Spirituality Religion : The 'the existence of any spiritual being has never been able to be proven 'Debate [Archive] - Black People | African Americans

NeterHeru

02-14-2007, 08:52 PM

HIPHOPOLX:

Well I'm certainly glad something I have said sparked a debate or interest in discussing such abstract terms :) On to the question, however that you proposed. First, before I answer it, allow me to provide you with the context of the quotes you've cited, in order to get a clearer understanding of what I was actually talking about.

I was addressing Atheism and Pragmatism, based on a statement made by Sun Ship in another forum, which you know quite well. The quotes you've cited are directly in support of the following statement made by me:

"metaphysics, as far as it goes, is a misnomer because there is nothing beyond materiality except energy, which is the buttress for all corporeality. Nonetheless there maybe something beyond energy, but we don't know if such a something exists, since not a single person physically living today has ever come back from this spiritual realm (read: energy existence), after having already physically expired (body and all), and spoke to us as an energy being to tell us precisely what's it like not physically existing."

I was addressing the fact that according to religion, metaphysics, spirituality, and what people commonly believe respecting a creator or creators, there exists a netherworld, afterlife, otherworld, hell, Hades, heaven, spiritual realm, celestial world ad infinitum, and this otherworld exists because gods, goddesses, God, supernatural beings, Aliens, cosmic entities, Dr. Malachi Z. York, etc. returned from this supernatural realm of spirit, landed on earth and told us that it exists.

Moreover, these supernatural beings, including God, are said to have left us tools (astrology), books (Holy Bible), and signs & symbols (pyramids, Stonehenge, runes) that allow us to either tap into this netherworld to commune with them or show us the way of explaining how we will get there and what happens when we do get there. Now, what I was saying is that there's not a single person living, breathing, talking, walking, procreating, in the 21st century, who was a supernatural being and has returned to the natural world as either a supernatural being or human being and told us exactly what's it like being in such a realm and returning.

Thus all we have are people's beliefs, sayings, and trances, dream visions, out of mind and body projections, psychic connections, and what have you, that claim to have communed with such entities or are themselves these entities. That's all; we don't have anything else to go on, other than mere speculation and opinions.

With all this in mind let's move onto your question, respecting the car manufacturing. I gather, based upon your line of questioning, that what you are alluding to is a blueprint. That is, a blueprint must exist somewhere and have to have been created by someone, in order to sufficiently explain the natural order of life and the universe itself, since there are too many coincidences to leave it all up to chance. If this is a wrong extrapolation of what you are saying please correct me.

However, if I'm correct regarding your alluded blueprint, I answer your questions thusly: The intelligence we as human beings ascribe to the natural order of things is merely our way of trying to make sense of that which we cannot explain yet. It's easier for us to believe that, since we cannot explain precisely how is it that a blueprint exists, yet we cannot verify the existence of a blueprint maker; the blueprint maker must be beyond our human capability of sensing its existence. Therefore, since we cannot sense its presence it's less of a mental struggle for us trying to find out if its presence resides somewhere, than for us to simply believe the blueprint maker's presence is everywhere and in everything.

So, I agree and disagree with you in that it isn't possible if no matter what any car company manufactured if all there cars were designed exactly the same, that isn't possible. Yet, and here is my disagreement, if all the cars manufactured were similar in design--as they all literally are--then that is possible.

The similarities and dissimilarities we as human beings observe in our natural world are natural occurrences, of our material existence. They're not, as we want them to be, acts of divine providence or supernatural beings or forces at work. Everything, I repeat, everything in human reality can be explained through and by nature, if we know what to look for and ascertain respecting it.

See I would agree with everyone regarding otherworld and supernatural beings if I were not a material being, but I am a material being living within the confines of a reality comprised of energy and matter. Within the other world of Spirit, if it exists, there is no matter and only energy, because there is no need for Matter in an environment where time, space, sense and cognition are all non-existent.

Here's another thing to consider brother, the word matter is derived from the Latin word mater, which means mother and material. Therefore, if we want to explain our existence--as it is now--mythologically speaking we are all simply residing within the womb of our mother, which is the universe itself, our galaxy and all the planets. This is one, of many reasons, why many ancient belief systems refer to our planet as either the Earth Mother or Mother Earth. Yet if we remove the mythos or a mythological expression from this word, all it simply means is our existence is material, along with our universe.

In short, all that I am saying, respecting the non-existence of these supernatural beings is that if such beings existed then all human beings would be freely living, conversing, procreating, murdering, enslaving, educating, fighting, debating etc. with all supernatural beings. There would be no barrier between the two entities, which prevents them from engaging in such activity. But what is this barrier?

This barrier is none other than our materiality, for our material existence cannot copulate with immaterial existence, and the only time it can--again if this otherworldly place of these beings exist--is when we no longer physically exist. Thus the only way to truly verify whether or not the Spirit world exists, filled with supernatural beings, is to physically die and go to their realm.

Yet, by then, it does not even matter whether you can prove it exists or not to your former corporeal acquaintances, because you can no longer even communicate with them, in a manner that they can readily comprehend, since this requires materiality. And as a being of pure energy, spirituality, Spirit or a supernatural being, materiality is not something you have any longer. So Eryka Badu was right, "Guess I'll see you next lifetime," the next lifetime when I return as a corporeal being :shades: And the cyclical question still remains: If this process even exists, along with this Spirit world, why hasn't anyone returned yet?

taaa7

02-14-2007, 10:17 PM

Shalom All,

Nothing can be proven - it is either accepted or not accepted. Even if some being came forward from beyond the spiritual (if indeed it does exist) what could it possibly do to prove the place it came from exist? One can supply a ton of evidence, but in the end, it comes down to whether or not the evidence is accepted or not accepted. Where do you "go" when you "go" to sleep? Where do dreams take place - physical, spiritual, beyond the spiritual, etc.?

Liberation begins at home.

I'll be free, I'll be free,
And none shall deny,
With fetters and chains,
This spirit of mine.......
By any means necessary

Peace, Blessings

hiphopolx

02-14-2007, 11:13 PM

people can experiment with astral projection to experience with thier own spiritual nature.
in kemet, those techniques were used to communicate with the gods. all african religions utilize divination, trance/possessions to communicate with the gods.

the existence of spiritual beings is not speculative; but if you isolate specific beings...you can question which actually exist and which are speculative.

if you have a religion based around a being that never walked on earth or manifested...that cannot be communicated with...can that being be said to exist???

My answer would be yes If said being left some kind evidence of it's existence/presence. for example. You come back from the store and bought a bunch of food cans and you threw the cans in no order (chaos) in your food cabinet. You go out and come back home and the cans are all stacked up nice and neatly. You tell your peeps I 'know' it was your crazy ex significant other. They say how do you know? You know she is the only one who'd do that cause she is a neat freak (purpose) and the cans could not stack neatly by themselves (order) . But you don't see her at the moment (hidden). But because of the key words I put in brackets. You have evidence of who came into your house. Since she was your Ex you know her nature. So you know the purpose/why she did it. So with all this evidence and your past experience (our ancients) You can safely say "I know my EX is around here some where. And she definitly did it. Not to compare God to a weird Ex girlfriend but This is how I can safely say I know there is a God when "comparing evidence" to an atheist. And not just know of an existence You can also understand the purpose of the existence which is a point even alot of God believing folk miss.
And I didn't even need a book

NeterHeru

02-15-2007, 03:07 AM

OmowaleX

02-15-2007, 03:25 AM

Now to be fair here is a link to that whole post http://destee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=464348&postcount=135

Now again dealing with the part

" Now religious people say it's some-thing called Ausar, God, Yahweh, Jesus Christ, Allah, Krishna, Ahura-Mazda, Marduke ad infinitum, that is this spiritual being or being of energy who has already told us what's it like not physically existing, and personally interferes with our lives everyday to help us get through our material existence. The question is can this assertion be proven as a basis in fact?

The answer is unequivocally no; the existence of any spiritual being has never been able to be proven beyond faith and belief in the existence of the being itself. All religions are based on belief and faith, in order to maintain their existence; metaphysics and spirituality are also based on belief and faith in order to exist as well. None of these understandings are based on facts in reality, which is the reality we are living in; this is a reality of energy and matter, not solely energy (spirit). "

I'd like to ask the authur of this statement? Is it possible that a dozen different car manufactoring companies(Ford Toyota Honda and the like) who haven't seen or comunicated in any way come up with the same car designs? (and b4 someone comes up with any other way. I'm talking a design engineer making a blueprint design of the next line of cars and all the others design engineers from the various other companies coming up with the same design)

If you agree that this isn't possible Then you'd have to agree that if you see a bunch of cars with the same basic design then it would have to come from One particular company. I think we all can agree that car factory could not have been made out of some random combinaton of chemicals that exploded (the Big Bang Thang) Yet in nature these same basic designs in Life and non-Life (see the elemental periodic table) keep coming up. So could anyone reading this ask any Atheist they know How could anything but an Intelligent being come up with these basic (mathematically) designs in our universe. I'm interested in listening with a open mind :)

peace

This reminds me of some discussion from Black Planet concerning the topic of "Intelligent Design".

Coming from an early engineering perspective I must ask what is it that guides "these basic (mathematically) designs in our universe"? If I was an electrical designer I would not start with the design itself. There are laws, principals, specifications which GOVERN this design.

Given the complexity of the "design process" itself indicates that there is a process of "intelligence" at work.

OmowaleX

02-15-2007, 03:29 AM

hiphopolx

02-15-2007, 05:02 AM

TAAA7:

Greetings to you as well, but I must disagree with your contention that nothing can be proven, and the only thing that makes proof valid is whether or not it is accepted. Without getting into numerous examples of what can be proven, I'll leave you with just one essentially:

Is it true that above your chest and betwixt your shoulder blades there is something that us humans call a head, which contains within something us humans call a skull that is attached to something we call a spine? Now if this is a correct assertion of mine how do you prove it to be true, without either accepting it or not?

Well the easy way would be by virtue of the fact you have posted on this website means you have a head, and a skull within it, attached to a spine, because if not you would--quite frankly--be dead. The more costly and medically dangerous way would be to go to any hospital and have your head and chest x-rayed in order to verify or prove that you do have a head, and within it is contained a skull attached to a spine. Therefore, the proof would be contained in the x-ray and acceptance would then be inconsequential ;)

HIPHOPOLX:

I know you were responding to Nibs with your post, but without challenging your belief in the existence of God I must tell you that there are some flaws within your logic. For one thing part of your conclusion is based upon knowing the purpose of your EX, but I must ask you how do you know God's purpose, and how would you know it unless he tells you what it is? Additionally, and more importantly, how do you know the nature of God without being God himself?

Honestly I must inquire from you how would you know what God's purpose and nature are, absent of the Holy Bible or Qur'an if you're a Muslim? These are just some questions to consider, rather than be answered. I'm interested in you analyzing your conclusion--for yourself--within the hypothesis you've provided for Nibs, based on its logical premises (purpose, nature, chaos, order etc.).

peace NeterHeru.
The Purpose of this thread was to challenge my knowledge(not faith) of God. So please no holding back. Now you said and asked

'For one thing part of your conclusion is based upon knowing the purpose of your EX, but I must ask you how do you know God's purpose, and how would you know it unless he tells you what it is? Additionally, and more importantly, how do you know the nature of God without being God himself?

Good ? My answer would that I am God . But I know I can't say this without some explaination. First of all I'm no different than you and I don't believe I'm no different from anybody else . But look at your biological make up. Let's say You want to know and experience what life is like being a red bloodcell. Now as a blood cell you have a mission and purpose so you instinctly do what you were built and ment to do. As time goes on (gereneration after generation) you start becoming more aware of yourself as are the other bloodcells. You and all your other blood brothers are constantly fighting intruders and transporting energy to all of the systems through out your known universe. You don't know how you know but you know if you and your bloodbrothers don't do what you are suppose to do, your whole universe will die. If you take time to think and meditate you'll understand and become aware that you are not just an in-divi-dual. Yes there is billions of others like you and the beings who you take care of by providing energy (oxygen) for them are totally different from you. (muscle cells, brain cells bone cell tissue cells etc.) but you realise you are all one. I use this as a loose example there are alot of different dynamics. One would be the cells being told that they were not the One they call Hiphopolx. But were totally separate That I once a long time ago use to come down and talk with them But don't anymore for what ever reason. And I sacrificed 'My only blood cell' so that other blood cells after could get into the Kingdom of heaven. And other blood cells are being told that I sent my last messenger a long time ago. To tell the other bloodcells about me. And the list of differnt dynanmics goes on But I'm hoping you get the picture cause none of those blood cells will realize 'I' which is them exists If they dont take time to think and meditate, observe the true evidence of my existence all around them. It is also important to past down the truth of what I realized down to the next generation so they can build on what I have learned. There's a wise saying 'As above so is below' The blood cells like us have a sub system within themselves. The rock we live on is like an electron traveling around a Nucleus. Our vast solar system is but a blip of the milky way
I have alot more to say but it's late I have to get up in a couple hours and handle my business (which is not my purpose but then again it's a small contribution to my society)

zzzzzzzzzzz

Peace

hiphopolx

02-15-2007, 05:07 AM

This reminds me of some discussion from Black Planet concerning the topic of "Intelligent Design".

Coming from an early engineering perspective I must ask what is it that guides "these basic (mathematically) designs in our universe"? If I was an electrical designer I would not start with the design itself. There are laws, principals, specifications which GOVERN this design.

Given the complexity of the "design process" itself indicates that there is a process of "intelligence" at work.

Thanks I knew I missing something (important to say the least) as i was typing that.

silent-ra

02-15-2007, 08:38 AM

Now as a blood cell you have a mission and purpose so you instinctly do what you were built and ment to do. As time goes on (gereneration after generation) you start becoming more aware of yourself as are the other bloodcells. You and all your other blood brothers are constantly fighting intruders and transporting energy to all of the systems through out your known universe. You don't know how you know but you know if you and your bloodbrothers don't do what you are suppose to do, your whole universe will die. If you take time to think and meditate you'll understand and become aware that you are not just an in-divi-dual. Yes there is billions of others like you and the beings who you take care of by providing energy (oxygen) for them are totally different from you. (muscle cells, brain cells bone cell tissue cells etc.) but you realise you are all one. I use this as a loose example there are alot of different dynamics. One would be the cells being told that they were not the One they call Hiphopolx. But were totally separate That I once a long time ago use to come down and talk with them But don't anymore for what ever reason. And I sacrificed 'My only blood cell' so that other blood cells after could get into the Kingdom of heaven. And other blood cells are being told that I sent my last messenger a long time ago. To tell the other bloodcells about me. And the list of differnt dynanmics goes on But I'm hoping you get the picture cause none of those blood cells will realize 'I' which is them exists If they dont take time to think and meditate, observe the true evidence of my existence all around them. It is also important to past down the truth of what I realized down to the next generation so they can build on what I have learned.

thank yu for these blessed and divine instructions.

hiphopolx

02-15-2007, 12:31 PM

thank yu for these blessed and divine instructions.
No prob we are all learning from each other here. It's a beautiful thing that so many positive and intelligent ppl come here & build (knowledge) with each other

:peace:

OmowaleX

02-15-2007, 12:57 PM

peace NeterHeru.
The Purpose of this thread was to challenge my knowledge(not faith) of God. So please no holding back. Now you said and asked

'For one thing part of your conclusion is based upon knowing the purpose of your EX, but I must ask you how do you know God's purpose, and how would you know it unless he tells you what it is? Additionally, and more importantly, how do you know the nature of God without being God himself?

Good ? My answer would that I am God . But I know I can't say this without some explaination. First of all I'm no different than you and I don't believe I'm no different from anybody else . But look at your biological make up. Let's say You want to know and experience what life is like being a red bloodcell. Now as a blood cell you have a mission and purpose so you instinctly do what you were built and ment to do. As time goes on (gereneration after generation) you start becoming more aware of yourself as are the other bloodcells. You and all your other blood brothers are constantly fighting intruders and transporting energy to all of the systems through out your known universe. You don't know how you know but you know if you and your bloodbrothers don't do what you are suppose to do, your whole universe will die. If you take time to think and meditate you'll understand and become aware that you are not just an in-divi-dual. Yes there is billions of others like you and the beings who you take care of by providing energy (oxygen) for them are totally different from you. (muscle cells, brain cells bone cell tissue cells etc.) but you realise you are all one. I use this as a loose example there are alot of different dynamics. One would be the cells being told that they were not the One they call Hiphopolx. But were totally separate That I once a long time ago use to come down and talk with them But don't anymore for what ever reason. And I sacrificed 'My only blood cell' so that other blood cells after could get into the Kingdom of heaven. And other blood cells are being told that I sent my last messenger a long time ago. To tell the other bloodcells about me. And the list of differnt dynanmics goes on But I'm hoping you get the picture cause none of those blood cells will realize 'I' which is them exists If they dont take time to think and meditate, observe the true evidence of my existence all around them. It is also important to past down the truth of what I realized down to the next generation so they can build on what I have learned. There's a wise saying 'As above so is below' The blood cells like us have a sub system within themselves. The rock we live on is like an electron traveling around a Nucleus. Our vast solar system is but a blip of the milky way
I have alot more to say but it's late I have to get up in a couple hours and handle my business (which is not my purpose but then again it's a small contribution to my society)

zzzzzzzzzzz

Peace
This is a very profound explanation!

It's very timely as I was considering a similar perspective earlier this morning before reading this.

Its very important that you distinguish between faith and knowledge. If Nature (Neter) is in fact a "scientific" reality then a "religion" based on the concept of Nature (Neter) is NOT a matter of faith but one's GNOSIS (Knowledge) of LIFE (one's essential nature-BEING) as one Experriences LIVING. Being one with GOD is then essentially the ONENESS one experiences as part of the Collective (whole, entirety) of one's BEING.

This has nothing to do with "faith" but the faith one has in One's SELF is a part of this Being Conscious of one's essential Nature (Neter).

