own obvious deception to continue the pretense required for preserving and glorifying itself?

I don't think it is as much of an ego thing (though that is surely part of it), but more of a case of them actually believing their own delusions.

What is the best way to deal with such a thing?

I have no idea other than to try and plant seeds of thought that might help hasten humanity's awakening, if not to the ultimate truth of reality (which seems to be beyond our grasp), then at least to a new and higher plateau of spirituality (a new paradigm) that, at the very minimum, will make more sense than the present paradigm.

However, when you look at the infant in the following picture (which, btw, is one of the darker representations of the brainwashing dilemma faced by all infants in all walks of life on earth)...



...then you should realize what a daunting task it is to break the cycle by which fanatical and insane "mindsets" are initially established and perpetuated.

Now I am not meaning to come off as sounding haughty or all-knowing in what I am about to say,...

...but I believe that we can eventually reach that "new plateau of human spirituality" by employing a method that complies with what I heard Terence McKenna once say in one of his recorded lectures...

“Thought cannot go where the roads of language have not been built.”

To which I humbly suggest that you and I (in our own little way on this international forum) are (hopefully) helping to build language roads to thoughts that are clear to us, but not yet clear (or accessible) to others.
_______

[Lacewing]

...

Fantastic post, thank you! I will respond more as soon as I get a chance.

[Lacewing]

I do wonder how close to the surface awareness is at this time in human evolution. Some (perhaps many) appear to be playing games while wearing elaborate costumes. In which case, it seems useful to mock the costumes to identify that for what it appears to be. When enough people call out the charades, maybe they lose their appeal.

I don't think it's a "game" to them. I think that they are truly stuck in a lower level of consciousness that fools them into actually believing whatever delusional worldview they see when they close their eyes and look within.

Hmm. Well, that's fascinating and baffling.

And yes, I do agree that when all else fails, mocking (or even punishment) may be necessary, as long as the "mocker" understands that whatever position they are coming from, that it too may also be delusional (albeit better and more enlightened).

Absolutely. There are so many different levels of perspectives. That seems obvious from all that we can see in the world. The implications of that diversity and potential seem worth consideration. But I guess various levels of blindness can be all-consuming -- and the implications of such blindness seems worth consideration, as well. How much do we not see that is on display right in front of us?

I don't know, Lacewing. Considering the level of conviction with which some of the members assert their views (take the Trump supporters, for example), it is obvious that "awareness" (in the metaphysical sense) is not a part of their overall package.

Yes... I'm still finding it hard to fathom, I guess, that humankind is not as evolved as I want to give it credit for.

I would never go into a church to argue with some dear little old lady quietly holding her Bible...

That's because you are a good and loving person who clearly is in possession of a great deal of wisdom.

Well, she would not be projecting her limited ideas onto others in a forum that is supposed to be occupied by broad-thinkers. She would be focused on how she could serve others based on her belief, rather than how right she was. I think I could understand the value of her beliefs better, than I can see the value of those who are loudly self-serving and continually flying in the face of all logic.

what reading materials, or what modern-day concepts would you literally place in her hands in exchange for her Bible?

Good question! Well, I tend to try to model what I want to show and share with people. To show them what else is possible. To break the rules and stretch beyond limited belief. So I would connect with that little old lady in a way that we would share light between us, and I would not try to dislodge her Bible from her hands. The beliefs are actually not as important as the actions/behavior that come from the beliefs.

What is the best way to deal with such a thing?

I have no idea other than to try and plant seeds of thought that might help hasten humanity's awakening, if not to the ultimate truth of reality (which seems to be beyond our grasp), then at least to a new and higher plateau of spirituality (a new paradigm) that, at the very minimum, will make more sense than the present paradigm.

I guess we have to reach a tipping point, where archaic thinking fades away swiftly -- as other modes of thinking have shifted quickly in recent years. There are those who bitterly resist for awhile, but the tide is bigger than perhaps they see, and it brings change on multiple levels.

“Thought cannot go where the roads of language have not been built.”

To which I humbly suggest that you and I (in our own little way on this international forum) are (hopefully) helping to build language roads to thoughts that are clear to us, but not yet clear (or accessible) to others.

