Advertisement
Alright, it's been a long time since I've really set up any of my more oddball ideas for honest criticism, so here's my latest pondering (from my blog):
pinkponderspink.blogspot.com/200...html
So I've been bouncing around and between religious ideas and spiritual theories lately. I've taken a drawn-out, complicated journey in my lifetime from Catholic, to non-denominational Christian, to Wiccan, to Pagan, with a vast array of eclectic details fading in and out as I went, like monolatrism (which eventually changed to henotheism), polytheism (which eventually bred theistic indifference), pantheism, and I can see myself reaching ever closer toward atheism, although I'm not quite there yet.
Most everyone has heard the phrase, "In the beginning, man created God," a popular satirical twist on the even better known biblical phrase, "In the beginning, God created man." I don't believe I'd be far off in assuming that the majority interpret the former to mean that God is just make-believe, and exists only insomuch as Micky Mouse exists, or Captain Ahab. Recently I've been flirting with the idea that every god ever known to His/Her/Its followers (or naysayers) truly does exist, but only as a concept (like the square root of -1) which people use to further their own agendas (love/hate, acceptance/intolerance, peace/war, etc.) - goodness knows that all works very well. MOST recently however, I've been flirting with an alternative interpretation of "In the beginning, man created God."
But before I try explaining that:
I've determined for myself that the consciousness we experience is simply a result of an ongoing system of evolution, due to the (popularly believed to be) unmatched brain advancement of our mammalian species, as it is easily observed that we are not the only beings to experience consciousness, but may very well be the only species that gives a shit. I spoke of this at greater length in my "Eternal Souls" entry, suggesting that they (eternal souls) may not exist, due to our consciousness likely being exclusively due to evolutionary development and NOTHING of the metaphysical. But what if our brains having advanced so far as to develop consciousness and abstract thought, that our consciousness has advanced so far as to develop a pure-energy echo of ourselves that continues to exist after our material bodies die and decay: souls (perhaps not eternal, but souls nonetheless). After all, we still are light years away from unlocking all the secrets of our highly developed brains - many people are witness to some pretty unbelievable mind-over-matter achievements. If our incredible minds are able to overcome and overpower those same basic physical boundaries from whence they evolved in the first place, who's to say they couldn't continue to somehow exist above and beyond their material prisms.
Now, what if these immaterial echos of conscious life are contributing to the gradual, collective formation of a universally present Über-Consciousness, or "god" (as with several different religious views, god is seen as a collective consciousness, with which people are rejoined after death). Buddhist reincarnation teaches that there is no one constant "self" - that personalities (or spirits?) are ever-changing, and this process continues after death. Resonating with this idea, perhaps rebirth (within the cycle of reincarnation) is a process in which a small part of this Über-Consciousness breaks away to inhabit the physical body of a conscious being (perhaps human, perhaps not), the specific piece of which has never been formed precisely that way ever before; like putting drops of water together in a bucket, and then using an eyedropper to separate a drop from the rest - it was not one of the original drops that entered the bucket, but rather a collection of water molecules from many of the drops within the bucket. ~~For my Pagan friends reading this, perhaps that would explain why so many people claim to have been Cleopatra in a past life ;)~~
I'm rather attracted to this line of thinking because it brings me at better peace with my remaining attachment to a belief in ghosts and other such paranormal phenomena. Which of course my atheist friends reading this will roll their eyes with the confidence that that's why any of these crazy "religion" ideas ever came up in the first place: people trying to explain the things they don't understand in a way that makes them comfortable rather than just following the facts. Yeah I get it, but gimme a break. However, as soon as I start recruiting for Über-Consciousnessism (via threat of either conversion or death, or passing out pamphlets on street corners, or pushing for it to be taught in science classes, etc.), then I openly invite (and encourage) you to give me a nice, hard Slap of Reality.
Ooh - freaky afterthought: immaterial consciousness = higher life form? Is our species evolving into Earth's next dominant species while we blissfully live our lives completely unaware of our own impending apocalyptic takeover? OMG - I could totally start my own religion and brainwash all my followers into giving me 10% of their income... You know, I think I truly understand Christian authorities in an entirely new way now.
pinkponderspink.blogspot.com/200...html
So I've been bouncing around and between religious ideas and spiritual theories lately. I've taken a drawn-out, complicated journey in my lifetime from Catholic, to non-denominational Christian, to Wiccan, to Pagan, with a vast array of eclectic details fading in and out as I went, like monolatrism (which eventually changed to henotheism), polytheism (which eventually bred theistic indifference), pantheism, and I can see myself reaching ever closer toward atheism, although I'm not quite there yet.