The "proof" is the LIVING "Works", the act of Creation itself that one actualizes and brings forth into Man-ifestation.

hiphopolx

02-15-2007, 01:18 PM

Also I'm glad you brought up the subject of energy time and matter. Here is another point alot of ppl miss and just haven't considered. Our reality is consistently moving with everything moving at various speeds. It seems from oberservation that the bigger the object the slower the speeds. This would account for the sun not appearing to move to us. But it is indeed moving and bringing us with it even the rock we live on is not recognizably moving and we all know (common knowledge) it is moving. Giving the pattern of things I'd say this would explain why the subatonic universe would appear so sporatic the things they (scientist) claim just dosn't make sense and goes agaisnt physical laws. My theory is that everthing is happening so fast that our senses and machines cannot register it. ppl don't consider how time is so relative that we only think about the speed in our dimention. Also vibratory rates Every thing is vibrating at different speeds. The actual difference in matter and energy is the vibratory rates. If you give me some 'time' (or just slow down your movements lol) I'll provide some links to back up the statement of matter and energy. I believe Einstein talked about that so I'll start there. This also pertains to our thoughts, being that thoughts r not made up of matter they are not subject to the laws of time and space (which would explain the chaotic dreams we have and possibly explain how some folks can see the past and future but again that's my theory (only the 'seeing the past and future part not the fact that our thoughts are not subject to the laws of time and space and not being made up of matter).
considering what I just explained you will have to admit that there are things going on that you might not pick up, because of the different dimentions of size and speeds we are moving at.

:peace:

hiphopolx

02-15-2007, 01:28 PM

This is a very profound explanation!

It's very timely as I was considering a similar perspective earlier this morning before reading this.

Its very important that you distinguish between faith and knowledge. If Nature (Neter) is in fact a "scientific" reality then a "religion" based on the concept of Nature (Neter) is NOT a matter of faith but one's GNOSIS (Knowledge) of LIFE (one's essential nature-BEING) as one Experriences LIVING. Being one with GOD is then essentially the ONENESS one experiences as part of the Collective (whole, entirety) of one's BEING.

This has nothing to do with "faith" but the faith one has in One's SELF is a part of this Being Conscious of one's essential Nature (Neter).

The "proof" is the LIVING "Works", the act of Creation itself that one actualizes and brings forth into Man-ifestation.

Thank you and for once again bringing it home with your added insight

:peace:

P.S.
and just a reminder to what I said B4 I'm not gonna not rely on any book for a point of fact I 'm here to appeal to our common Divine Intelligence.

OmowaleX

02-15-2007, 03:52 PM

Thank you and for once again bringing it home with your added insight

:peace:

P.S.
and just a reminder to what I said B4 I'm not gonna not rely on any book for a point of fact I 'm here to appeal to our common Divine Intelligence.

This is a bold move...one which is critically needed. no books...no "sacred texts"...no web articles...no specification manuals...this is restoration of the balance which we have lost. (i am "packing up" many of my own books and research papers these days.)

Great job!

Peace...!

NeterHeru

02-15-2007, 07:45 PM

HIPHOPOLX:

I hope I am providing a good challenge for you ;)

You know brother I understand that you're making a distinction between knowing and having faith in God's existence. However, based on everything you have provided to explain the logical existence of God, in terms of what you know, it shows that this knowledge is derived from your faith itself. That is, you can safely know--with complete certainty--that God exists because you not only have faith in his existence, you also believe that his existence is a fact.

Of course this assertion is predicated upon what I have gathered from what you have said thus far. In any case, regarding your explanation there is still an aspect of it that has not been considered. Recall this actual thread by you is created in order to debate my contention that there is no proof or, at least, inconclusive proof verifying the existence of supernatural beings.

Yet even though this is the focus of the debate it seems that no one has realized all the proof, which has been provided as verification of this existence, are natural. That is, the proof supporting claims to supernatural beings are all based on naturally occurring phenomena or natural phenomena. For instance, your current example regarding the human body, red blood cells and the like is a natural example you are using to prove a supernatural thing.

It should be the reverse however: If it is true that supernatural beings exist then supernatural proof of their existence should not only exist, but be readily available, especially if we are to accept the assumed fact that such beings are omnipresent. Thus far no one has provided any supernatural proof of any supernatural being's existence, including God's. So this is a major flaw, which often has been the case when trying to prove the existence of supernatural beings.

Additionally, you say, "My answer would that I am God" then proceed to explain how you are God. Let me ask you this question: What is God? If you say God is a spirit, then God is incorporeal and has no cardiovascular and circulatory system to speak of. If you say God is human then God cannot possibly be the God you claim created the universe, because human beings are finite and limited organic substances.

However, let's assume God is a spirit. After figuring out what God is, the logically next step is figuring out what are God's attributes. Well, we are taught that God only has three attributes, which are omnipresence, omniscient, and omnipotent. And all this simply means is that God is everywhere and in everything, knows everything there is possibly to know, and has all power necessary to create the universe and destroy it too.

All right, since we have this understanding of God out of the way, the looming question is if you are God can you be physically everywhere and in everything at the same time, do you know everything that can be known, and are you able to create and destroy matter instantaneously with a simple thought? If you've answered "no" to any aspect of that question then you are not God. Even if you are speaking metaphorically, metaphorically speaking human beings cannot do what God is alleged to have done and be able to do on any conceivable level.

I understand that wise saying you’ve quoted, but it’s not specific in terms of what it’s referring too. For example, what is above that is also below? What’s above that which is above, which is also below what’s above? It’s a very vague saying that can be interpreted in a myriad of ways. However, the question is does this statement verify the existence of supernatural beings? I claim it does not. What does it prove other than what people’s interpretation of it proves? I say nothing. But again we are talking about proof and, as I have said before, the only proof of the existence of supernatural beings is the beliefs and faith people have that these beings exist.

hiphopolx

02-16-2007, 02:34 AM

This is a bold move...one which is critically needed. no books...no "sacred texts"...no web articles...no specification manuals...this is restoration of the balance which we have lost. (i am "packing up" many of my own books and research papers these days.)

Great job!

Peace...!

let me just say this b4 someone points the contradiction finger at me I said I am not gonna use no book as a base of fact. This will include the things you have listed above. Actually the reverse is more of what I had in mind Which is how it should be. To reiterate, outside info that is brought to this table of debate should be weighed with our 'Common divine Intelligence'
hmmmm now that I think of this there was this ancient culture that beat me to the punch of the this weighing of words that I'm trying to bring forth to light
I will think of it later

:peace:
Hotep

spicybrown

02-16-2007, 02:41 AM

Hmm... I really enjoy discussions like this! Scientifically, until something is disproven, it is considered FACT... I don't believe in spirits and the like, so... I'll read in the cutt.

Peace

hiphopolx

02-16-2007, 03:25 AM

LoL

NeterHeru

HIPHOPOLX:

I hope I am providing a good challenge for you ;)

Oh I'm having a good time. So if what I have brought forth isn't proof positive then you could easily give me another way how mathematcal foundations found their way into nature(our universe). Other than an intellgent being's design and physical implement. That is why I used the can scenario. How else could those cans be stacked in order. The physical laws in our universe could have been designed differently. But our universe seems to be based on a system we know as math and other things like the various forms of attraction. And I'm not talking about the attraction brothers feel when they see a thick healthy sista. (its late) I'm talking about gravitation magnetism electricity. I would love to know how else could these things be put in place. It would be like saying you need more proof that 'Windows' the PC program could have been manifested some other way other than an intelligent being.

So I'll be amazed to hear your alternative way
:)
peace

Also Why do you think God has to be either a spiritual being or a physical :couple: being. Again check your mirror.

MenNefer

02-16-2007, 04:04 AM

I trip at how the personalities in dreams are constructed just-right. The fact that I can interact with someone that I view as separate from myself in MY dream. I try to put myself in the frame of mind of the following: I was self aware in my dream (or lucid dreaming) and projected into a labrynth of interpersonal experience with beings who have established annals of data about the laws that are unknown effects of my nervous system.They have measured and reduced the aformentioned effects into quantum effects that precede mathematical laws. Their only problem is everytime they set the stage to measure the flux of my fundamental nature (unknowingly theirs) I wake myself up. Causing them to be unaware of my being which they move in as avatars of myself. The cyclical rhythm of my bodily temperature provided a myriad of temperaments; their actions and inactions are fractal duplications on shuffle mode. To embrace themselves as the "I" means the death of their own nurtured idea of who they *think* they are which indirectly fuels their wars. Their thought processes are what they call Quantumly Entangled. They think they die because they are so attached to their construct of self.

All of a sudden I find myself in a debate in which I cannot supply concrete proof, by the laws that govern my nervous system, that they exist inside of me. They tell me that I exist with them in a world bound by laws that can be physically observed, measured, and reproduced under certain circumstances. I know they are basically right because I am lucidly experiencing them in my dream which generates them by those same laws. They tell me to disappear or perform some sort of measurable feat; proving to them that I am the Architect of their universe. I tell them I'm in a recurring dream and their idea of me and mine of them merge in space and time and delete all memory of whether I was here or not until I find myself presently in this moment.I tell them this dream is not about me doing magic tricks, it's about me being who I am under strict conditions in order to appreciate the duality of BEING. They kill me and I wake up in prison.

It has become soberingly clear who I am and who I believe myself to be and that these are the combatant brothers who must have the score settled for them. It seems to be an addictive challenge to try and convince myself between opposing conditions that I am WE.

taaa7

02-16-2007, 05:25 AM

TAAA7:

Greetings to you as well, but I must disagree with your contention that nothing can be proven, and the only thing that makes proof valid is whether or not it is accepted. Without getting into numerous examples of what can be proven, I'll leave you with just one essentially:

Is it true that above your chest and betwixt your shoulder blades there is something that us humans call a head, which contains within something us humans call a skull that is attached to something we call a spine? Now if this is a correct assertion of mine how do you prove it to be true, without either accepting it or not?

Well the easy way would be by virtue of the fact you have posted on this website means you have a head, and a skull within it, attached to a spine, because if not you would--quite frankly--be dead. The more costly and medically dangerous way would be to go to any hospital and have your head and chest x-rayed in order to verify or prove that you do have a head, and within it is contained a skull attached to a spine. Therefore, the proof would be contained in the x-ray and acceptance would then be inconsequential ;)

HIPHOPOLX:

I know you were responding to Nibs with your post, but without challenging your belief in the existence of God I must tell you that there are some flaws within your logic. For one thing part of your conclusion is based upon knowing the purpose of your EX, but I must ask you how do you know God's purpose, and how would you know it unless he tells you what it is? Additionally, and more importantly, how do you know the nature of God without being God himself?

Honestly I must inquire from you how would you know what God's purpose and nature are, absent of the Holy Bible or Qur'an if you're a Muslim? These are just some questions to consider, rather than be answered. I'm interested in you analyzing your conclusion--for yourself--within the hypothesis you've provided for Nibs, based on its logical premises (purpose, nature, chaos, order etc.).
[/SIZE]
Shalom NeterHeru,

Your example doesn’t “prove” anything, it’s made up entirely of assumptions, and assumptions prove nothing. First off, you’re assuming that we’re all humans. Secondly, you’re assuming that only something with a head, skull, and spine is capable of posting on this website. Thirdly, you are assuming that something not having a head skull, or spine is dead. And fourthly, you are assuming that a picture (x-ray) is proof of something.

What you have done is use your belief system to try to prove a point. Knowledge is no more than a strong belief.

Everything comes down to a belief system. What you are expressing on this thread is “your” belief system. You told brother Hiphopolx – “However, based on everything you have provided to explain the logical existence of God, in terms of what you know, it shows that this knowledge is derived from your faith itself.” Where does “your” knowledge come from if not from “your” beliefs (faith)?

You also made this statement – “If you say God is a spirit, then God is incorporeal and has no cardiovascular and circulatory system to speak of.” More assumptions. You are assuming, or going by someone else’s definition, that a spirit is incorporeal and has no cardiovascular and circulatory system. How do you know this?

Brother Hiphopolx presented his “proof” to you, but you refused to “accept” it. Does that mean Hiphopolx is wrong? No, it only means you refuse to accept it as proof, because your belief system is not like his.

So what you did was set up definitions that would fit into your way of believing. Example: “However, let's assume God is a spirit. After figuring out what God is, the logically next step is figuring out what are God's attributes. Well, we are taught that God only has three attributes, which are omnipresence, omniscient, and omnipotent. And all this simply means is that God is everywhere and in everything, knows everything there is possibly to know, and has all power necessary to create the universe and destroy it too.”

”All right, since we have this understanding of God out of the way, the looming question is if you are God can you be physically everywhere and in everything at the same time, do you know everything that can be known, and are you able to create and destroy matter instantaneously with a simple thought? If you've answered "no" to any aspect of that question then you are not God.”

You have made other statements about energy and matter and materiality, but I won’t go into them all. However all of those statements are based on your belief. I also must add that your belief system (and I can only go by what you have written) is very narrow. I’ll give you an example: You believe there is only energy and matter (correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe you made a statement to that effect (if not in this thread, then in the thread this topic came from). That’s a very narrow and simplistic belief.

When one is told to prove something, the one asking for the proof is really saying, “convince me”. Once the person asking for proof is convinced, then that person “believes” he/she has proof. However, because a person is convinced of something, that doesn’t make it so – that just means now both people believe the same thing. That’s what religion is – a group of people believing the same thing. They have somehow been convinced that a particular “belief” is true. Their reality has been defined for them.

When belief is very strong, it’s considered knowledge – that doesn’t make so-called knowledge correct. The bottom line is, we never know anything – we only become convinced and believe.

Power is the ability to define other’s reality. The more people’s reality you define, the greater power and control you have. Whatever you believe is your reality; therefore, life, spirituality, god, divinity, energy, matter, etc. is whatever you believe it to be – until you are convinced otherwise; then it becomes whatever you are convinced of and can change many times. Change your reality – you change your life.

Liberation begins at home.

I'll be free, I'll be free,
And none shall deny,
With fetters and chains,
This spirit of mine.......
By any means necessary

Peace, Blessings

nibs

02-16-2007, 10:58 AM

(NeterHeru) - If it is true that supernatural beings exist then supernatural proof of their existence should not only exist, but be readily available, especially if we are to accept the assumed fact that such beings are omnipresent.

there is no such thing as "supernatural". ask yourself who taught you that particular concept; and why they are conditioning your mind to think that spiritual matters were somehow beyond nature. if you want proof of a supernatural being, "know thyself". you can experience your own spiritual nature directly through astral projection/obe's.
on a smaller scale, if you condition your mind and raise your awareness, you can see non-material influences within yourself and the world around you.

(NeterHeru) - Thus far no one has provided any supernatural proof of any supernatural being's existence, including God's.

if someone hands you a book and tells you this is what god wants you to do....they need to provide you with proof. essentially, they are "god" as they are the ones that want you to follow the book. or the authors or the compilers of the book are "god" as it is their ideas and words represented.

now, if you are asking the question, "who/what is god?" then you need to do the work to find out. however, if you are doubting spiritual beings...you don't even know your self. so why look for god without first knowing self?

(NeterHeru) - However, let's assume God is a spirit.

that's the beginning of a strawman argument.
a spirit doesn't quite fit the bill anyway...where do spirits come from? if we are going to start somewhere, it should be at the beginning; where all things come from; and not in the middle, with spirits flying around.

(NeterHeru) - we are taught that God only has three attributes, which are omnipresence, omniscient, and omnipotent.

that's one conception of god, it's a flat conception which is why you observe flaws.

the muslims claim "allah" has 99(33 * 3) names, one for each attribute.

"infinite", would probably be the best number, as "god" would need to be the source of all attributes percieved; thus possessor of all.

(NeterHeru) - since we have this understanding of God out of the way

it doesn't seem to be out the way...

(NeterHeru) - if you are God can you be physically everywhere and in everything at the same time, do you know everything that can be known, and are you able to create and destroy matter instantaneously with a simple thought? If you've answered "no" to any aspect of that question then you are not God.

a better question might be, "do you remember how?". certain skills/talents must be redeveloped and remembered.

hiphopolx

02-16-2007, 08:36 PM

I found a link That goes into what I was saying about energy and matter being the same with the difference being only in the vibratory rates. I want say its a easy to read but the words easy and difulcult in its self are relative adjectives depending on the individual.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/legacy.html

I'm not using this link as a point of fact It just provides a different perspective of what I said earlier and shows I'm not the sole person who claims energy and matter are esentially the same.

NeterHeru

02-17-2007, 12:25 AM

HIPHOPOLX:

Hmm...So much seems to happen in the span of one day on these forums LOL. All right on to the discussion :)

Well I need to reiterate brother that once again you're using naturally occurring phenomena and natural processes to prove the existence of supernatural beings. That is, the mathematical design of the universe is a naturally occurring phenomenon, no less natural than the movement of stars within our universe.

In ancient times such naturally occurring phenomena was considered unnatural, that is supernatural because at that point human beings could not logically explain why such natural processes occurred absent of supernatural beings and forces. However, in the 21st century, we have amassed enough evidence to know they happen quite naturally and normally--nothing divine and spiritual about them at all.

In fact, Einstein's theory of relativity, which includes the mathematical formula you cited, according to physicists verify the fact that these processes are natural and not divine in nature. Overall though the reason why, from my perspective, that you insist upon some supernatural intelligent being as the originator of such mathematical accuracy is you are not content with nature itself, being its own designer. In other words, since all the proofs within our reality to validate anything respecting it are naturally based, but appear to be too "perfect" and "precise" for puny nature to have designed, there must exist some supernatural force that put this altogether.

Leaving that aside for now brother, I need to ask you to please define what “Divine Intelligence” is and explain precisely what you mean by this. I've noticed you've brought this up twice, so far, but at the expense of imposing my own definitions upon it I'm requesting to see your own.

Also, it's not that I think what people call God has to be either a spirit or physical being. I speak in terms that people who are believers in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions can understand. For the most part people who are part of those religions consider God to be a spirit, with no physical form and corporeality whatsoever. However, if you have a different conception of what these specific faith believers see about God, I'm more than willing to entertain your concept too.

Thus far I have assumed that you are of the Christian faith since you alluded to believing in a Messiah, within a previous post during this discussion. But if I am wrong please correct me. Lastly, if you honestly think, feel, or believe that we--as human beings--are God in terms of what God is defined to be, then again I must ask you why can't we do what God is alleged to have done and can do, on earth?