That's very nice... and I hope so. I know I may probably come across very boldly... but perhaps drastic measures are needed for drastic circumstances. It's eye-opening to explore the limits of thought and expression... again, breaking rules and expectations to demonstrate more potential.

[attofishpi]

what reading materials, or what modern-day concepts would you literally place in her hands in exchange for her Bible?

Good question! Well, I tend to try to model what I want to show and share with people. To show them what else is possible. To break the rules and stretch beyond limited belief. So I would connect with that little old lady in a way that we would share light between us, and I would not try to dislodge her Bible from her hands. The beliefs are actually not as important as the actions/behavior that come from the beliefs.

Nah. It wasn't a good question. In all likelihood the "little" old lady like most takes the bible and its contents with a pinch of salt, and does see a lot more beyond the stories\metaphors contained within.

U condescending twat.

[Belinda]

Attofishpi wrote:

Nah. It wasn't a good question. In all likelihood the "little" old lady like most takes the bible and its contents with a pinch of salt, and does see a lot more beyond the stories\metaphors contained within.

U condescending twat.

It was not condescending in the sense that when we aim to inform someone about a point of view, or anything, as any teacher knows we communicate in language the person child or adult understands. It would in fact be the efficient duty of Lacewing, if speak she must, to speak to the old lady in words the old lady understands.This is not condescending it's ordinary politeness.

Lacewing was supposing a stereotypical 'dear old lady' , a stereotype that lends itself to any age of child or adult. Lacewing did not specify the old lady's motives for revering her copy of The Bible. These might have included superstition, nostalgia, information-seeking, obedience to the preacher, or keeping up appearances.

I myself am an old lady who might read The Bible for informative wisdom, and for historical/ anthropological source material. Ageism is irritating. It is unlikely but possible I could be found sitting quietly in some church. However I really should let Lacewing defend herself. I bet L is not ageist.

I am snobbish about the superiority of post enlightenment education over 'faith'. One tries not to let it show, and certainly it would be waste of time and energy to plunge into metaphysics or history when the informant has not any grounding in those disciplines.

[Walker]

_______

The mask peels off from top down.

Biden demonstrates.

Biden has said that wearing a mask is the patriotic thing to do.

Mask wearing is being elevated to religious observance ... a totem of the Woke.

[Lacewing]

Nah. It wasn't a good question. In all likelihood the "little" old lady like most takes the bible and its contents with a pinch of salt, and does see a lot more beyond the stories\metaphors contained within.

U condescending twat.

It was not condescending in the sense that when we aim to inform someone about a point of view, or anything, as any teacher knows we communicate in language the person child or adult understands. It would in fact be the efficient duty of Lacewing, if speak she must, to speak to the old lady in words the old lady understands. This is not condescending it's ordinary politeness.

Thanks for your understanding, Belinda.

Yes, how in the world would it be condescending to connect with people... anyone, any age... by attuning to what we share as beings? Almost always there is beauty and value that goes in both directions (between the two) regardless of the language. I appreciate what is shared beyond the words (so-to-speak).

Attofishpi appears (as he has before) to be limited by his delusions and anger, and is lashing out. It's no wonder he distorts and distrusts the concept of connection and broader potential.

[DPMartin]

That's kind of a small model for the vastness that we are part of, don't you think?

nope the majority at one time thought, (note what men think) the world was flat, but it always, was always is, and always will be true the earth is a sphere. the truth is always in the same direction and its not in the direction of what men like to think.

And what if we look from the perspective of the Earth not being solid, but rather made up of particles? Where is the "sphere", then?

What is the model/density/perspective that you base truth on?

the sphere may be made up of particles, but its still a sphere shape and not flat, isn't it? doesn't matter if a ball is made of steel or rubber its still a ball.

[Lacewing]

nope the majority at one time thought, (note what men think) the world was flat, but it always, was always is, and always will be true the earth is a sphere. the truth is always in the same direction and its not in the direction of what men like to think.

And what if we look from the perspective of the Earth not being solid, but rather made up of particles? Where is the "sphere", then?

What is the model/density/perspective that you base truth on?

the sphere may be made up of particles, but its still a sphere shape and not flat, isn't it? doesn't matter if a ball is made of steel or rubber its still a ball.

So, that's how you're focused to determine "the" truth.