Most everyone has heard the phrase, "In the beginning, man created God," a popular satirical twist on the even better known biblical phrase, "In the beginning, God created man." I don't believe I'd be far off in assuming that the majority interpret the former to mean that God is just make-believe, and exists only insomuch as Micky Mouse exists, or Captain Ahab. Recently I've been flirting with the idea that every god ever known to His/Her/Its followers (or naysayers) truly does exist, but only as a concept (like the square root of -1) which people use to further their own agendas (love/hate, acceptance/intolerance, peace/war, etc.) - goodness knows that all works very well. MOST recently however, I've been flirting with an alternative interpretation of "In the beginning, man created God."
But before I try explaining that:
I've determined for myself that the consciousness we experience is simply a result of an ongoing system of evolution, due to the (popularly believed to be) unmatched brain advancement of our mammalian species, as it is easily observed that we are not the only beings to experience consciousness, but may very well be the only species that gives a shit. I spoke of this at greater length in my "Eternal Souls" entry, suggesting that they (eternal souls) may not exist, due to our consciousness likely being exclusively due to evolutionary development and NOTHING of the metaphysical. But what if our brains having advanced so far as to develop consciousness and abstract thought, that our consciousness has advanced so far as to develop a pure-energy echo of ourselves that continues to exist after our material bodies die and decay: souls (perhaps not eternal, but souls nonetheless). After all, we still are light years away from unlocking all the secrets of our highly developed brains - many people are witness to some pretty unbelievable mind-over-matter achievements. If our incredible minds are able to overcome and overpower those same basic physical boundaries from whence they evolved in the first place, who's to say they couldn't continue to somehow exist above and beyond their material prisms.
Now, what if these immaterial echos of conscious life are contributing to the gradual, collective formation of a universally present Über-Consciousness, or "god" (as with several different religious views, god is seen as a collective consciousness, with which people are rejoined after death). Buddhist reincarnation teaches that there is no one constant "self" - that personalities (or spirits?) are ever-changing, and this process continues after death. Resonating with this idea, perhaps rebirth (within the cycle of reincarnation) is a process in which a small part of this Über-Consciousness breaks away to inhabit the physical body of a conscious being (perhaps human, perhaps not), the specific piece of which has never been formed precisely that way ever before; like putting drops of water together in a bucket, and then using an eyedropper to separate a drop from the rest - it was not one of the original drops that entered the bucket, but rather a collection of water molecules from many of the drops within the bucket. ~~For my Pagan friends reading this, perhaps that would explain why so many people claim to have been Cleopatra in a past life ;)~~
I'm rather attracted to this line of thinking because it brings me at better peace with my remaining attachment to a belief in ghosts and other such paranormal phenomena. Which of course my atheist friends reading this will roll their eyes with the confidence that that's why any of these crazy "religion" ideas ever came up in the first place: people trying to explain the things they don't understand in a way that makes them comfortable rather than just following the facts. Yeah I get it, but gimme a break. However, as soon as I start recruiting for Über-Consciousnessism (via threat of either conversion or death, or passing out pamphlets on street corners, or pushing for it to be taught in science classes, etc.), then I openly invite (and encourage) you to give me a nice, hard Slap of Reality.
Ooh - freaky afterthought: immaterial consciousness = higher life form? Is our species evolving into Earth's next dominant species while we blissfully live our lives completely unaware of our own impending apocalyptic takeover? OMG - I could totally start my own religion and brainwash all my followers into giving me 10% of their income... You know, I think I truly understand Christian authorities in an entirely new way now.
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Throwing myself out there
Mon, June 22, 2009 - 9:54 PM< Über-Consciousness breaks away to inhabit the physical body of a conscious being (perhaps human, perhaps not), the specific piece of which has never been formed precisely that way ever before; like putting drops of water together in a bucket, and then using an eyedropper to separate a drop from the rest - it was not one of the original drops that entered the bucket, but rather a collection of water molecules from many of the drops within the bucket. ~~For my Pagan friends reading this, perhaps that would explain why so many people claim to have been Cleopatra in a past life ;)~~
>
That is pretty much it, we are like avatars in a way accept that we are more then just the water, but the vessel of the water and we can choose what water we take on. The water is of course spirit, or more precisely ideas and words. We take them in, feed them and then through our tongues, or fingers what ever the case maybe we spread them. They battle and fight, grow strong or weak, and in the end the truth is known to all and the water of the holyspirit fills every vessel.