By the way, I'm confused as to what energy and matter being the same but different verifies the existence of supernatural beings? Can you explain how the knowledge contained from the link supports this notion that supernatural beings exist? Thanks.

OmowaleX

02-17-2007, 01:37 AM

NeterHeru

02-17-2007, 04:23 AM

TAAA7:

Brother or sister you're arguing, if I'm correct in this assertion, what is known as the philosophy of relativism. So basically you're saying that everything is individually or group based, first starting with reality and then ending with conceptual definitions of what comprises reality. Thus truthfulness, falseness, morality, amorality etc. are all situationally and personally based, along with being group based too, and nothing really exists outside what an individual or group says exists.

Of course if I'm wrong, as always, please correct me. However, we'll get back to this assertion of mine a little later on within the post.

With respect to the example it certainly proves something: It proves you are alive and not dead. Perhaps I should have told you my example was a literal example? Nonetheless, no assumptions on my part existed.

Anyhow, now I'm informing you of its literalness, and as a literal fact of biology no person, individual, or human being could be living, breathing, talking, seeing, etc. with no head, skull, and spine attached to their body. Whatever you want to believe is irrelevant respecting the latter because it's simply a fact of biology, physiology, and anatomy that you yourself--yes that's right, Taaa7--could not be reading what I have typed right now and typed a previous response, if you had no head, period. It's a literal example regardless of how you want to interpret it, I'm telling you it's being presented within a literal context and no other.

Now regarding my "assumptions that we're all humans" please do tell me who do you know that is not human, who is living and residing within the 21st century on earth? Mind you I am not talking about who is and who is not human morally, spiritually, psychically, divinely and so forth, but addressing who are humans biologically, chemically, anatomically, physiologically, and genetically speaking. That's what I meant in my reference to humanity, now what do you mean respecting this term?

Additionally, I know it's to tempting consider white people as not human, based on the nefarious culture and behavioral manifestations. However, to echo one of our greatest informal scholars, Joel Augustus Rogers, if white people (Europeans, Caucasians etc.) were not human and all other people on earth were, then humans would not be able to procreate with white people. And this is simply a fact of natural reality, because inter-species procreation is not possible on the genetic level of copulation; sex between humans and non-humans (i.e. a different species from Homo Sapiens Sapiens), which results in offspring is a genetical and procreative impossibility.

Now the good brother's argument was used to obliterate European's supposed scientific fact and law that our people only looked human, but genetically and otherwise were actually animals. So, if such was the truth of the matter Europeans and Africans copulations could not result in offspring, but since they do we are the same species.

In any case, you claim "Knowledge is nothing more than a strong belief." Is this your definition of knowledge? If the latter is the case, then tell me--since your claim makes belief subsume knowledge--what is your definition of belief. Furthermore since this is your claim, as far as known now, then tell me whether or not there is a difference between what is known and what is believed?

Additionally, your contention that I'm expressing my belief system within this spread based upon a statement you've cited from me is false. The quote you cited was in direct relation to the fact that thus far I have engaged Hyphopolx as I would have engaged any Christian, respecting the same topic. Perhaps he is not a Christian, however I surmised him to be a Christian based upon his alluded belief in a Messiah--most of our people who believe in a Messiah are Christians or follow the Judeo-Christian-Islamic paradigm of religion. Yet, again, if I am wrong about him being a Christian or a follower of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic paradigm then I will accept my wrongness and speak to him absent of such paradigm.

You asked the following question, quite assuredly in its pronouncement: "Where does “your” knowledge come from if not from “your” beliefs (faith)?" In other words you phrased the answer within the question posed; therefore you've already answered it. However, I will tell you where my knowledge (and all knowledge for that matter) comes from. My knowledge is derived from the scientific method or what is known as Logic in philosophical circles.

But, prior to these methods of explaining or extrapolating knowledge, the basis of knowledge itself is gained through reasoning. Reasoning is thinking, in fact it is critical thinking, and in order to reason properly one most be cognizant of the different forms of knowing: Intellectual and Intuitive. Moreover, intellectual knowing is gained through deductive reasoning while intuitive knowing is gained through inductive reasoning. Belief, however, comes from feelings of what you think or surmise to know, but as yet have reasoned--that is, experimented either through Logic or the scientific method--to know. So I assure you my knowledge is based on what I know, not what I either believe or feel.

"More assumptions. You are assuming, or going by someone else’s definition, that a spirit is incorporeal and has no cardiovascular and circulatory system. How do you know this?"

I can tell you how I know this, but first let me ask you--since I have already defined this myself--what is your definition of, or what do you think, spirit is? Furthermore, what is your definition of or what do you think a spirit is? Get back to me when you get those definitions or thoughts of what you think spirit and a spirit is.

So you want know how I know a spirit is incorporeal? Very simply: All the existing evidence that we have amassed so far on what a spirit is, which is directly from people who claim to have talked to spirits, invoked them, been possessed by them, and have seen them say they have no physical forms. Now, I am the first one to declare that believing something just because someone or some persons says it is so, is ridiculous. However, since these people or persons readily claim that such supernatural beings ala spirits exist, and I disagree with them, I am inclined to accept their descriptions of what they say these beings are like, since they exist for them. That's premise one.

Furthermore, science itself says supernatural beings or spirits have no corporeal form--actually science says they don't exist. And let's be clear here; I am not talking about metaphysical science, I am talking about the Biological and Natural Sciences--Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Anatomy, Physiology and the like. That's premise two.

Everyone I know personally who has been possessed (Holy Ghost possession that is); had an out of body experience where a spirit guided them through this experience, seen a spiritual entity or manifestation, communicated with such supernatural beings, claim that these beings have no material forms. Through my own research on the subject matter, particularly with regards to Spiritualism, never was there given any physical dimensions on what a spirit or ghost is; what is the mass of a spirit, it's weight, it's height, age, sex, race etc.? That's premise three.

Let me be clear here and inform you that I am not setting up definitions of my own to entrap Hyphopolx in my logical way of understanding this issue. The reason why I provided definitions, particularly in the quote you cited where I say "However, let's assume God is spirit," is one because I surmised he was either a Christian or a follower of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic paradigm of religion and two, since people do not define the concepts and terms they are using within this abstract discussion I have no choice but to throw out commonly accepted definitions, in order to direct a structured discourse.

Still, as always, I continue to offer and provide many opportunities for people to one, correct me if my suppositions are wrong respecting these definitions and their selves and two provide me with their own definitions of the same terms. But people seldom take advantage of these offers. Nevertheless, you ought to have realized that I am not definitively offering these conceptual definitions as if they are the only ones, through the fact that every definition I provide--unless it is my own--is prefaced by “let's assume,” “let's suppose,” “now if you believe” and so forth.

Thereby offering the reader an indication that this is not my definition but a commonly accepted one, and if they have something different the door is open for them to provide their own. Yet, once again, people do not often do this, precisely because their definition of such terms and concepts are the commonly held conceptual definitions.

You say my postulation that our material universe is only comprised of energy and matter is narrow and simplistic. Let me ask you this then: If there exists some-thing that is beyond energy and matter (e.g. metaphysical), within our universe which is a universe subsisting on energy and matter, what is it? Tell me what's this some-thing that comprises our universe's existence, in addition to energy and matter, since I don't seem to know what it is and you appear to know. In any case I maintain that accepting our materiality as only comprised of energy and matter is considered narrow minded and simplistic, to those who want some-thing to exist beyond the natural universe. I await your summation on what comprises our universe in addition to energy and matter, however.

Lastly, it is quite fitting that you said all you did respecting being convinced, no one never knowing really anything, and "Whatever you believe is your reality. . .," because we have now come full circle back to this idea of relativism. What you're positing is essentially the same as Rene Descartes' supposition that 'I think therefore I am,' all you're saying is 'I believe therefore I am.' The logical flaw in both postulates, just like relativism, is that whatever you think and believe respecting reality is irrelevant and inconsequential if it's not in concert with the naturally reality that you are already living and existing in.

Let me repeat that from another perspective. If you are a roach and you are able to think and believe outside roach dimensionality then in fact you're not a roach, however if what you think and believe does not correspond to the confines of the reality and existence, which you are already in, part and parcel of, then as a roach you'll simply waste away into decomposition because instead of following instinct you are believing and thinking something or some-things that you're not.

For instance, R. Kelly made a song titled "I believe I can fly." Well, if we take your position on everyone has their own reality and no reality exists outside of our own individual conceptual reality, then he can fly. So he jumps from a 50 story building to his death. What happened, didn't he believe he could fly in his reality? Shouldn't he have survived and flew to wherever?

No, because unless he is Superman and can miraculously overcome the scientific law of gravity, gravity will pull him down to his death. Of course you get the gist of what I'm saying, but the point is reality, that is our natural reality exists outside the confines of what we believe and conceive reality to be. Hence, regardless of who defines it, natural reality maintains its existence unfettered, undeterred, and unaffected by human powers of conception.

Consider this: You say nothing can be proven, beyond acceptance and convincing of this proof. If this is actually true why do you continue to exist based on these views and the fact that nothing can be known? In other words, why do you continue living, breathing, talking, walking, typing, interacting with people etc. based on everything you said? I submit it's because you know you want to continue living and existing in the here and now, proof is irrelevant as to why you know you want to continue existing, and therefore acceptance is automatic. Now if I'm wrong in this regard correct me and please explain to me how you have come to continue living physically on earth, and still have yet to resolve the fact of why are still continue living on earth--why don't you know why you're still living in the here and now?

NeterHeru

02-17-2007, 05:19 AM

NIBS:

Sister/Brother you've unfortunately misunderstood my position on this subject matter, to such a degree that it's quite humorous :glasses:

Nevertheless, you said "there is no such thing as "supernatural" and verily I am fully aware of this--LOL! This is my entire position and the reason why this thread exists: The topic was established to debate my assertion that there is no proof of the existence of supernatural beings, beyond the belief and faith people or persons have in their existence. Additionally, I have also maintained that from the standpoint of Atheism, or simply logic, the proof supporting the existence of supernatural beings is either non-existent or inconclusive at best, ergo there's no need to even accept the existence of some-thing when its evidence is in such a condition.

As to the second point you've made quoting me I am neither seeking an answer for what God or god is, nor do I doubt the existence of spiritual beings. I am asserting, based on all available evidence, that what is known as supernatural beings, which include God, Goddesses, gods, goddesses, and spiritual beings, do not exist because the evidence in support of their existences is unsubstantiated and cannot be corroborated absent of having faith in and belief of their existence already.

Respecting your third point: Please see everything I have said regarding this issue, in my recent responses within this thread, to both HipHopolx and Taaa7. For I am certainly not attempting to create a strawman argument, by creating the conclusions for the argument before it even begins.

Onto the fourth point: The issue you raised honestly Nibs is simply a moot point. Certainly I am informing you now that when I said "we" I was referring to what the commonalty is generally taught, in this country and within the Judeo-Christian-Islamic paradigm, about the attributes of what is called God and not god.

However, the reason why the issue you take with me is purely moot is because all those 99 attributes, which as you aptly pointed out are names for Allah, comprise Omnipotence, Omniscient, and Omnipresent. You say Infinity would be the best number, since it's not a number. I grant you that, but the fact is omnipotence is infiniteness: they're one and the same. Additionally if you’re omnipotent then you already are the source of all attributes, but again all this is really irrelevant.

The fifth point: It's out of the way simply because within the confines of the debate we're having, no one has contested this commonly accepted definition for what God is. Of course it would be quite preposterous for you to contest this definition, since you yourself don't even believe God exists: Remember you stated "there is no such thing as "supernatural.""

The sixth point: I want to end this on a note of contradiction respecting you Nibs. You claim there is no such thing as supernatural, and I certainly agree with this proposition of yours. However and here is the contradiction, you posit the notion that proof of a supernatural being's existence is through knowing one's self. Furthermore, you add to this notion that all one needs to do as a human being, to be exactly like God as He is defined in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic paradigm, and dare I say other traditions too, is "condition your mind and raise your awareness," because these, for a lack of a better term, Godly "skills/talents must be redeveloped and remembered."

And yet, in spite of all this, you claim there is no such thing as "supernatural," seemingly implying that the concept is artificial without any practical merits to its application whatsoever. Well, correct me if I'm wrong but the word 'super' means "beyond," "limitless," "exceeds," "boundless," "superior," "of the highest power," and the list is endless as to what it means. Now, how is it "supernatural" does not exist, yet everything you've described (e.g. God, astral projection, spiritual nature) is superior to or exceeds nature itself?

According to nature human beings are not superior (read: spiritual) to nature, because everything else would be too. Sorry but the logic of your argument makes no sense, for why should only human beings be Godly, have a spiritual nature, have the ability to astral project, and tap into the spiritual world (if spiritual world is what you meant by "non-material influences within yourself and the world around you), and yet nature itself does not have this ability????

In other words, why aren't animals, birds, insects, plants, microbiological organisms and everything in and of nature entitled to the same Godliness on the planet earth as human beings are, when we all are beings and organisms of nature itself? Something is amiss within this argument and that's impregnation with arrogance, an arrogance that makes nature subservient to, and a mere handmaiden, of humanity. Of course I'm not beyond being corrected and proven wrong on this point, but I just can't follow your logic here. So if I am wrong in all that I have just extrapolated from what you have said please make right what I have either misunderstood or misinterpreted.

hiphopolx

02-17-2007, 07:25 AM

So now it comes down to name calling. I don't know any Christian who believes in a Messiah not refer to the bible. Here I am tring to appeal to our common divine intellect. I'm tring not to rely on any book including sarcred ones (does that sound like a christion thing to do) Respectfully and you have to hit me below the belt and call me a Christian. (you can laugh now)
Seriously though after everyything I conveyed here, especially the bloodcell story pacticuly the part( the blood cells being told that 'I'/God sent my 1 bloodcell down to save them so they can get into heaven) This didn't clue you in to whether I was christion or not. I guess I got to step my game up.
(I thought I doing so well too)

HIPHOPOLX:

Thus far I have assumed that you are of the Christian faith since you alluded to believing in a Messiah, within a previous post during this discussion. But if I am wrong please correct me. Lastly, if you honestly think, feel, or believe that we--as human beings--are God in terms of what God is defined to be, then again I must ask you why can't we do what God is alleged to have done and can do, on earth?

By the way, I'm confused as to what energy and matter being the same but different verifies the existence of supernatural beings? Can you explain how the knowledge contained from the link supports this notion that supernatural beings exist? Thanks.

I brought that up because you were asking if God was a spirit or was God physical. Which would also be a question of God being a being of Matter or Energy again my answer is both. As are we. Your will (which is not made up of matter)is the energy that gives power and commands your physical body (matter) what to do. You as the God tells your body what to do which would be conscience decisions. But our high self also uses that same energy to command your body as well which would be your involuntary actions . Now I agree with you about how all this is natural so maybe this might help you in understanding my points and take the 'Supernateral' out of this debate cause this word seems to be holding you back (let it go man) And correct me if I'm wrong but did you say nature's natural puny design . So now your dissing nature . I wouldn't go outside now in case nature was reading that too we all know about nature's wrath lol :lol:

NeterHeru

02-18-2007, 01:29 AM

hiphopolx

02-18-2007, 04:50 AM

HIPHOPOLX:

Brother please accept my humble apology for thinking you were a Christian based on the following remark: "And I sacrificed 'My only blood cell' so that other blood cells after could get into the Kingdom of heaven. And other blood cells are being told that I sent my last messenger a long time ago. To tell the other bloodcells about me." I mistook it as a serious statement and will henceforth readdress you regarding not being a Christian.

There's also been some miscommunication in that I was not literally asking the question for my own understanding, of whether or not God is a spirit, but positing it as an open-ended question which is why I said "If God is...." Also I don't think it makes too much sense for me to be asking whether or not God is a spirit, since I don't accept the existence of this thing called God anyway--LOL!

In any case, I hope you accept my humble apology, and since I can't stay long I need to make this quick. Let's do a 360 here, and get back to some basics of definitions, now that it's clear for me that you're not a Christian.

What is your definition of God? What is it that you define God to be able to do? Define what is 'spirit' and 'a spirit.' Define what you mean by "high self." And also please define what you mean by "Divine Intelligence." Now after you have defined all of these terms, see if the conceptual definitions you have developed correspond to us, which is human beings. You might want to define human beings too, if that assists you in this process.

I'm only asking because I have done this already, but I haven't read your own definition of such concepts. So here is a chance to eliminate all miscommunication--at least on my part. Also, I'm not actually caught up on the word "supernatural," however anything beyond or superior to nature is considered supernatural. Anything divine and sacred is considered supernatural. Yet, again I'd appreciate it if you defined those terms. Thanks.

I'm not triing to be offensive but I think my blood cell story went over your head if you read that and took that as me being christian. I think it would be better to describe what mean when I say 'common divine intelligence' As oppose to giving you a definition. Most PCs have a common operating system we call windows That somebody installed thus giving all those PCs common programs. One example of a common instruction is what all these PCs would do if you highlight somthing and you hit delete it will go away from your screen. Could this commonality happen by something other than a sentient being? COULD IT HAPPEN BY CHANCE? Now reflect back on us and some of the common things we do, if something catches us off guard and inflicts a sharp pressure like stepping on a tack. we would both flinch involuntarily (without thinking) Why would we both and everybody reading this do this if we didnt have something in all of us that was part of common program. when we are babies what do we all do when we are hungry? I could go on and on? Well this commonly shared program can do more that just handle our involuntary actions if you think about all the complex things it can do I'd say you have a pool of knowledge that would make any PC or Mac computer look like an Abacus. So why can't we all just pool out all the answers in the universe from this common pool of knowledge we share. Language! Language is what is holding us back. And for a million$$$ can anyone tell me what is the universal language? Going back to PCs, rememember, a languge had to be programed in them so we can talk/commnd it. Without using this language we won't be able to do to much of anything with these PCs other than look at what it automatically is programed to do, which in most cases is watch the screensaver if you don't know that you have to press a button every once in awhile. What happens when you give your PC a command that is not in it's language? It will either not proccess it or give you something not related to your intention or a straight up wrong intention. Which is what we put our common divine intelligence thru. In the unique case of us Gods/Goddesses we can reprogram or change the original program that we came to Earth with. We do this to ourselves unknowing ,intuitively and in cases of ppl that know better, intentially and we don't just do this on our own physical bodies but upon others as well some examples would be TV/radio comercials, fashion industry(sub example how many ppl reading this don't have a pair of denium jeans and a tee shirt in there list of clothes if your from a European society) Our good old reverends and other spiritial leaders are on this list too. That is why in every country there is a dominate religion(number of ppl) with maybe 1 or 2 others trying to get take that number 1 spot. To seperate this common knowledge and become conscious of it from its original form we have asociate it with something else we are conscious of (which is what I'm trying to do in this thread tapping in your/our common divine intelligence and not a sacred book or any other outside data) that process would be known to us Gods/Goddeses as in-forming the specific data that we need. If you don't or can't pull what you need from what i like to call the common devine intelligence then you are subject to what others say that particular information you require is. (example would be folks going to their various religious institution every week or more if business is slow, for the purpose of being told what the good word is or to know what is the meaning of something in their book that goes against our common devine knowledge) an rather tune in to the information within alot of ppl do more tuning in to the information they recieve from without. I'm tired I know I'll have to explain how we all share this knowledge and how it holds all the answers in the Universe but I got to catch some zzzzzs but I want to leave all who is reading this a reminder of 1 of your/our basic objectives, which is part of our common dev......you know the rest
Is to be HAPPY

:)
peace

Love_Unknown

02-18-2007, 06:03 AM

The African understanding of the supernatural is self-evident, but due to our Eurocentric education, there is much confusion that has sprawled into a raging debate among many thinkers today who most often approach this understanding backwards, because the reality is that not only can the existence of the supernatural be proven, but THE EXISTENCE OF THE SUPERNATURAL IS IN FACT THE “ONLY” THING THAT CAN ACTUALLY BE PROVEN. I will elaborate.

Empirical evidence is a farce. Seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, or smelling does not actually evidence anything. What we “perceive” as elements of physical reality are only registered as thoughts and images in the mind. There exists no proof of an actual physical existence of anything that the mind perceives, and our crude human senses (among the crudest in the entire animal kingdom) are easily and often fooled.

All that is perceived as physical reality could possibly be, and cannot be proven to be anything more than a creation of the mind. This truism is demonstrated every night in our lower state of consciousness, the “sub-consciousness dream state, where the mind creates an entire dream world which we perceive to be real. Some of us however have elevated our level of sub-conscious awareness to understand that the reality that they are perceiving in the dream state exists only as thoughts and images in their mind. Those of us who have achieved a higher level of conscious awareness understand that reality is much the same in the awakened state as it is in the dream state. This is why the elevated minds of the African and Native American spiritualists, the Taoists and Buddhist thinkers, and other such enlightened individuals have reached the very same and similar conclusion, that LIFE IS BUT A DREAM.

I cannot prove that anything other than myself is anything more than an image in my mind. Whether the physical world actually exists or not is irrelevant to this discussion, because the fact remains that its actual existence simply cannot be proven. My own existence however is self-evident. I know for certain that “I am.” The very act that I am sitting here discussing this issue is proof positive of my own existence. In other words, “I think, therefore I am.“ So with my own existence being proven, the question then becomes, “What am I?”

What I can know for certain is that what “I” am is not physical. My own self-awareness (thought) is “all” that is conclusively and essentially me. What I am cannot be touched, tasted, smelled, heard, or seen, and is therefore by definition supernatural. The only part of my being that I can prove to exist, the essence of my being itself, is supernatural. I am therefore a supernatural being, and with my own existence being the only thing in existence that I can effectively prove, all that can conclusively be proven to exist is the existence of the supernatural.

I am both self-evident and supernatural, and so is whatever else that brought me into existence. As a conscious being I am aware that I cannot, could not have, and therefore did not bring myself into existence. What can be perceived can be achieved, and at no point during my existence can I begin to conceptualize creating myself. It is also therefore evident that I exist as a “created” being. The process of my own creation is beyond my understanding, and the full identity of my creator cannot be stated with any degree of certainty, but by whatever name and understandable human identity that is prescribed to it, the force, power, or being that brought me into existence is likewise both self-evident and supernatural.

Love Unknown

hiphopolx

02-18-2007, 11:19 AM

Love_Unknown

02-18-2007, 09:17 PM

what's up bro

the meta physical realm proves the existance of the physical realm and vise versa. If you went to the store to buy something and you were suppose to get change back how would you know exactly how much money to get back. Would you accept his answer that the change you were suppose to get back wasn't really real or could not be proven. As matter of fact if anyone else reading this also believe thier life or the things in it are not real send me some money. Please take the next step and release your $$ to me. It is just measily pieces of paper with various colors mostly green and funny symbols on it. If you're not sure about your belief that life or things in it isn't real keep a little bit of it just in case but show me you really believe what you are telling me and I'll let everyone here know you really do believe the things in our life isn't real. Hmmmm maybe I should put a ad out in popular newspaper. Hopefully I'm in the minority who believes that our life is real. I hope you are laughing but what's even funnier(maybe not so depending on how you look at it) Is that we get duped everyday to give up the things we have like $ for all sorts of things and services. But what gets crazy when someone can actually re-program a whole group of ppl and have them believe their things are not real and to show that they are re-programed, command by way of convince them to give up all their worldly possessions to them. And for the million dollar ? What institution more than any other we all know can and have done this to ppl?

Hey Hiphopolx,

I like this thread you started, but I’m afraid I’m going to have to disagree with you black man. The metaphysical real does not prove the physical realm. If we continue along these lines its not going to be much of a debate brother because if you believe that you can “prove” the existence of the physical realm then I’m afraid that you simply don’t have any ground to stand on.

All these things that you’re talking about (money, colors, symbols, people,) the only indication of the entire physical realm whatsoever are thoughts and images in the mind. What “proof” do you have that “any” of the thoughts and images in the mind are any more real than any other? Because you have seen it many times? That is not proof. Just because we have seen the sun rise many, many, many times in the past is not “proof” that it will rise again tomorrow. I’m not saying that it won’t. I would of course bet my money that it will. But it is possible that I may lose that bet because what we “believe” that we have seen in the past is not proof. Our entire memory in fact exists only as thoughts and images in the mind. You have to think philosophically to understand this. Scientifically speaking, when you touch something, the sensation is registered as a thought or image in your mind. When you see something, the sight is registered as a thought or an image in your mind. When you hear, smell or taste something all of it is simply registered as a thought or image in our mind. Whether any of it actually “exists” or not is not the point. The point is that our awareness of it is nothing more than a thought or image in the mind. Thoughts and images in the mind do not “prove” anything. I’ll break it down like this:

Is there anything in this physical universe that your awareness of is more than simply a thought or image in your mind? If you can name one single physical thing, then you win this little debate.

In actuality, the entire physical world is just the will of a God. Each element of this physical world is simply an aspect of God (lesser god) that has presented him/herself in this way. It is not the god’s true form, and our ancestors understand this very well. This physical reality is actually nothing more than a god‘s chosen reflection of his/her true spiritual self, and anytime a god desires to change it (break “natural” law, change form, float above ground, walk through solid objects, etc.) it does so. This entire physical world only exists as a mirror reflection of the real world, the spiritual world, and is designed by God as an opportunity for us to improve our spirit, our true selves. It is when we “truly” begin to understand this that we gain the ability to start bending and breaking what we “think” are natural laws. This is when we begin to understand African healing methods that cure diseases with the mind, where we begin to understand how to levitate solid objects and build pyramids, when we truly begin to understand that there really is no spoon. Think on it brother. Peace to you.

Love Unknown

nibs

02-18-2007, 09:57 PM

hiphopolx

02-18-2007, 10:03 PM

Hey Hiphopolx,

I like this thread you started, but I’m afraid I’m going to have to disagree with you black man. The metaphysical real does not prove the physical realm. If we continue along these lines its not going to be much of a debate brother because if you believe that you can “prove” the existence of the physical realm then I’m afraid that you simply don’t have any ground to stand on.

All these things that you’re talking about (money, colors, symbols, people,) the only indication of the entire physical realm whatsoever are thoughts and images in the mind. What “proof” do you have that “any” of the thoughts and images in the mind are any more real than any other? Because you have seen it many times? That is not proof. Just because we have seen the sun rise many, many, many times in the past is not “proof” that it will rise again tomorrow. I’m not saying that it won’t. I would of course bet my money that it will. But it is possible that I may lose that bet because what we “believe” that we have seen in the past is not proof. Our entire memory in fact exists only as thoughts and images in the mind. You have to think philosophically to understand this. Scientifically speaking, when you touch something, the sensation is registered as a thought or image in your mind. When you see something, the sight is registered as a thought or an image in your mind. When you hear, smell or taste something all of it is simply registered as a thought or image in our mind. Whether any of it actually “exists” or not is not the point. The point is that our awareness of it is nothing more than a thought or image in the mind. Thoughts and images in the mind do not “prove” anything. I’ll break it down like this:

Is there anything in this physical universe that your awareness of is more than simply a thought or image in your mind? If you can name one single physical thing, then you win this little debate.

In actuality, the entire physical world is just the will of a God. Each element of this physical world is simply an aspect of God (lesser god) that has presented him/herself in this way. It is not the god’s true form, and our ancestors understand this very well. This physical reality is actually nothing more than a god‘s chosen reflection of his/her true spiritual self, and anytime a god desires to change it (break “natural” law, change form, float above ground, walk through solid objects, etc.) it does so. This entire physical world only exists as a mirror reflection of the real world, the spiritual world, and is designed by God as an opportunity for us to improve our spirit, our true selves. It is when we “truly” begin to understand this that we gain the ability to start bending and breaking what we “think” are natural laws. This is when we begin to understand African healing methods that cure diseases with the mind, where we begin to understand how to levitate solid objects and build pyramids, when we truly begin to understand that there really is no spoon. Think on it brother. Peace to you.

Love Unknown

My quick answer to your ? If I understand it right would be yourself in its entirety Both physical and spiritual. But to be sure could you reiterate your Question?

hiphopolx

02-18-2007, 10:36 PM

brilliant breakdown, love unknown.

i have to disagree with one point.
proof of the existence of the supernatural

"supernatural" does not exist. "supernatural" is a misnomer. the easter bunny is supernatural.
spiritual beings are natural; people have been mentally conditioned to view spirituality is something other than natural.
"material" existence is a subset of the natural world.

other than that, i agree with you 100%.

the real problem with the demand for proof, is that noone can reprogram another's mind for them. noone can recondition the way another person thinks, percieves and experiences their own existence. people can help that process along, but generally not without permission. one must take that first step on their own.

ultimately, people can provide others with a path, provide them with rituals to perform to recondition the mind; but individuals must initiate the process on their own; and actively work to see or experience the world in a different light.

I was about to say I disagree with you about 'no one can re program anothers mind.' Especially when I know big compannies pay millions of dollars to do just that, program the minds of the masses to believe that they need their product or services and if this didn't work they would not still be paying to do this. But as usual your right cause ultimately you can choose to accept it or stand against it. Even if I said 1+1=2 someone can still say they don't accept this as the right answer(or even ask for more proof :lol: ). The fact that alot of ppl will accept their intentions to influence them is how they are making lots of money.

hiphopolx

02-18-2007, 11:05 PM

Hey Hiphopolx,

I like this thread you started, but I’m afraid I’m going to have to disagree with you black man. The metaphysical real does not prove the physical realm. If we continue along these lines its not going to be much of a debate brother because if you believe that you can “prove” the existence of the physical realm then I’m afraid that you simply don’t have any ground to stand on.

All these things that you’re talking about (money, colors, symbols, people,) the only indication of the entire physical realm whatsoever are thoughts and images in the mind. What “proof” do you have that “any” of the thoughts and images in the mind are any more real than any other? Because you have seen it many times? That is not proof. Just because we have seen the sun rise many, many, many times in the past is not “proof” that it will rise again tomorrow. I’m not saying that it won’t. I would of course bet my money that it will. But it is possible that I may lose that bet because what we “believe” that we have seen in the past is not proof. Our entire memory in fact exists only as thoughts and images in the mind. You have to think philosophically to understand this. Scientifically speaking, when you touch something, the sensation is registered as a thought or image in your mind. When you see something, the sight is registered as a thought or an image in your mind. When you hear, smell or taste something all of it is simply registered as a thought or image in our mind. Whether any of it actually “exists” or not is not the point. The point is that our awareness of it is nothing more than a thought or image in the mind. Thoughts and images in the mind do not “prove” anything. I’ll break it down like this:

Is there anything in this physical universe that your awareness of is more than simply a thought or image in your mind? If you can name one single physical thing, then you win this little debate.

In actuality, the entire physical world is just the will of a God. Each element of this physical world is simply an aspect of God (lesser god) that has presented him/herself in this way. It is not the god’s true form, and our ancestors understand this very well. This physical reality is actually nothing more than a god‘s chosen reflection of his/her true spiritual self, and anytime a god desires to change it (break “natural” law, change form, float above ground, walk through solid objects, etc.) it does so. This entire physical world only exists as a mirror reflection of the real world, the spiritual world, and is designed by God as an opportunity for us to improve our spirit, our true selves. It is when we “truly” begin to understand this that we gain the ability to start bending and breaking what we “think” are natural laws. This is when we begin to understand African healing methods that cure diseases with the mind, where we begin to understand how to levitate solid objects and build pyramids, when we truly begin to understand that there really is no spoon. Think on it brother. Peace to you.

Love Unknown

Also lets talk purpose. what purpose would a phillip screw serve if not for a phillip screw driver. Another example, What purpose would it serve to transmit radio frequencies which are barely physical in comparison to our own matter. And very involved these days with the new technologies that's out now. If there were no radios to receive the broadcast. If I need a building made and I paid and architech to design an incredible blueprint of this building my intent is to build this building the purpose of the blueprint is to make the building to a reality And as if you don't know where I'm going with this. What purpose would the meta physical world (the bluprint) have if not for the physical world (the building). :thinking:

Peace my brother

hiphopolx

02-19-2007, 08:00 AM

Also lets talk purpose. what purpose would a phillip screw serve if not for a phillip screw driver. Another example, What purpose would it serve to transmit radio frequencies which are barely physical in comparison to our own matter. And very involved these days with the new technologies that's out now. If there were no radios to receive the broadcast. If I need a building made and I paid and architech to design an incredible blueprint of this building my intent is to build this building the purpose of the blueprint is to make the building to a reality And as if you don't know where I'm going with this. What purpose would the meta physical world (the bluprint) have if not for the physical world (the building). :thinking:

Peace my brother

And I almost forgot about our senses the popular 5 and the ones they left out. What would be the purpose of these if the physical world was just in our mind. What would happen if we lost one? Is Strevie Wonder really blind or not fully using his mind in relation to his peers.

NeterHeru

02-19-2007, 11:34 AM

emanuel goodman

02-19-2007, 12:16 PM

hiphopolx

02-19-2007, 02:13 PM

I thought I gave you a good description of what I mean when I use the term common devine intelligence.
Common = Belonging equally to or shared equally by two or more
Devine = Having the nature of or being a deity and/or Supremely good or beautiful The word devine is subjective so I can understand where you be confused by the meaning.
Intelligence = The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge

Now here's 1 of the contexts Of how I used it (common devine intelligence).

'Now reflect back on us and some of the common things we do, if something catches us off guard and inflicts a sharp pressure like stepping on a tack. we would both flinch involuntarily (without thinking) Why would we both and everybody reading this do this if we didnt have something in all of us that was part of common program. when we are babies what do we all do when we are hungry? I could go on and on? Well this commonly shared program can do more that just handle our involuntary actions if you think about all the complex things it can do I'd say you have a pool of knowledge that would make any PC or Mac computer look like an Abacus'

Being that this term is not a term you use in conversation. I can only descibe what it is to you based on things I believe we both know of in our physical realm. And as far as not using PCs cause we are not PCs is against the way we describe things and terms to someone else who doesn't see what you are talking about. (example Your describing a hippo to me, You bring up that it is smaller than an elephant and I say You can't use elephants cause elephants are totally different.) Being that you use a PC or Mac to log on to destee.com I used the analogy of PCs . So if you really are trying to understand the term that I use then be fair. If I tell you 1+1=2 (in our physical realm) and you say prove it and do by giviving examples of this by way of two objects (2 apples 2 oranges and books) what will be the point if you shut it down by claiming '1' is meta physcal and every thing I used were totally different cause they were physical objects.
Also It should be very obvious that my definition of God is not the same one you keep decribing you don't believe I don't believe that one either. I did say I was God I also said I was no different from you. So I'll say you are God as well. We are not spiritually at our peak so we are limited to the things we can do compared to someone is who made it to their final level of Spirtual maturity (Gods/Goddesses) The same as a human baby not being able to do the things an adult can. I would hope you still see and define the baby as a younger version of you . But I can understand your position cause when I was a kid I didn't see myself the same as an adult. And it would have been very hard to me back then to believe that I was no different from a adult other than my maturity

:peace:

hiphopolx

02-19-2007, 02:16 PM

NeterHeru I forgot to address the above statement to you
my apologies

:peace:

hiphopolx

02-19-2007, 02:38 PM

NeterHeru: Also if it would help I can dis-card the term 'common devive intelligence' to somthing else maybe Supreme knowledge. It doesn't matter to me, as long as I can tranfer what I know to you and whoever else is reading this. I'm just trying to take some of the unlimited knowledge within you from its original form to in-form you of the things you are asking me to make you aware of.
God being one of them. :thinking:
peace

Love_Unknown

02-20-2007, 10:23 AM

My quick answer to your ? If I understand it right would be yourself in its entirety Both physical and spiritual. But to be sure could you reiterate your Question?

Hiphopolx,

I'll just answer my own question.

Our only awareness of the physical world is in the form of thoughts/images in the mind. This is a scientific fact, not something I made up. I am not saying that the physical world doesn’t exist. I’m saying that our only knowledge of it is in the form of mental thoughts/images. This is a scientific fact that you can look up yourself.

1. Anything you see, hear, smell, touch, or taste, is transformed into information that is sent through the nervous system and detected by the mind as a thought/image. That’s it. That’s all.