-
Re: Throwing myself out there
Tue, June 23, 2009 - 9:54 AMYou wrote: But what if our brains having advanced so far as to develop consciousness and abstract thought, that our consciousness has advanced so far as to develop a pure-energy echo of ourselves that continues to exist after our material bodies die and decay:
__________________
Well, what sort of energy is it? The brain and it's functions are electrochemical, like most organisms with a central nervous system we generate this and a magnetic field.
But where in nature do you find an organized system of pure energy that sustains itself without dissipating rather quickly? Energy and matter are inextricably linked anyway, you cannot have pure energy. Energy in one for or another uses matter as it's medium as a wavelength moving through it, combusting it and causing a chemical change, fusion, fission, etc. So what matter would be a medium to that energy, if there was such an energy? What would be the mechanism in the brain that would generate an energy we so far as yet have not detected? After all you stated that the physical evolution of our brains brought about our consciousness, so one could argue that if we evolved some kind of enduring energy self that transcended death there would have to be a physical mechanism in the brain configured to the generation and regulation of that energy and it's pattern. Mere electrochemical patterns will not do.
I like your notion, don't get me wrong, it's interesting, comforting, probably be great for sci fi literature and such... I wonder similar things. But... you knew there would be a but.... I have strong doubts about it.
Consider this, if there was a sense of self or identity, essence of who we are that had some means of enduring beyond our physical brain itself then what of the case of personality changes that are caused in people when a part of the brain dies, rather than the whole thing at once. We see with head traumas, strokes, and Alzheimer's disease the essence of who we think people are changing, it is the same with the use of drugs both legal and illegal in their ability to magnify some parts of the brain and suppress others causing changes to personality that may be temporary or maybe not so.
But I've toyed with similar notions, as you are now. One notion I had was that there was a consciousness to all life that was beyond the physical and that all living things with a brain are tapped into it. The brain doesn't "think" rather it receives that consciousness as it is able to. Our brains developed to receive more or less of that consciousness which helps to form the appearance of individual and separate personalities, but it's just some brains are tuned in more fully than others to that one consciousness. Damage to the brain then is merely damage to a receiver, not to the consciousness itself which continues to exist just as the signal of a radio station continues to exist even if your radio is busted and cannot receive it anymore. In that there is no true sense of self, no immortality, but in some sense all that you are and that anyone else you have ever known and loved exists and existed always in a complete sense in that one consciousness... where their individual selves were merely a reduction of that consciousness into something limited and appeared to have a "personality" due to the individual nature of their brain at this stage of development.
I had then idly speculated that the purpose of evolution of brains is to bring the intelligence of that consciousness to the world of matter, and that in the distant future other brains will evolve that will be able to transmit to matter the nature of that intelligence in a more complete sense and may not be as individualistic. But right now we are in an awkward stage of brains in an incomplete state of construction that can only do so partially. So we get it part right but mostly wrong.
I don't know if I believe in any of this though -
-
Re: Throwing myself out there
Tue, June 23, 2009 - 4:14 PMBruecke,
Thank you sincerely for your thoughts. You make a few excellent points, and I found myself adapting my thoughts even as I read:
Perhaps the consciousness we experience is, and has always been, a universally present force regardless of our physical existence, and we (conscious beings) are the material medium for this energy to effect. Perhaps as our brains evolved they became better and better suited to house and evidence the effects of this naturally occurring energy, making brains of lesser development unfit for consciousness (being effected by the Über-Consciousness).
The mystery still lies in where the Über-Consciousness came from in the first place - perhaps it is reminiscent of the Big Bang, and is an ever-present force of energy just as the universe continues to expand.
...a very pantheistic mysticism I'm concocting here, I think...
The plot thickens! -
-
Re: Throwing myself out there
Tue, June 23, 2009 - 4:22 PMAnimism is fresh; panentheism is a necessary and exciting stop on the tour. Omniconsciousness is apprehensible.