2. The “mind” (your thoughts, feelings, intuitive sense, self-awareness) cannot be touched, tasted, smelled, seen, or heard. It is not a physical thing, yet it is alive, it exists. Another word for this living entity is a “spirit.” This is what “you” are.

The body comes and goes, but the spirit remains because it is essentially all that is you. Your body is exchanging and replacing atoms and molecules as we speak. Within a matter of months or years (I forget how long) the entire physical body will have been replaced by other atoms and molecules. What you believe is your body now is constantly changing, and coming and going, because it was never really a real part of you in the first place. Only the life force, the spiritual essence, the mind, remains intact and unchanged, because it is all that is actually you. And when you’re through with this body, your spirit (you) will leave it and completely return to the real world, the spiritual world, the world that always remains constant.

This is the basis of African spirituality, and the foundation upon which all spiritual understandings were built on. But to really understand how the physical world is simply a mirror reflection of the spiritual world, you’re going to have to really gain a strong understanding of African spirituality. But no rush brother. This little discussion is not all that entirely important. I know you understand very well that spirituality is an extremely important thing, and I know that you’re down for the cause. So all of this really isn’t a big deal. You’re a civilized and intelligent brother, and I’ve enjoyed conversing with you every time we’ve talked. I’ll be glad to dialogue with you anytime you like. Ase Hiphopolx.

Love Unknown.

hiphopolx

02-20-2007, 11:34 AM

Hiphopolx,

I'll just answer my own question.

Our only awareness of the physical world is in the form of thoughts/images in the mind. This is a scientific fact, not something I made up. I am not saying that the physical world doesn’t exist. I’m saying that our only knowledge of it is in the form of mental thoughts/images. This is a scientific fact that you can look up yourself.

1. Anything you see, hear, smell, touch, or taste, is transformed into information that is sent through the nervous system and detected by the mind as a thought/image. That’s it. That’s all.

2. The “mind” (your thoughts, feelings, intuitive sense, self-awareness) cannot be touched, tasted, smelled, seen, or heard. It is not a physical thing, yet it is alive, it exists. Another word for this living entity is a “spirit.” This is what “you” are.

The body comes and goes, but the spirit remains because it is essentially all that is you. Your body is exchanging and replacing atoms and molecules as we speak. Within a matter of months or years (I forget how long) the entire physical body will have been replaced by other atoms and molecules. What you believe is your body now is constantly changing, and coming and going, because it was never really a real part of you in the first place. Only the life force, the spiritual essence, the mind, remains intact and unchanged, because it is all that is actually you. And when you’re through with this body, your spirit (you) will leave it and completely return to the real world, the spiritual world, the world that always remains constant.

This is the basis of African spirituality, and the foundation upon which all spiritual understandings were built on. But to really understand how the physical world is simply a mirror reflection of the spiritual world, you’re going to have to really gain a strong understanding of African spirituality. But no rush brother. This little discussion is not all that entirely important. I know you understand very well that spirituality is an extremely important thing, and I know that you’re down for the cause. So all of this really isn’t a big deal. You’re a civilized and intelligent brother, and I’ve enjoyed conversing with you every time we’ve talked. I’ll be glad to dialogue with you anytime you like. Ase Hiphopolx.

Love Unknown.

The feeling is mutual. And I'm in agreement with your last quote. So I'll chalk it up as mis-communication if this was what you saying thru out our friendly debate. Also the fact that I tried to encourage the replies on this thread to not rely on outside info made a very fertile ground for some heavy thinkers. Which is giving me some of the best mental workouts I have had in a while

:peace

PS I'll go a step further and say this might have even weeded out some folks here

Love_Unknown

02-20-2007, 12:35 PM

PREFACE:
LOVE_UNKNOWN:

There are many inconsistencies and illogical postulations within your post. The only tangible remark you made, which truthfully is not really tangible, was respecting the African understanding of the supernatural and Eurocentric education. However, even that is only tangible in relation to everything else you said, but wholly subject to perspective and interpretation. Allow me to qualify this.

You posit the following stipulation:

"Empirical evidence is a farce. Seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, or smelling does not actually evidence anything. What we “perceive” as elements of physical reality are only registered as thoughts and images in the mind. There exists no proof of an actual physical existence of anything that the mind perceives, and our crude human senses (among the crudest in the entire animal kingdom) are easily and often fooled."

So again we come back to this notion that nothing can be proven; one person says nothing can be proven beyond what an individual believes, another person says nothing can be proven beyond what our minds can perceive. If what you say is true within this statement of yours then why can't human beings simply just imagine and think physical existence away, or out of existence? Furthermore, if "elements of physical reality are only" perceptions as images and thoughts of the mind, then what is the image of mind itself? How does the mind perceive itself, does the mind even have an image?

Moreover, if you conceive your mind as simply a perception of itself--which is what you appear to be saying--then Jacob Caruthers was right in that "power is the ability to define reality and have others accept it as their own." Franz Fanon also stated that "The most powerful weapon in the hands of the Oppressor is the mind of the Oppressed." Thus, since you are simply a reflection of your own mind all the oppressor has to do is take control over this thing called mind, and now you become a reflection of the oppressor's will, not your own mind since reality is no longer yours to perceive.

Yet this nebulous discourse gets even more intellectually ad lib considering this statement made by you: "I cannot prove that anything other than myself is anything more than an image in my mind." So you really are simply an image in your own mind and do not truly exist, within the natural world. Here's a challenge for you: Try thinking your physical reality out of existence and become complete mind, if you can the challenge is what does your mind perceive when perception itself is all that there is? If all there is in your reality is simply some vague thing called mind and the awareness of itself, what is there left to perceive? Thus, could your mind conceive physical reality into existence when--according to you--physical reality is simply a perception of mind itself, and does not exist beyond that?

Leaving that aside you then say "My own existence however is self-evident. I know for certain that “I am.” Actually no, you're existence is not self-evident and there is no certainty of you as 'I am.' Why? Simply because if you're an image in your own mind--as you said--of your own creation, then you do not exist in any shape, form, or fashion as anything but an image within your own mind. You are not certain of anything that 'I am' and your self-evident existence, because once again as you said "What . . . . “I” am is not physical. My own self-awareness (thought) is “all” that is conclusively and essentially me."

Therefore, you are not "sitting here discussing" anything, because in order for some-thing to sit-here-discuss it has to be physical and have physicality to its existence. It has to be temporal, perception is atemporal, it has to have dimensionality--length, width, and height--which an image has none; in order to discuss you have to have an esophagus, larynx, and mouth for audibility, but we know Image has nothing of the sort. Needless to say, I don't know what is "sitting here discussing" regarding this debate sir, but it certainly isn’t you. But maybe, just maybe it is the Holy Ghost....

Here's another inconsistency of yours: "What I am cannot be touched, tasted, smelled, heard, or seen, and is therefore by definition supernatural. The . . . essence of my being itself, is supernatural. I am therefore a supernatural being, and with my own existence being the only thing in existence that I can effectively prove, all that can conclusively be proven to exist is the existence of the supernatural." Wrong again, sir.

If I take my nightstick or baton and shove it up your rectum I'm touching you. If I pour urine down your throat you're going to taste that--except if you have no tongue and lost your sense of smell. If I locked you in a room of feces, with no ventilation, you'd smell that unless of course you have no nose or loss your sense of smell. If I took a pistol and placed it at the base of your earlobe, unloaded my clip while in this position, you'd definitely hear that--although you would be certainly deaf afterwards. If the police raided your home--or wherever you are at utilizing a computer console--guns drawn and blazing, to essentially impose brutality upon you, they would see you and not some intangible, intelligible, and inaudible image.

How do I know all of this? I know this because you said "The very act that I am sitting here discussing this issue is proof positive of my own existence." Therefore you are a material being. Furthermore, how can you manifest perception as "being" when "beingness" and be-ing is the act of doing? In other words, be-ing is an action oriented process entailing doing, which also entails having the ability to do, but an Image cannot become anything other than an image. You sir are a perception of your own mind, therefore all you can do is Be, you cannot be-come, be-ing is becoming, evolving, elevating, thus a natural part of physical existence. A "being" must be something essentially other than an image to exist beyond simply that "I am" or that which only exists.

With all that said you continue this further spiral into an anomalous discourse with the following assertion: "I am both self-evident and supernatural, and so is whatever else that brought me into existence. . . . As a conscious being I am aware that I cannot, could not have, and therefore did not bring myself into existence. . . .at no point during my existence can I begin to conceptualize creating myself. . . .I exist as a “created” being. The process of my own creation is beyond my understanding . . . the full identity of my creator cannot be stated with any degree of certainty, but . . . is likewise both self-evident and supernatural." Wrong again.

Nothing else brought you into existence but your own mind; this is what you have maintained from the very beginning of your post. There is nothing else in existence but your conscious awareness of the existence of your own mind, perceiving this non-existent physicality as an image of what is actually real. There is nothing else that brought you into existence other than your mind.

Nothing is self-evident other than the fact of your own existence as an image within your own mind. As you said 'LIFE IS BUT A DREAM' and if you see life as such then you are not a conscious being; for dreaming is not a conscious act but an unconscious or subconscious process. So you are not conscious of anything reflecting this natural world that you say does not exist, but is merely ephemeral, an illusion of what is real, because all that is real is gnosis. Furthermore why would your mind be conscious of something that is only a perception of your existence, and not your existence itself? Surely your mind would find such instance of consciousness to be inconsequential and irrelevant to its own real, provable, boundless existence.

How do you come to conclude you're a "created being" when you made it clear that you're existence is Imagined? You are an imaginary being, not a created one: To have been created some-thing has to first not exist, but according to what you have declared your mind was never created--it just simply exists, "I think therefore I am." Your mind thinks, therefore it is. Your mind has neither beginning nor end because it exists for its own sake, and neither do you because you're just an image in your mind.

Simply put your conscious awareness of existing as a "created being" is only a mental perception of your existence as being created. Your consciousness of this existence is illusory and therefore does not exist in reality, because reality is your mind.

Why are you looking for the identity of your 'creator' when you already know your creation as a being is mere perception? How could some-thing that remains uncertain as to its identity (which is a euphemism for existence) be self-evident and supernatural? Moreover, "full identity" implies that you know with some certainty who, what, is your creator but have not resolved as to which of these who, what, is your creators. Regardless, again, nothing is self-evident other than the gnosis, that is your mind, and supernaturalness doesn't exist because in order for something to be super-natural naturalness must exist.

Nature is physical, but "elements of physical reality are only registered as thoughts and images in the mind." Therefore, nature is simply another image within your own mind, not a materiality. Consequently neither your created beingness nor creator (s) are real, all that appears to exists physically and absent of the mind itself is simply a projection of your minds' thoughts, nothing more.

Consider this: The only intelligibly tangible statement you said, which has the most germane truth to it is "The process of my own creation is beyond my understanding. . . ." All of this philosophizing about you're simply a Mind walking around talking, breathing, typing, sexing whatever and everything experienced by you is merely a perception in your mind, is nonsense and simply an indication of your own lacking knowledge regarding the process of your own creation.

Since you cannot grasp the simple fact that you were born from your mother's womb, you seek an answer outside of that which makes the most sense; that is you're searching for an answer outside of the natural world you reside within. You're "lost in the storm" as the old saying goes. However, you will not find this understanding in metaphysics and philosophy--you were created from a woman, within a woman, and in order to understand this creative process you must go to women, learn from and understand her. Otherwise you'll be wasting your hard earn human energy away trying to make sense of something men cannot and will not understand, unto themselves.

But of course you can simply just think your physical existence away since it's not actually real anyway. Or you can simply say "The process of my own creation is beyond my understanding . . . .," however this process is irrelevant because it is merely a perception of my own creative existence as Mind.

NeterHeru,

You need to read my whole statement again. You've misquoted me so many times I don't even know who you're talking to. And you talking about shoving night sticks and batons up my rectum, I "know" you don't know who you're talking to. Work on your reading comprehension, quote my words "exactly," and show some respect when you're talking to a civilized human being. I'll give you a day or two to clean up this mess.

hiphopolx

02-21-2007, 09:50 AM

Yes let's keep this positve and in the direction of maturity. You'll thank your true self in the end. :idea: Also are all the proofs being done on my side of this debate. Neterheru can you also provide some for your line of thought. Or is this gonna be like convincing the 'The Flat Earth society
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flatearth.html that the Earth is round?

:peace:

MenNefer

02-21-2007, 04:00 PM

hiphopolx

02-21-2007, 09:27 PM

(The importance of an inductive frame of reference)

Amalgamated ideas/concepts expressed through open ended definitions seem to always lead to *more* (if it is even correct to quantify) con-fusion. I thought the very brief expose from Shekhem Ur Shekhem RUNA alluded to this point well. Anytime we find ourselves mutually partaking in an exercise of marginalizing, making finite, placing parameters, or giving some sort of conceptual substance to an entity (even a bodiless one) there has to be an agreed upon inductive premise. How does one Know that they Know? One takes the environment and resources into consideration and draws from a frame of reference that allows for efficasy of the results. The pragmatist has a strong penchant for material effects and concretion to validate sensory experience on that particular plane of existence. The premise and the tools used are not suitable for any other endeavour in which the same deterministic/classical rules are not wholly present. This poses a proverbial gordian knot for scientist who are trying to wed classical physics with the idea of what is termed quantum entanglement. Some try to minimize to a probablistic framework but but even the super-positions don't follow a measurable logic. The Mechanist or pragmatist (epistemologist) is an aimless wanderer disconnected from the cause and concerned with the effects. Underlying the philosophy of materialism is a longing to feel complete, centered, and justified instead of an aborted creature :bye: seeking his beginnings in an infinite sea of questions and temporary answers. (In the meantime exploiting everything exploitable.

Now could you repeat that in Plain Ebonics!

:lol: I'm sry after the 3rd time reading your post that just came out......

Ok folks Lets read this again

(The importance of an inductive frame of reference)

Amalgamated ideas/concepts expressed through open ended definitions seem to always lead to *more* (if it is even correct to quantify) con-fusion. I thought the very brief expose from Shekhem Ur Shekhem RUNA alluded to this point well. Anytime we find ourselves mutually partaking in an exercise of marginalizing, making finite, placing parameters, or giving some sort of conceptual substance to an entity (even a bodiless one) there has to be an agreed upon inductive premise. How does one Know that they Know? One takes the environment and resources into consideration and draws from a frame of reference that allows for efficasy of the results. The pragmatist has a strong penchant for material effects and concretion to validate sensory experience on that particular plane of existence. The premise and the tools used are not suitable for any other endeavour in which the same deterministic/classical rules are not wholly present. This poses a proverbial gordian knot for scientist who are trying to wed classical physics with the idea of what is termed quantum entanglement. Some try to minimize to a probablistic framework but but even the super-positions don't follow a measurable logic. The Mechanist or pragmatist (epistemologist) is an aimless wanderer disconnected from the cause and concerned with the effects. Underlying the philosophy of materialism is a longing to feel complete, centered, and justified instead of an aborted creature seeking his beginnings in an infinite sea of questions and temporary answers. (In the meantime exploiting everything exploitable.

NeterHeru

02-21-2007, 11:42 PM

EMANUEL GOODMAN:

I very much appreciate your comments and the sincerity that they convey. Still I must disagree with a portion of what you said: "what one cannot see they often equate to not existing. . ." This is certainly valid, but necessarily so in all circumstances. For example, although no one has seen a feeling before no one is claiming feelings do not exist. Similarly no one has seen taste before, but we know taste exists--unless of course you're unable to extrapolate taste from a substance due to a biochemical issue.

In any case, if I understand you correctly, you were applying this statement to supernatural beings in terms of how people, who do not accept their existence, base their non-acceptance upon an assumption of non-existence since they haven't seen these supernatural beings. Please correct me if I'm wrong though.

LOVE_UNKNOWN:

I stand by what I posted in relation to your words. This statement of yours "What we “perceive” as elements of physical reality are only registered as thoughts and images in the mind." is not a misquote sir, but your very own words. It says very clearly and unambiguously that you are an image in your own mind, just like all other perceived physical elements in reality are. Perhaps you misunderstood yourself, but that's not my fault.

Regarding my examples of how physical you are they were not meant to be taken personally, but are literal examples of what you claim is not: "What I am cannot be touched, tasted, smelled, heard, or seen, and is therefore by definition supernatural." So I provided you with concrete examples, which if realistically occurred you would be 'touched,' 'tasted,' 'smelled,' 'heard,' and 'seen' regardless of what you claim. Thus, disproving your notion that by definition you are supernatural since, according to your definition, in order for you to be definitively supernatural our five senses cannot penetrate your existence, but these examples verify the fact that they certainly do.

So there is no name calling or personal insults on my part; I only addressed exactly and precisely what you said, as you said it, and did not impose any kind of context upon your words. I left them as they were posted and replied based on this specific presentation. If you are concerned with my reply you might want to re-read what you posted, rather than accuse me of having no comprehension at all. Oh and by the way, there was nothing disrespectful about what I said in my reply, and why is an Image demanding to be respected by a mere perception of his own mind?

HIPHOPOLX:

No do not discard your sayings just because I am challenging you to define them more thoroughly. At the same time though you've pointed out exactly what I was being critical of, and that is the various ways your statement "divine common intelligence," can be interpreted unless defined. Now, if I go by what you have posted, I can say you either mean humans share a common method for acquiring knowledge about their world as the deity, or its nature, which created them, or humans share a common method for acquiring knowledge about their world that is supremely beautiful and/or good.

If the above is a correct interpretation then I can honestly say I partially agree with what you mean. However, I still do not see how having this common method for acquiring knowledge is any indication of supernatural beings, our supernatural nature or our deity status. Also can you give me a present day example of someone living and breathing currently, that is at their spiritual peak which, from your perspective, would be considered having the nature of deity or is a deity?

Additionally if this individual you personally know is a deity or has the nature of deity, what world problems have they resolved? Have they ended the myriad of problems within Black communities in the United States? And, have they used their supernatural powers or divine abilities to end racism, white supremacy, and sexism?

I'm asking you these questions because you stated that "We are not spiritually at our peak so we are limited to the things we can do . . . .," and imply that there are people existing in the here and now who are currently at their spiritual peak: "compared to someone is who made it to their final level of Spiritual maturity (Gods/Goddesses)." Therefore, I'm challenging you to substantiate that claim of yours.