I am unable, myself, to see an "Überconsciousness" - or rather, I have seen the overmind, and the overmind is not *necessarily* of greater "quality".
In my opinion, arrogant suffering isolated conscious matter is where it *is* at. -
-
Re: Throwing myself out there
Tue, June 23, 2009 - 6:57 PMWell the whole idea of the Überconsciousness being a higher form was really more of a satirical afterthought. I'm not sure I could really see it as a living thing in itself, but I can see it as a kind of "god" like form...probably more like a Nirvana kind of god than a Yahweh kind of god for sure, though.
Loki: "arrogant suffering isolated conscious matter is where it *is* at."
How do you mean? -
-
Re: Throwing myself out there
Tue, June 23, 2009 - 8:26 PMHumanity: you're soaking in it! -
-
Re: Throwing myself out there
Tue, June 23, 2009 - 9:17 PMWhat, this crap?
:P
-
Re: Throwing myself out there
Wed, June 24, 2009 - 7:41 AMgreat, spiritual advice from Madge the manicurist... I loved those commercials -
-
Re: Throwing myself out there
Wed, June 24, 2009 - 8:28 AMOk, yeah. Totally had to look that one up on YouTube to understand the reference.
I was only born in '87, Loki :)
go easy on me :D -
-
Re: Throwing myself out there
Wed, June 24, 2009 - 2:13 PM...my mind literally reels with possible replies.
This is why people invent gods, so that there will be someone powerful enough to punish them for the terrible, terrible wickedness hidden inside. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Throwing myself out there
Wed, June 24, 2009 - 6:24 PMLoki: "so that there will be someone powerful enough to punish them for the terrible, terrible wickedness hidden inside."
Power is relative. What do I need a god for when I've got handcuffs, custom leather restraints + rabbit fur lined collar, cat'o'nine tails, hot candle wax, etc., etc.... -
-
Re: Throwing myself out there
Thu, June 25, 2009 - 2:03 AMYou're
not helping. -
-
Re: Throwing myself out there
Thu, June 25, 2009 - 10:52 AMDidn't think so ;)
-
-
-
-
Re: Throwing myself out there
Thu, June 25, 2009 - 7:15 PM<I was only born in '87, Loki :)
go easy on me :D >
87? LOL! your practically a minor, do your parents know that you are posting pictures of yourself like that? -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Throwing myself out there
Fri, June 26, 2009 - 10:15 AMJohn: "87? LOL! your practically a minor, do your parents know that you are posting pictures of yourself like that?"
Interesting that you find my age funny. Personally, I find it funny that no matter how I respond to this you (or someone else) will find some way to poke an accusing finger at me.
C'est la vie.
Yes, I'm 22, and that information is readily available on my profile, as well as the fact that I'm married.
I surely value my husband's opinions as well as those of my parents, but I hardly need their permission to do anything. My husband is aware of all my activity on the internet (and elsewhere) as we have an open and honest relationship, but I need no one's permission but my own for anything that I do (that's what being a responsible adult is about; making the right choices without an authority figure hovering over your shoulder - real or imaginary). -
-
Re: Throwing myself out there
Fri, June 26, 2009 - 2:02 PMPinky
<<<making the right choices without an authority figure hovering over your shoulder - real or imaginary). >>>
YES! DITTO!!! That is one of my chief complaints with the monotheistic religions.
Congratulations on your youth, charish it while it lasts. BTW, I would have never guessed you were so young from the vast perspicasity of your posts. Very impressive! -
-
Re: Throwing myself out there
Fri, June 26, 2009 - 2:52 PMI recommend everyone go ahead and assume Pinky is smart enough to be bored as shit with all the preciousness over her age.
I was far more intelligent and smarter at 22 than I am now. The belief that age makes one more mentally able is roundly contradicted by all available evidence. -
-
Re: Throwing myself out there
Fri, June 26, 2009 - 3:50 PMI actually feel far more stupid than I did at the age of 22-23.
I was hardcore back then. Cynicism was my personal logo.
Yet it was a fresh cynicism.
You know, there are many very brilliant young men and women these days, I think at least in part the massive amount of data flow that youth is subjected to must have something to do with it. Durn whippersnappers just keep getting smarter than us old turds! -
-
Re: Throwing myself out there
Fri, June 26, 2009 - 4:59 PMLet's eat 'em and gain their power. -
-
Re: Throwing myself out there
Sat, June 27, 2009 - 10:24 AMNo prions for me, thank you. Look at their diet!
-
-
-
Re: Throwing myself out there
Fri, June 26, 2009 - 5:38 PMLoki: "I was far more intelligent and smarter at 22 than I am now. The belief that age makes one more mentally able is roundly contradicted by all available evidence."
Well if I already didn't want to grow up before you said anything... -
-
Re: Throwing myself out there
Sat, June 27, 2009 - 10:26 AMLoki and I are enjoying our premature senility, young lady.
You may have to repeat yourself.
I don't want to grow up either..
I am interested in your various -theism terms, could you give some short explanations as to what ideas they embody to you? -
-
Re: Throwing myself out there
Sat, June 27, 2009 - 11:14 AMBob: "could you give some short explanations as to what ideas they embody to you?"
I sure can. I'm not sure which ones you mean specifically, so I'll just clarify all of them in how I understand them:
To be perfectly honest I really started more on the whole monotheistic trinity that the Catholics teach; the belief in the existence of only one god, and three separate aspects make up that one god. In my case (as in many), that was The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. That really didn't last long, though, so maybe that's why I didn't count it. The following stages were much more meaningful:
monolatrism = the belief in many gods, but the worship of only one, believing that that one is the only one WORTHY of worship
henotheism = the belief in many gods, but the worship of only one, believing that people can worship ANY god and be equally correct
polytheism = the belief in many gods, and the worship/reverence of all of them relatively equally
theistic indifference (to be honest I just pulled this one out of my ass, but it seems to fit the description I intended) = a lack of understanding for the importance of spirituality, religion, or the worship of any god(s)
pantheism = the belief that god is synonymous with the universe; that god is omnipresent throughout the universe and everything in the universe
atheism = the lack of belief in any god(s)
Wow. Actually laying it all out like this really shows me how smooth the transitions really were, and how much sense they really made. Thank you Bob. -
-
Re: Throwing myself out there
Mon, June 29, 2009 - 1:27 PMPeople really are hung up on the idea of whether or not God constitutes the universe, makes part of itself the universe, leaves another part "out" of the universe to watch over, and then whether it has a third part that espies both the former.
And on, and on... But essentially God is not supposed to *be* the universe in most western traditions, but I think it very well might be that it constructed this universe out of a small part of itself. Too often people think about this in human gender term, largely because they have no outside "yardstick".
-
-
-
-
Re: Throwing myself out there
Sat, June 27, 2009 - 1:44 PMEvery age seems to carry with it it's own wisdom, that we have for a time then lose as we gain a different kind of wisdom. It's important for people in every generation to listen to one another carefully, a five year old can sometimes clearly see what everyone older misses and thus they should be treated with the same respect. The wisdom of people at 22 can teach older generations a thing or two, it was 19-29 year olds who were the first to say that the Vietnam war was not worth fighting, something wealthier and more experienced 40 year olds resisted until time showed them their error.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Throwing myself out there
Wed, June 24, 2009 - 1:12 PMLoki
<<<Humanity: you're soaking in it!>>>
Ha!Ha! No, it's really Palmolive!
One thing I tend to ponder when thinking about collective conciousness or "uberconciousness" is the privacy part. If it were something shared, how did the personal and very private things get culled in order for it to just be a pure awareness? -
-
Re: Throwing myself out there
Wed, June 24, 2009 - 2:16 PM1) I think we'd all be amazed at how similar our private thoughts really are, and 2) maybe it would all just be eliminated.
Olaf Stapledon has an excellent examination of the overmind in his novel The Last and First Men. It's a difficult read; most people give up, sadly; those who stick with it are usually glad they did. Stapledon was a kind of speculative philosopher - some can't stand his brand of thought-game, but with certain topics it's the only kind of possible experiment. -
-
Re: Throwing myself out there
Wed, July 1, 2009 - 10:56 AM<< Olaf Stapledon has an excellent examination of the overmind in his novel The Last and First Men. >>
Wonderful book! Mind that Stapledon sees the Overmind as a conscious next step in human evolution and several versions of this theme show up in his far future, from the brains-in-bottles that are the Fourth Men to the Eighteenth Men, who all die full of folly and glory anyway.
"Man himself in this degree is eternally a beauty in the eternal form of things."
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