Lastly, if I'm correct MenNefer is most likely alluding to my position within this discussion indirectly. That is, he pointed out that Ra Un Nefer Amen (RUNA) is living proof that supernatural beings exist in addition to my approach being materialistic. Therefore his pronouncement that "The Mechanist or pragmatist (epistemologist) is an aimless wanderer disconnected from the cause and concerned with the effects."

From his standpoint I am the Mechanist or epistemologist or pragmatist, and only concerned with effects (nature, reality, the world) not the cause (Neter, Divinity, Know Thy Self). Also, with this statement here, "Underlying the philosophy of materialism is a longing to feel complete, centered, and justified instead of an aborted creature seeking his beginnings in an infinite sea of questions and temporary answers," he's basically describing Yurugu or the Incomplete Being.

Although he's describing it in a philosophical way rather than anthropological, I think he is making the same point still.

So, in short he's saying that anyone who--dare I say--thinks like me (although I am not making a claim to the philosophies of pragmatism and materialism) is searching to be complete (anomie is what this person feels), centered (an individuated consciousness is what the person has of their reality), and justified (this person doesn't have an inherent appreciation of existence itself, absent of proving why existence should have meaning), because instead of being created this person essentially birthed their own existence, by way of an abortion (i.e. metaphysically instead of going through the proper way of spiritually existing, these individuals decided to take a back door route, essentially stopping the process before it was finished and now exist as completely physical beings, incapable of perceiving, seeing, sensing etc. the presence of non-physical beings, forces, entities and so forth). Furthermore, since these persons willingly ended their spiritual creation if you will premature, they'll always be searching for an explanation of their own creation, which will never be uncovered (questions) and recovered (temporary answers) completely, due to stopping the process before it was finalized.

I hope this helps with explaining--again if I am correct--what Men Nefer is talking about Hiphopolx.

MenNefer

02-22-2007, 12:12 AM

Now could you repeat that in Plain Ebonics!

:lol: I'm sry after the 3rd time reading your post that just came out......

Ok folks Lets read this again

Mannn brothas be trippin on that ole cracka type ish. These Mo foes know **** well ehrthing about white people is about takin the flavor out of thangs. Im God (and not Gomer oz dubar) and my hustle is wraped up in what these crackas call fibonacci spirals which, by the way, is the only way I know my hustle keeps flowin while these cats keep sprayin too much starch on they clothes. This game aint straight up and down ..this thang is oops upside your head so these negroes need to stop subsituting their fingers for digits when numbers are abstract containers. Dude on the matrix said comprehension is not a requisite for cooperation...matter of fact that whole movie was about The Architect mentality jivin wit the oracle who was on some spatial temporal intution type ish. Maybe bro's and sistas can put these ways of thinking in their proper view and that would be peace ....Ahhhight den....Bare with me ...I'm a little rusty with my ebonic vernacular.

hiphopolx

02-22-2007, 12:53 AM

Mannn brothas be trippin on that ole cracka type ish. These Mo foes know **** well ehrthing about white people is about takin the flavor out of thangs. Im God (and not Gomer oz dubar) and my hustle is wraped up in what these crackas call fibonacci spirals which, by the way, is the only way I know my hustle keeps flowin while these cats keep sprayin too much starch on they clothes. This game aint straight up and down ..this thang is oops upside your head so these negroes need to stop subsituting their fingers for digits when numbers are abstract containers. Dude on the matrix said comprehension is not a requisite for cooperation...matter of fact that whole movie was about The Architect mentality jivin wit the oracle who was on some spatial temporal intution type ish. Maybe bro's and sistas can put these ways of thinking in their proper view and that would be peace ....Ahhhight den....Bare with me ...I'm a little rusty with my ebonic vernacular.

I was already on this lol

Amalgamated ideas/concepts expressed through open
ended definitions seem to always lead to *more* (if it
is even correct to quantify) con-fusion
I spit degrees by the two’s and three’s and it put in
cruise when I get to 360. And by trying to drop
jew’lls to get yall open,
came back to hit me now it’s all crazy.

. I thought the very brief expose from Shekhem Ur
Shekhem RUNA alluded to this point well.
And on the real Even the God RA broke it down. ….And
yall know the God is always on point

Anytime we find ourselves mutually partaking in an
exercise of marginalizing, making finite, placing
parameters, or giving some sort of conceptual
substance to an entity (even a bodiless one) there has
to be an agreed upon inductive premise.
Every time we try to build on the universe we can
never see each other. We got put our domes together
and start from the third rock from the sun son….. word
How does one Know that they Know? One takes the
environment and resources into consideration and draws
from a frame of reference that allows for efficacy of
the results.
So how we gonna know when the word is bond?
Mathematics God-body the Earth Moon and stars. If
what you say ain’t representing one of these or one of
these ain’t reppin what you say, it’s non-cypher God …
Word is bond That’s how we getting down
The pragmatist has a strong penchant for material
effects and concretion to validate sensory experience
on that particular plane of existence.
We gotta be better than the 85%. Who is still sleep
cause they only know themselves by the senses
representing the 7 holes on they face.
The premise and the tools used are not suitable for
any other endeavour in which the same
deterministic/classical rules are not wholly present.
This poses a proverbial gordian knot for scientist who
are trying to wed classical physics with the idea of
what is termed quantum entanglement.
You see before when we wasn’t coming right and exact
on the path of math. We was like the 85% walking
around deaf dumb and blind, but now we got 360 on
lock. Bring light to the dark.
Some try to minimize to a probablistic framework but
but even the super-positions don't follow a measurable
logic. The Mechanist or pragmatist (epistemologist) is
an aimless wanderer disconnected from the cause and
concerned with the effects. Underlying the philosophy
of materialism is a longing to feel complete,
centered, and justified instead of an aborted creature
seeking his beginnings in an infinite sea of questions
and temporary answers. (In the meantime exploiting
everything exploitable.

Aight God let’s both put half on bag Five and get
lifted.
NY ebonic breakdown

:lol:

nibs

02-22-2007, 01:51 AM

@ NeterHeru

this exchange has the wrong foundation. you are approaching these questions from the point of view of a skeptic, not as a seeker of knowledge. the difference is that the seeker of knowledge is willing to do work that is necessary, and the skeptic insists that the work must be done for him, in order for him to be convinced.

pre-conceived spiritual notions

throw away any ideas you have from any exposure to the gods of islam, christianity & islam. those doctrines speak to gods and spiritual beings that never existed. they are distortions of events which are either true or symbolic.

purpose of spirituality

if you follow the african view of spirituality, the purpose is to live a more complete and fulfilling life. life++. thus, a person unwilling to do the work for themselves can enjoy the understanding of life they have, and that's it. they may be unaware of the world existing around them, but it's their choice.

you won't find "proof" of spiritual beings on a message board; you will find metaphysics and philosophy, which act as landmarks that you will recognize if you choose the path to experience spirituality on a higher level.

for example, someone could describe astral projection and obe's to you, this would explain that consciousness can exist in a non-material, spiritual form. until you choose to experiment with that yourself, it isn't proof for you.

with that background...

(NeterHeru) - Millenniums ago human beings had sufficiently resolved the age old questions respecting existence and reality. However, it appears that some African people are still stuck in this mental quagmire

this is 100% inaccurate, and the opposite of reality. it is indo-europeans that have never come to a conclusion over existence & reality, and continue to create new theories and understandings; to this day.
the african view of reality has not changed in over tens of thousands of years, if not longer.

(NeterHeru) - It's little wonder then why European men still control and dictate world affairs.

this argument is historically inaccurate. the short indo-european reign that we are currently experiencing is the most self-destructive culture, and will ultimately be viewed as one of the shortest lived "empires" or dynasties.

(NeterHeru) - Africans said to White people called Greeks and Romans, "Our goddesses and gods are more powerful than your Gods and Goddesses."

that remains a true statement

(NeterHeru) - And the White people said "Well that maybe so, but your deities are not more powerful than our Spears, Swords, Physical Methods of Torture, and Phalanx." Thus many African civilizations and people vanished consequently.

the tone & scope of your argument is contradictory to history itself. it sounds nice on paper, but does not reflect the historical facts.

(NeterHeru) - How ironic that within the 21st century there are still African people who think, feel, and believe that their conception and belief of the world as it is, will save them from the wrath of European conquest, destruction, and continued world submission and domination.

this current train of thought you are on is deserving of it's own thread. it's drifting off-topic here.
ultimately, the issue is learning and recapturing the wisdom of the past; and using that as a foundation to build on.
not some magical bullet.

either your knowledge comes from africans, from europeans, or from distorted interpretations of africans by europeans.

only one of those three sources is trustworthy.

(NeterHeru) - There are many inconsistencies and illogical postulations within your (Love_Unknown) post.

re-read the post, view it as a framework by which to think.

(NeterHeru) - If what you say is true within this statement of yours then why can't human beings simply just imagine and think physical existence away, or out of existence?

it is possible, but not a useful thing to do as you exist in the physical for a purpose.
there isn't 1 level of existence or two (matter/spirit) there are several components. 9 levels is a common understanding. anyway, to "think away physical existence" would effectively be to enter a catatonic state where only the base physiological functions continue in the body, but all higher levels of consciousness leave.

at some point in time, you will die. what's the rush?

(NeterHeru) - Furthermore, if "elements of physical reality are only" perceptions as images and thoughts of the mind, then what is the image of mind itself? How does the mind perceive itself, does the mind even have an image?

you see 3D images as reality. the argument was of a scientific nature; how the mind interprets stimulus. you can't trip up over the science here.

(NeterHeru) - Moreover, if you conceive your mind as simply a perception of itself

the only thing the mind can truly percieve is itself. everything else is varying levels of "dream". dream state. waking state. many view spirituality as tuning into a higher state of consciousness; tuning into a state where the sub-conscious and conscious mind are unified. tuning into the modes (dimensions) where spiritual beings exist.
a more complete reality.

(NeterHeru) - Franz Fanon also stated that "The most powerful weapon in the hands of the Oppressor is the mind of the Oppressed." Thus, since you are simply a reflection of your own mind all the oppressor has to do is take control over this thing called mind, and now you become a reflection of the oppressor's will, not your own mind since reality is no longer yours to perceive.

higher states of conscious awareness would transcend such manipulation. you can only deceive in the world of appearances, as a deception or manipulation is an appearance. deception and manipulation do not exist in reality.

(NeterHeru) - Here's a challenge for you: Try thinking your physical reality out of existence and become complete mind

what purpose does that challenge serve? if you were being cheated at your local supermarket and only recieving half the value for your currency...the person informing you that you are being cheated need not prove that fact to you. if you are concerned by the warning, you should investigate what the true value of your currency is.
ditto your life and existence. do you know the true totality of your existence? how could love_unknown challenging himself answer those issues for you?

(NeterHeru) - Thus, could your mind conceive physical reality into existence when--according to you--physical reality is simply a perception of mind itself, and does not exist beyond that?

that principle (the mind percieving reality) is meaningful on multiple levels, meaning reality itself and also how you percieve and feel about reality..etc.
these are concepts that are present in ancient african philosophy, concepts that were taught to the greeks by africans...etc. we can't trip over the meaning of these concepts. they are established.

(NeterHeru) - Leaving that aside you then say "My own existence however is self-evident. I know for certain that “I am.” Actually no, you're existence is not self-evident and there is no certainty of you as 'I am.' Why? Simply because if you're an image in your own mind--as you said--of your own creation, then you do not exist in any shape, form, or fashion as anything but an image within your own mind.

look closer and understand why the statement is true. "i" isn't associated with the sensual perceptions of the mind (the physical) but the perciever (the mind itself). the only thing known to be true is the perceiver and not the perceived.

(NeterHeru) - perception is atemporal

that's an interesting idea.

(NeterHeru) - it has to have dimensionality--length, width, and height--which an image has none; in order to discuss you have to have an esophagus, larynx, and mouth for audibility, but we know Image has nothing of the sort.

the concept of a "mental image" is not a foreign one. it encompasses all sensual experience.

(NeterHeru) - Here's another inconsistency of yours: "What I am cannot be touched, tasted, smelled, heard, or seen, and is therefore by definition supernatural. The . . . essence of my being itself, is supernatural.

this argument also was not hard to follow. love unknown does not associate his existence with the false reflection of physical existence, but with the perciever of that reflection. the indwelling consciousness. that which is not present in the physical world, but associates itself with a physical form.

(NeterHeru) - If I take my nightstick or baton and shove it up your rectum I'm touching you.

wrong. you would not be touching me, you would be touching my body. spiritual beings tend to be possessive in the physical realm. it's one of the innate abilities of the physical realm; the ability to "own" and "experience" "things".

(NeterHeru) - If I pour urine down your throat you're going to taste that--except if you have no tongue and lost your sense of smell.

almost correct. you're getting better. you would be affecting "my" sense of smell, as long as "my" body has a nose/tongue. "you" can influence what the perceiver is able to experience. you cannot influence the perceiver.

why urine and not lemonade? the vulgarity of the argument is meant to hide the lact of substance?

(NeterHeru) - If I locked you in a room of feces, with no ventilation, you'd smell

more vulgarity? why? that is a manipulation of the tone of the discussion through style as opposed to substance. bad form!

(NeterHeru) - How do I know all of this? I know this because you said "The very act that I am sitting here discussing this issue is proof positive of my own existence." Therefore you are a material being.

re-read the original post. you will laugh at how far off your interpretation has missed the mark.

(NeterHeru) - In other words, be-ing is an action oriented process entailing doing, which also entails having the ability to do

"be" is either a noun or a verb. as a verb it's a reference to action. as a noun it's a reference to existence. to be is to exist.

why argue semantics?

(NeterHeru) - an Image cannot become anything other than an image.

the image changes for the perceiver. the image is in a constant state of change.

(NeterHeru) - A "being" must be something essentially other than an image

the being is the perceiver of images.

(Love_Unkown) - As a conscious being I am aware that I cannot, could not have, and therefore did not bring myself into existence...

alternatively, you simply do not remember bringing yourself into existence.

(NeterHeru) - Nothing else brought you into existence but your own mind; this is what you have maintained from the very beginning of your post.

here i agree with you.

(NeterHeru) - for dreaming is not a conscious act but an unconscious or subconscious process.

who told you that?

dreaming and the awakened state are various levels of consciousness.

dreaming is conscious, lucid dreaming is a higher state of consciousness...etc.

unconscious == dead.

there is no reason for us to accept or think with your paradigm of "unconscious". what most refer to as unconscious is simply conscious processes that are not the focus of awareness.

(NeterHeru) - How do you come to conclude you're a "created being" when you made it clear that you're existence is Imagined?

this may be an interesting avenue of questioning.

(NeterHeru) - To have been created some-thing has to first not exist, but according to what you have declared your mind was never created--it just simply exists, "I think therefore I am." Your mind thinks, therefore it is. Your mind has neither beginning nor end because it exists for its own sake, and neither do you because you're just an image in your mind.

why doesn't the mind have a beginning? at what point does the mind begin thinking? at the point when consciousness becomes aware of itself...thus; we can identify a beginning...

(NeterHeru) - Why are you looking for the identity of your 'creator' when you already know your creation as a being is mere perception?

if you "exist" what else "exists"? not in the illusory physical, but in the realm of percievers?

what sustains that process?

(NeterHeru) -How could some-thing that remains uncertain as to its identity (which is a euphemism for existence) be self-evident and supernatural?

certainty of the mechanism of existence, vs existence itself. not the same issue.

(NeterHeru) - Nature is physical, but "elements of physical reality are only registered as thoughts and images in the mind."

work within the paradigm presented. is nature more than physical? what levels does "nature" exist on.
personally, i view nature as encompassing all levels of existence; but if you are referring to plants, animals & humans as nature...beyond the physical...where do they exist.

we know how to interact with them in the physical. where else can we interact with them?

(NeterHeru) - you were created from a woman, within a woman, and in order to understand this creative process you must go to women, learn from and understand her.

very true, on many levels.
the feminine principle must have come first.

nibs

02-22-2007, 01:59 AM

@ MenNefer & hiphopolx

:laugh:

it should be a rule that all posts require an ebonics break down. :)

english is a dead language, and the ebonics & supreme mathmatics & wisdom reestablishes an amount of symbolism to that dead language.

hiphopolx

02-22-2007, 11:03 AM

peace

HIPHOPOLX:

No do not discard your sayings just because I am challenging you to define them more thoroughly.

hiphopolx: I just don't get hung up debating the labels and language we are using and tackle the purpose and reason for the debate I or anybody sets.

At the same time though you've pointed out exactly what I was being critical of, and that is the various ways your statement "divine common intelligence," can be interpreted unless defined. Now, if I go by what you have posted, I can say you either mean humans share a common method for acquiring knowledge about their world as the deity, or its nature, which created them, or humans share a common method for acquiring knowledge about their world that is supremely beautiful and/or good.

If the above is a correct interpretation then I can honestly say I partially agree with what you mean. However, I still do not see how having this common method for acquiring knowledge is any indication of supernatural beings, our supernatural nature or our deity status.

hiphopolx: And you quickly manefested the reason why I didn't want to get caught up on language and labels. I gave several examples of how I used the term 'common divine knowledge' And you chose not deal with the context of how I use it. But I guess you are more comfortable dealing with language and definitions from each word that I found on the net. Never mind my actual use of the term. It is not just a common method of acquiring knowledge more importantly it is the built in knowledge I'm focusing on. I must point out that the nature of this knowledge is unlimited and unformed which is why we dont perceive it. (try describing or defining your consciousness to experience what I mean)Also there is still the issue of supernatural and natural. I am telling you that I am not making a distiction between the two. You say the things I'm sayin like math finding its way into nature is natural . And due to the context of what we are both saying I'd say nature=God (actually one of the many aspects but I'm trying to stay on point)

Also can you give me a present day example of someone living and breathing currently, that is at their spiritual peak which, from your perspective, would be considered having the nature of deity or is a deity?
hiphopolx: Being that I also am not at my peak yet I think NIBS might be able to answer that better right now.
Additionally if this individual you personally know is a deity or has the nature of deity, what world problems have they resolved? Have they ended the myriad of problems within Black communities in the United States? And, have they used their supernatural powers or divine abilities to end racism, white supremacy, and sexism?
hiphopolx:Maybe this individuel/s understands these problems were meant to be to make us a stronger ppl. Given the the fact we become more wise in the face of conflict.

I'm asking you these questions because you stated that "We are not spiritually at our peak so we are limited to the things we can do . . . .," and imply that there are people existing in the here and now who are currently at their spiritual peak: "compared to someone is who made it to their final level of Spiritual maturity (Gods/Goddesses)." Therefore, I'm challenging you to substantiate that claim of yours.
hiphopolx:There are ppl around the world that can do certain things I can't do yet.(i'm rushing now cause I have to get ready for work so bear with me an this reply thanks) I'm not taking records of their where abouts and distubing them. If I run across one again I'll give them you're e-mail address and you can ask them to prove their talents to you I gotta go for now but I will continue this lata
Lastly, if I'm correct MenNefer is most likely alluding to my position within this discussion indirectly. That is, he pointed out that Ra Un Nefer Amen (RUNA) is living proof that supernatural beings exist in addition to my approach being materialistic. Therefore his pronouncement that "The Mechanist or pragmatist (epistemologist) is an aimless wanderer disconnected from the cause and concerned with the effects."

From his standpoint I am the Mechanist or epistemologist or pragmatist, and only concerned with effects (nature, reality, the world) not the cause (Neter, Divinity, Know Thy Self). Also, with this statement here, "Underlying the philosophy of materialism is a longing to feel complete, centered, and justified instead of an aborted creature seeking his beginnings in an infinite sea of questions and temporary answers," he's basically describing Yurugu or the Incomplete Being.

Although he's describing it in a philosophical way rather than anthropological, I think he is making the same point still.

So, in short he's saying that anyone who--dare I say--thinks like me (although I am not making a claim to the philosophies of pragmatism and materialism) is searching to be complete (anomie is what this person feels), centered (an individuated consciousness is what the person has of their reality), and justified (this person doesn't have an inherent appreciation of existence itself, absent of proving why existence should have meaning), because instead of being created this person essentially birthed their own existence, by way of an abortion (i.e. metaphysically instead of going through the proper way of spiritually existing, these individuals decided to take a back door route, essentially stopping the process before it was finished and now exist as completely physical beings, incapable of perceiving, seeing, sensing etc. the presence of non-physical beings, forces, entities and so forth). Furthermore, since these persons willingly ended their spiritual creation if you will premature, they'll always be searching for an explanation of their own creation, which will never be uncovered (questions) and recovered (temporary answers) completely, due to stopping the process before it was finalized.

I hope this helps with explaining--again if I am correct--what Men Nefer is talking about Hiphopolx.

Love_Unknown

02-23-2007, 10:13 AM

@ NeterHeru

pre-conceived spiritual notions

throw away any ideas you have from any exposure to the gods of islam, christianity & islam. those doctrines speak to gods and spiritual beings that never existed. they are distortions of events which are either true or symbolic.

purpose of spirituality

if you follow the african view of spirituality, the purpose is to live a more complete and fulfilling life. life++. thus, a person unwilling to do the work for themselves can enjoy the understanding of life they have, and that's it. they may be unaware of the world existing around them, but it's their choice.

you won't find "proof" of spiritual beings on a message board; you will find metaphysics and philosophy, which act as landmarks that you will recognize if you choose the path to experience spirituality on a higher level.

for example, someone could describe astral projection and obe's to you, this would explain that consciousness can exist in a non-material, spiritual form. until you choose to experiment with that yourself, it isn't proof for you.

with that background...

(NeterHeru) - Millenniums ago human beings had sufficiently resolved the age old questions respecting existence and reality. However, it appears that some African people are still stuck in this mental quagmire

this is 100% inaccurate, and the opposite of reality. it is indo-europeans that have never come to a conclusion over existence & reality, and continue to create new theories and understandings; to this day.
the african view of reality has not changed in over tens of thousands of years, if not longer.

(NeterHeru) - It's little wonder then why European men still control and dictate world affairs.

this argument is historically inaccurate. the short indo-european reign that we are currently experiencing is the most self-destructive culture, and will ultimately be viewed as one of the shortest lived "empires" or dynasties.

(NeterHeru) - Africans said to White people called Greeks and Romans, "Our goddesses and gods are more powerful than your Gods and Goddesses."

that remains a true statement

(NeterHeru) - And the White people said "Well that maybe so, but your deities are not more powerful than our Spears, Swords, Physical Methods of Torture, and Phalanx." Thus many African civilizations and people vanished consequently.

the tone & scope of your argument is contradictory to history itself. it sounds nice on paper, but does not reflect the historical facts.

(NeterHeru) - How ironic that within the 21st century there are still African people who think, feel, and believe that their conception and belief of the world as it is, will save them from the wrath of European conquest, destruction, and continued world submission and domination.

this current train of thought you are on is deserving of it's own thread. it's drifting off-topic here.
ultimately, the issue is learning and recapturing the wisdom of the past; and using that as a foundation to build on.
not some magical bullet.

either your knowledge comes from africans, from europeans, or from distorted interpretations of africans by europeans.

only one of those three sources is trustworthy.

(NeterHeru) - There are many inconsistencies and illogical postulations within your (Love_Unknown) post.

re-read the post, view it as a framework by which to think.

(NeterHeru) - If what you say is true within this statement of yours then why can't human beings simply just imagine and think physical existence away, or out of existence?

it is possible, but not a useful thing to do as you exist in the physical for a purpose.
there isn't 1 level of existence or two (matter/spirit) there are several components. 9 levels is a common understanding. anyway, to "think away physical existence" would effectively be to enter a catatonic state where only the base physiological functions continue in the body, but all higher levels of consciousness leave.

at some point in time, you will die. what's the rush?

(NeterHeru) - Furthermore, if "elements of physical reality are only" perceptions as images and thoughts of the mind, then what is the image of mind itself? How does the mind perceive itself, does the mind even have an image?

you see 3D images as reality. the argument was of a scientific nature; how the mind interprets stimulus. you can't trip up over the science here.

(NeterHeru) - Moreover, if you conceive your mind as simply a perception of itself

the only thing the mind can truly percieve is itself. everything else is varying levels of "dream". dream state. waking state. many view spirituality as tuning into a higher state of consciousness; tuning into a state where the sub-conscious and conscious mind are unified. tuning into the modes (dimensions) where spiritual beings exist.
a more complete reality.

(NeterHeru) - Franz Fanon also stated that "The most powerful weapon in the hands of the Oppressor is the mind of the Oppressed." Thus, since you are simply a reflection of your own mind all the oppressor has to do is take control over this thing called mind, and now you become a reflection of the oppressor's will, not your own mind since reality is no longer yours to perceive.

higher states of conscious awareness would transcend such manipulation. you can only deceive in the world of appearances, as a deception or manipulation is an appearance. deception and manipulation do not exist in reality.

(NeterHeru) - Here's a challenge for you: Try thinking your physical reality out of existence and become complete mind

what purpose does that challenge serve? if you were being cheated at your local supermarket and only recieving half the value for your currency...the person informing you that you are being cheated need not prove that fact to you. if you are concerned by the warning, you should investigate what the true value of your currency is.
ditto your life and existence. do you know the true totality of your existence? how could love_unknown challenging himself answer those issues for you?

(NeterHeru) - Thus, could your mind conceive physical reality into existence when--according to you--physical reality is simply a perception of mind itself, and does not exist beyond that?

that principle (the mind percieving reality) is meaningful on multiple levels, meaning reality itself and also how you percieve and feel about reality..etc.
these are concepts that are present in ancient african philosophy, concepts that were taught to the greeks by africans...etc. we can't trip over the meaning of these concepts. they are established.

(NeterHeru) - Leaving that aside you then say "My own existence however is self-evident. I know for certain that “I am.” Actually no, you're existence is not self-evident and there is no certainty of you as 'I am.' Why? Simply because if you're an image in your own mind--as you said--of your own creation, then you do not exist in any shape, form, or fashion as anything but an image within your own mind.

look closer and understand why the statement is true. "i" isn't associated with the sensual perceptions of the mind (the physical) but the perciever (the mind itself). the only thing known to be true is the perceiver and not the perceived.

(NeterHeru) - perception is atemporal

that's an interesting idea.

(NeterHeru) - it has to have dimensionality--length, width, and height--which an image has none; in order to discuss you have to have an esophagus, larynx, and mouth for audibility, but we know Image has nothing of the sort.

the concept of a "mental image" is not a foreign one. it encompasses all sensual experience.

(NeterHeru) - Here's another inconsistency of yours: "What I am cannot be touched, tasted, smelled, heard, or seen, and is therefore by definition supernatural. The . . . essence of my being itself, is supernatural.

this argument also was not hard to follow. love unknown does not associate his existence with the false reflection of physical existence, but with the perciever of that reflection. the indwelling consciousness. that which is not present in the physical world, but associates itself with a physical form.

(NeterHeru) - If I take my nightstick or baton and shove it up your rectum I'm touching you.

wrong. you would not be touching me, you would be touching my body. spiritual beings tend to be possessive in the physical realm. it's one of the innate abilities of the physical realm; the ability to "own" and "experience" "things".

(NeterHeru) - If I pour urine down your throat you're going to taste that--except if you have no tongue and lost your sense of smell.

almost correct. you're getting better. you would be affecting "my" sense of smell, as long as "my" body has a nose/tongue. "you" can influence what the perceiver is able to experience. you cannot influence the perceiver.

why urine and not lemonade? the vulgarity of the argument is meant to hide the lact of substance?

(NeterHeru) - If I locked you in a room of feces, with no ventilation, you'd smell

more vulgarity? why? that is a manipulation of the tone of the discussion through style as opposed to substance. bad form!

(NeterHeru) - How do I know all of this? I know this because you said "The very act that I am sitting here discussing this issue is proof positive of my own existence." Therefore you are a material being.

re-read the original post. you will laugh at how far off your interpretation has missed the mark.

(NeterHeru) - In other words, be-ing is an action oriented process entailing doing, which also entails having the ability to do

"be" is either a noun or a verb. as a verb it's a reference to action. as a noun it's a reference to existence. to be is to exist.

why argue semantics?

(NeterHeru) - an Image cannot become anything other than an image.

the image changes for the perceiver. the image is in a constant state of change.

(NeterHeru) - A "being" must be something essentially other than an image

the being is the perceiver of images.

(Love_Unkown) - As a conscious being I am aware that I cannot, could not have, and therefore did not bring myself into existence...

alternatively, you simply do not remember bringing yourself into existence.

(NeterHeru) - Nothing else brought you into existence but your own mind; this is what you have maintained from the very beginning of your post.

here i agree with you.

(NeterHeru) - for dreaming is not a conscious act but an unconscious or subconscious process.

who told you that?

dreaming and the awakened state are various levels of consciousness.

dreaming is conscious, lucid dreaming is a higher state of consciousness...etc.

unconscious == dead.

there is no reason for us to accept or think with your paradigm of "unconscious". what most refer to as unconscious is simply conscious processes that are not the focus of awareness.

(NeterHeru) - How do you come to conclude you're a "created being" when you made it clear that you're existence is Imagined?

this may be an interesting avenue of questioning.

(NeterHeru) - To have been created some-thing has to first not exist, but according to what you have declared your mind was never created--it just simply exists, "I think therefore I am." Your mind thinks, therefore it is. Your mind has neither beginning nor end because it exists for its own sake, and neither do you because you're just an image in your mind.

why doesn't the mind have a beginning? at what point does the mind begin thinking? at the point when consciousness becomes aware of itself...thus; we can identify a beginning...

(NeterHeru) - Why are you looking for the identity of your 'creator' when you already know your creation as a being is mere perception?

if you "exist" what else "exists"? not in the illusory physical, but in the realm of percievers?

what sustains that process?

(NeterHeru) -How could some-thing that remains uncertain as to its identity (which is a euphemism for existence) be self-evident and supernatural?

certainty of the mechanism of existence, vs existence itself. not the same issue.

(NeterHeru) - Nature is physical, but "elements of physical reality are only registered as thoughts and images in the mind."

work within the paradigm presented. is nature more than physical? what levels does "nature" exist on.
personally, i view nature as encompassing all levels of existence; but if you are referring to plants, animals & humans as nature...beyond the physical...where do they exist.

we know how to interact with them in the physical. where else can we interact with them?

(NeterHeru) - you were created from a woman, within a woman, and in order to understand this creative process you must go to women, learn from and understand her.

very true, on many levels.
the feminine principle must have come first.

Brother Nibs you're brilliant, and I'll expand on my thoughts behind such an accolade and also make a couple comments on some of your statements, but it's pretty late right now and I'd prefer to be at my mental best when exercising with intellectual heavyweights such as yourself, so I'll catch you in the morning. Ase

hiphopolx

02-23-2007, 11:10 AM

Brother Nibs you're brilliant, and I'll expand on my thoughts behind such an accolade and also make a couple comments on some of your statements, but it's pretty late right now and I'd prefer to be at my mental best when exercising with intellectual heavyweights such as yourself, so I'll catch you in the morning. Ase

This is another thing I'm in total agreement with. Nibs is a definite mental heavyweight.

Nibs could you expand on something you said earlier @Neterheru

(NeterHeru) - for dreaming is not a conscious act but an unconscious or subconscious process.

who told you that?

dreaming and the awakened state are various levels of consciousness.

dreaming is conscious, lucid dreaming is a higher state of consciousness...etc.

unconscious == dead.

there is no reason for us to accept or think with your paradigm of "unconscious". what most refer to as unconscious is simply conscious processes that are not the focus of awareness.

The different levels of consciousness. When I'm very tired I hallucinate sometimes and some of the episodes are like dreams, as a matter of fact I thought they were dreams until a few years ago. The reason I mistook the hallucinations as dreams was cause I'd only have them I was tired. But the 2 felt very different and It was hard to verbally describe the difference cause this is not a subject ppl talk about nor understand.

peace bro

MenNefer

02-27-2007, 09:06 PM

That is, he pointed out that Ra Un Nefer Amen (RUNA) is living proof that supernatural beings exist in addition to my approach being materialistic.

1) Not to take away from the validity of your statement, I just don't know where I actually pointed that out in particular. (ie, Ra Un Nefer Amen (RUNA) is living proof that supernatural beings exist )

nibs

02-28-2007, 07:39 PM

hiphopolx

02-28-2007, 11:00 PM

(nibs) - dreaming and the awakened state are various levels of consciousness.

dreaming is conscious, lucid dreaming is a higher state of consciousness...etc.

unconscious == dead.

(hiphopolx) - Nibs could you expand on something you said earlier @Neterheru
The different levels of consciousness.

sure :)

consciousness itself becomes divided between the indwelling intelligence within you, and perceiving and interpreting the stimulus that you receive and interact with.

awareness is the focal point within your consciousness.

in a dream state, your indwelling intelligence has control over the sensations/ideas/insperiences that you are aware of; however the nature/direction of these insperiences are not willfully controlled.

in a lucid dream state, your indwelling intelligence has control over the sensations/ideas/insperiences that you are aware of; however you are able to willfully direct and interact in this process. awareness would be focused on sensations/ideas/insperiences generated within your own mind; however the nature/direction of these insperiences are not intentionally controlled.

in the waking state your indwelling intelligence is primarily in the background, and your awareness is on sensations that are seemingly external to you.

you can also tune your consciousness into, and become aware of, spiritual "things"; or things on a spiritual level.

with levels of consciousness, i was referring to the focus of your awareness; the source of what you are aware of, and what/how that source is controlled. whether it be internal or external; willful or unwillful; spiritual, imagined or material.
your awareness may encompass a blend of all these things, and is more of a gradual gradient; than fixed levels.

(hiphopolx) - When I'm very tired I hallucinate sometimes and some of the episodes are like dreams, as a matter of fact I thought they were dreams until a few years ago. The reason I mistook the hallucinations as dreams was cause I'd only have them I was tired.

this sounds like you are slipping into a hypnogagic state; which is the state right before sleep; where you remain somewhat aware of your surroundings, but your indwelling intelligence is moving to the forefront of your awareness as well. your awareness would be a blend of dream/imagined + material.

it's often possibly to use this state to trigger an out of body experience; as the body is relaxed, the awareness is no longer focused on the material...etc. if you can become aware of yourself in this state; if you project your bodily awareness in the material away from your body (another part of the room), that can trigger an obe.

your hallucinations could be a dream influenced by your material surroundings; or you could be experiencing some type of obe already.

I really appreciate you taking the time to reply thanks.
But now you just opened up more ??? Like what's an obe?
Also I have been in that situation enough times to anticipate what I'd do the next time it happens, and when I become aware I'm in this state, I'd try to experiment. One big problem I have is my weightlessness or other words, in my mind I'm either able to move anywhere I want pretty much(similar to the Neo thing). But in the few times this has happened I've never made it to the place I'd intended to go. And other times I'm very light so I'm floating like how you would see someone on the moon. Which makes it hard to do any thing. Another thing you said
"your awareness would be a blend of dream/imagined + material."
You hit the nail on the head but most of the time when this happens Crazy is a understatement. One second I'm in this state and then the things that are moving and animating morph into what ever I'm looking at when I come out of this state. It's really something out of a movie with better special effects. For the most part it's just sounds.(I think this is what some ppl might mistake for something they've seen on TV or somthing crazier)
Also you said
"you can also tune your consciousness into, and become aware of, spiritual "things"; or things on a spiritual level."
and
"you can also tune your consciousness into, and become aware of, spiritual "things"; or things on a spiritual level"
I definitly want to go into these in detail. You've mentioned it a few times before and I've been wanting to ask you about this.
So that's it for now hopefully I'll hear word from you soon

:peace:

nibs

03-01-2007, 12:06 AM

(hiphopolx) - I really appreciate you taking the time to reply thanks.

the appreciation is mutual. :)

(hiphopolx) - But now you just opened up more ??? Like what's an obe?

obe is shorthand for out-of-body-experience.
an obe is essentially you projecting your consciousness into a spiritual (energetic) body and using that as a vehicle to maneuver in a "spiritual" world.

there are various levels to obe, if your spiritual environment is essentially a copy of your normal environment, that is generally regarded as an etheral projection, or real-time projection; which is considered one level above the material universe.

if your spiritual environment bares little relation to your material environment, that is more likely an astral projection.

your experiences sound like a realtime projection, pretty fascinating stuff :)

(hiphopolx) - One big problem I have is my weightlessness or other words, in my mind I'm either able to move anywhere I want pretty much(similar to the Neo thing). But in the few times this has happened I've never made it to the place I'd intended to go.

you may need to keep your mind focused on where you want to go. if your mind's focus shifts, then the destination shifts. thus you need to hold onto the idea longer, to ensure arriving at your place of intent.

(hiphopolx) - And other times I'm very light so I'm floating like how you would see someone on the moon. Which makes it hard to do any thing.

you may need to willfully assert your nature of existence, rather than "letting it flow". mentally repeating a command to yourself to direct what's going on...etc.

"your awareness would be a blend of dream/imagined + material."

(hiphopolx) - You hit the nail on the head but most of the time when this happens Crazy is a understatement. One second I'm in this state and then the things that are moving and animating morph into what ever I'm looking at when I come out of this state. It's really something out of a movie with better special effects. For the most part it's just sounds.(I think this is what some ppl might mistake for something they've seen on TV or somthing crazier)

yup, you need your awareness to be completely in one body or the other, otherwise you will have crosstalk, both visually, and possibly feeling that you are in two places at once.

"you can also tune your consciousness into, and become aware of, spiritual "things"; or things on a spiritual level."

(hiphopolx) - I definitly want to go into these in detail. You've mentioned it a few times before and I've been wanting to ask you about this.

initially i touched on the basic distinction of material & spiritual.
the spiritual realm is generally divided into 7 levels between the physical body, and the source (god consciousness). 9 total, but 7 intermediate planes of existence.
the lowest planes are occupied by beings with physical bodies, but the higher planes are occupied by ancestral spirits, deities...etc.
in most african religions, they will use invocation to allow their deities to use the invokers physical body as a vehicle to manifest in the physical. with obe's, and projecting the astral body and higher bodies in particular, it is possible to communicate with the deities in the spiritual realm. ancestral spirits as well. in kemet these practices typically include protection rituals, and purification rituals (ablutions + prayers) for protection from negative forces/entities.

my own knowledge of this comes from experimenting with it and also books by robert bruce and a couple other authors.
i find it easier to "get out" from the hypnogagic state when i awake or am falling asleep, but as it is difficult to catch those, i am working on projecting from a meditative state.

NeterHeru

03-01-2007, 12:53 AM

NIBS:

You've made a fatal flaw within this discussion, which if it were being handled in the appropriate manner would not have occurred. What do I mean by that? Well I mean that if you were focusing on the subject matter and sticking to it, you wouldn't be wasting time attempting to analyze me or my approach.

Here is the essence of your flaw: "you are approaching these questions from the point of view of a skeptic, not as a seeker of knowledge. the difference is that the seeker of knowledge is willing to do work that is necessary, and the skeptic insists that the work must be done for him, in order for him to be convinced." And in every respect you are completely wrong in this assertion.

Firstly, I have never insisted on anyone doing any work for me, because the burden of proof are on those who claim supernatural things, beings, and powers exist. All I have asked, like some reasonably intelligent person, is that if these things exist where is the evidence? And if there is evidence why does it not logically correspond to the reality we are living in presently?

Secondly, the explanations you and others have provided for justifications of these things' existence do not make sense logically, since they're not in accord with our reality. Nevertheless, my approach is of a skeptic to the degree that a skeptic fundamentally questions the authenticity of any claim that is purported to be factual or true. People make the claim, like you, all the time that supernatural things and beings exist, yet when confronted with providing evidence for such a claim, the result focuses on not "evidence," but being "self-evident." Hence, "these things exist you just can't see them."

Still all of this has nothing to do with your belief that skeptics want others to do the work for them, because that's totally illogical: A person is a skeptic based upon the fact that they have done the work, but either questions or doubts the evidence pertaining to whatever it is being claimed or asserted. An individual cannot be a skeptic on an issue, without first having done some research on the issue itself to make them doubtful (read: skeptical) of the issue. This is simply a fact, an undisputable fact. So it seems quite odd that you would proclaim a skeptic is waiting for others' to convince them of something, because the skeptic has not done the work for their self on what this something is, when skeptics are already convinced that the evidence is invalid based on research.

Regardless, by assuming that in order to take a favorable position on this topic one has to be "seeking knowledge" about it is completely absurd. That's tantamount to saying the reason why you yourself are so adamantly opposed to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic faiths is because ""you are approaching these questions from the point of view of a skeptic, not as a seeker of knowledge. the difference is that the seeker of knowledge is willing to do work that is necessary, and the skeptic insists that the work must be done for him, in order for him to be convinced." Sound familiar? This is precisely why your logic is flawed and meaningless in trying to analyze myself and approach.

This kind of reasoning is very perplexing coming from an individual who purports that these same religions are "dead religions," and yet does not see that his reasoning is the same as practitioners of these faiths, who claim if persons like yourself had an "open-minded approach to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam," rather than a questioning and skeptical approach, you'd be seeking knowledge from these faiths rather than questioning them. And this logic says that the proof Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions are not "dead religions" is self-evident, just like your logic says the existence of supernatural things and beings is self-evident.

Both reasoning are illogical since self-evidence is purely subjective and personal, not objective and reasonable. No one can critically think (engage in reason) about something that is self-evident because it is self-evident, therefore no logic is needed to explain the evidence of itself. Thus, we go back to my assertion that this evidence of existence cannot be proven beyond the belief and faith individuals have in the existence.

Furthermore, your advice regarding "pre-conceived spiritual notions" is admirable but misapplied. Actually this advice is wholly applicable to yourself, since you are claiming that the existence of supernatural things is self-evident (recall, according to you we simply have to remember these spiritual powers). Thus, indicating your own existing pre-conceived spiritual notions. Now, from the first time this thread was created I have been demanding, relentless even, posters to define what they mean in terms of what they say, regarding this subject matter. Additionally I have always defined terms and explained definitively precisely what I am saying.

Therefore, would it make sense for someone who already has "pre-conceived" ideas regarding spiritual matters, to demand that these concepts be defined? No it would not, because if I already have these concepts preconceived there's nothing to define and explain definitively is there? Perhaps you should have thought of that prior to assuming that I need to dispense with my "pre-conceived spiritual notions," which you yourself clearly reflect based on your words. Still all of this goes back to your fatal flaw of trying to analyze your opponent within a discussion, hence underestimating them.

You claim "until you choose to experiment with that yourself, it isn't proof for you." Certainly this statement of yours is only with regards to astral projections and obe's, however it's a general implication of what you are asserting: Until I experience spirituality, the African variety, it isn't proof for me of its existence. This again is your needless attempt at trying to analyze your opponent, assuming that you know the extent of their knowledge, regarding this topic.

But, since I'm not in the business of wasting my time trying to analyze my opponents within a discussion, let's suppose that I have no personal experience with spiritual matters, beliefs, systems etc. If that is so then the logical question is does an individual have to experience something in order to verify proof of what this something is or what this something is about? For example, would a person have to snort coke, smoke crack-cocaine, or insert heroine via a syringe in their vein, in order to have proof of how damaging these narcotics are to our bodies? Does a person have to ingest, imbibe, or smoke a substance containing THC, such as Marijuana, Peyote, and various mushrooms, in order to need proof of the hallucinogenic properties of these substances? No they don't, but you seem to think so.

Interestingly enough once again it appears quite confusing that you're assertions bear a striking resemblance to the logic used by Jews, Christians, and Muslims when confronted with demands to prove their own claims, and you strongly claim that these people are following a dead religion, with a dead God. Here is the contradiction, which you did not see: Jews, Christians, and Muslims claim--just like you--"until you choose to experiment with that yourself, it isn't proof for you." Thus "experiment with that" meaning embrace one of those faiths, while "it isn't proof for you" means until you embrace Judaism, Christianity, and Islam there's no proof for you that the Chosen people exist, no proof for you that through God's grace exemplified by his only son, will you be saved from endless damnation exist for you, no proof for you that Allah is the only God and submit to him or burn in hell with Shaiton.

This is truly some confounding logic you're using, to justify your claim in the existence of supernatural beings and things.

Now onto the rest of your post, however unlike you I'm not interested in commenting on every single parcel of your commentary, respecting my previous post. Yet I will clarify and explain where needed.

I have no idea why you felt it relevant to cite my entire preface, since it has no bearing on your overall position, but maybe you thought it looked good as part of your rebuttal. Needless to say, perhaps I should have told you that my preface was allegorical and not literal? Even more so, it was pertaining to those amongst you who feel, believe, or think that supernatural beings, forces, and powers will save us from racism, white supremacy, sexism and European world domination--in addition to our contemporary problems.

Moreover my allegory ended with the following statement: "How ironic that within the 21st century there are still African people who think, feel, and believe that their conception and belief of the world as it is, will save them from the wrath of European conquest, destruction, and continued world submission and domination." Now this is directly referencing yourself and others who believe that spirituality and whatnot will protect yourselves from racism, white supremacy, sexism and European world domination. Your concept of spirituality, of your own supernatural powers, of supreme beings and what have you, will not prevent the act of police brutality being imposed upon you if it's that officer's or officers' will to implement it. But if you had a gun on you, that might be some kind of deterrence.

In any case, why are you speaking for Love_Unknown? Can he not speak for himself? Does he actually need you to explain what he truly means, by his own words? Or are you saying you understand his words better than himself? Regardless of your assertion that his entire post is merely a perspective on the subject at hand--"view it as a framework by which to think"--he didn't, not even in the slightest, present his post as such. Love_Unknown boldly proclaimed his assertions, even reiterating them, for all to read, of what he believes respecting what is supernatural. None of what he said was meant simply for our "consideration" or "pondering," because it's what he believes.

If his context was what you claim it is then Love_Unknown would have clearly pointed out "What I am saying is not my own view, but a perspective, point of view, reference for your consideration--a different opinion on the subject." Nothing of the sort was posted by him. So for you to claim otherwise is pure nonsense. At the same time, I've already dealt with your position, which you have yet to challenge. Your silence indicates, from my standpoint, that you are not able to answer my questions respecting your argument--therefore, your argument is void until this is accomplished.

"love unknown does not associate his existence with the false reflection of physical existence, but with the perceiver of that reflection. the indwelling consciousness. that which is not present in the physical world, but associates itself with a physical form." So, basically you're saying the same thing he said: Love_Unknown is an image within his own mind, since his mind is the perceiver, the "indwelling consciousness," and associates itself with a physical form that does not physically exist. And again, it goes back to my examples indicating that since he can be touched, tasted, smelled, heard, and seen, he is s physical being period. It matters not that you both claim his physical existence is not really existing, and merely a perception of his own mind, because everyone else in this non-physically existing material world can see, touch, smell, hear, and taste him.

With respect to my examples there's nothing vulgar about any of them; these examples are based upon real life occurrences that if happened to Love_Unknown would verify his physical, corporeal existence and not some ephemeral image you too claim he is. These examples have happened to people, in various parts of the world, when Police Officers have engaged in police brutality, which essentially is torturing someone to either death or total submission. Now, despite your declaration that none of these occurrences would bother you (e.g. "you would not be touching me, you would be touching my body"), realistically speaking if they happened to you then you'd know without any doubt--at all--that you're a physical being, and not some incorporeal life form trapped within a physical vessel.

"why urine and not lemonade? the vulgarity of the argument is meant to hide the lact of substance?" There is no vulgarity; it's only your perception of what you see as vulgar. Therefore, the substance of the example--and not argument--is intended to shock the senses of the reader, with its realism. Granted most people’s senses are shocked with all these provided examples, however the point I was making—and still standing by—is that if Love_Unknown was simply an image of his own mind (or as you claim a spirit inhabiting a physical vessel) then he doesn’t have any senses to shock, with these examples. And if he does then he is not an image, but a material being. Clearly though, based on both your responses, the message you two convey is that you’re both materially human beings, no spirits possess you, and neither of you have any supernatural powers, because if you did then the realism expressed in my examples should have no affect on you whatsoever.

You say I’m arguing semantics? Excuse me? What are we talking about here: the word “be,” or words “becoming” and “being”? These latter two words are distinctly different from the word “be,” even more so using the word “be” as a verb does not equate to the words “becoming” and “being.” If it did then it could not exist as the former word but must be the latter ones.

Look you’ve introduced a moot issue respecting this area and are simply “fanning the flames of a fire where there is none.” Love_Unknown made it clear not only is he a mere perception of his own mind, but his mind is self-existing, has always existed, and is the only thing that he can prove actually exists, which is why he specified precisely what he means by saying: “In other words, “I think, therefore I am.”

You must have missed that glaring point of edification from him, because it is the essence of the word “be” itself, and again we are not talking about that word; we are talking about the words “being” and “becoming.” And in order to become anything, and engage in beingness, you have to be more than just self-existing and conscious (“I think, therefore I am”) of your own existence, while everything else is simply a perception of your existence.

In other words, since simplicity is necessary, for Love_Unknown to exceed the notion of “I think, therefore I am” he has to also exist as material being in addition to existing as just a mind, but as he pointed out his physical existence cannot be prove--“I cannot prove that anything other than myself is anything more than an image in my mind.” Thus he admits that nothing except his mind’s own existence can be proven to exist, except as a perception of his own mind, which even that cannot be proven, since he says “Whether the physical world actually exists or not is irrelevant . . . because the fact remains that its actual existence simply cannot be proven.” For him to exist physically the the physical world must also exist, but since he says its existence cannot be proven, neither can his--except, once again, as a mere perception of his own mind. So it’s actually you who are playing with the meaning of words not I.

You say “the image changes for the perceiver. the image is in a constant state of change.” This is absolutely an incorrect assertion, particularly if you subscribe to the ideology of Rene Descartes. The image does not change nor is it in a constant state of change. Why? The image does not change, because the perceiver is changing the image not the image itself; the perceiver is constantly changing the image not the other way around—you have it backwards. You yourself admit this: “the only thing known to be true is the perceiver and not the perceived.” The perceived is the image; what you perceive as the image constantly changing is in fact unreal and only the perceiver changing the image. Therefore, once again, I maintain that an image cannot become anything but an image; hence it is a mental construct and simply what you conceive it to be.

Furthermore you declare “the being is the perceiver of images.” No it is not. According to Love_Unknown mind is the perceiver of images, being and beingness—which has physicality—are perceptions of what the mind sees. The mind is not a being, the mind just is.

The last thing I will touch upon is your notion that dreaming is just another form of consciousness. Additionally you make the claim that “what most refer to as unconscious is simply conscious processes that are not the focus of awareness.” Precisely! However, perhaps you are not like most people in this regard, and believe that this is untrue.

Still this is exactly what dreaming is. So dreaming, by its very process, is not a variable state of consciousness. Therefore, if dreaming is a conscious state then explain to me why REM occurs just prior to dreaming and people have no conscious control over it? Furthermore, why do people only dream when they sleep, if it’s just another conscious process we humans do just like consciously walking? Explain to me precisely why comatose persons, who in the "dream state," cannot walk around--talking--while comatose, if dreaming is what you say it is.

Of course we are not talking about “day dreaming,” which is simply distracting our mind from specific focuses, and in extreme form akin to ADHD. Yet maybe, just maybe, you are the only human being who sleeps while he is fully awake, consciously controlling his REM while dreaming all the aware of what he’s doing while he is dreaming. Certainly I have no problem being corrected if I’m wrong in what you appear to be saying. As an end point, all of what we are discussing has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but are serving simply as a distraction.

nibs

03-01-2007, 01:48 AM

(NeterHeru) - Nevertheless, you said "there is no such thing as "supernatural" and verily I am fully aware of this

you misunderstood me. things that don't exist, are supernatural.
spirit is not supernatural.

(NeterHeru) - the proof supporting the existence of supernatural beings is either non-existent or inconclusive at best, ergo there's no need to even accept the existence of some-thing

as i touched on in my latter response, there is no need to prove spiritual existence to anyone.
spirituality is an extention of physical existence, it's like being in a home and walking outside. noone needs to prove that "outside" exists to anyone. those that wish to go for a walk are free to do so.

(NeterHeru) - I am asserting, based on all available evidence

meaning, all evidence available to you? this is really the crux of the issue. i can't transfer my own direct experiences to you, therefore knowledge that i may possess cannot be shared with you as proof of anything.
this is why i stated the skeptics must do the work themselves.
do you deny direct experience as proof?
if someone whispers something in your ear in a crowd, only you and the whisperer will truly know what was said. as both of you could lie to the crowd, it is impossible to corroborate what was actually whispered. does this mean that you don't know what was whispered? ofcourse not. but anyone else can only believe you.

(NeterHeru) - Certainly I am informing you now that when I said "we" I was referring to what the commonalty is generally taught, in this country and within the Judeo-Christian-Islamic paradigm, about the attributes of what is called God and not god.

i do not disagree with you here. none of the judeo christian gods are real.
if the title of this thread dealt solely with the judeo-christian god, i would not take issue at all. however, the title is too general.

(NeterHeru) - However, the reason why the issue you take with me is purely moot is because all those 99 attributes, which as you aptly pointed out are names for Allah, comprise Omnipotence, Omniscient, and Omnipresent. You say Infinity would be the best number, since it's not a number. I grant you that, but the fact is omnipotence is infiniteness: they're one and the same. Additionally if you’re omnipotent then you already are the source of all attributes, but again all this is really irrelevant.

i'm not arguing in favor of the conception of allah. that deity/conception does not exist.
i used that point as an illustration.
there is something that is omnipresent, the very fabric of space, time and existence itself. however, i would not argue that this essence was a deity or a spiritual being. this essence is that which spiritual beings are made of.

(NeterHeru) - It's out of the way simply because within the confines of the debate we're having, no one has contested this commonly accepted definition for what God is.

i thought my initial point made that clear. as you have stated, there is no evidence of the abrahamic gods, nor has there ever been. nor will there ever be.
my statement was in response to the original conception of deities, gods and spiritual beings. not the abrahamic gods.

(NeterHeru) - Of course it would be quite preposterous for you to contest this definition, since you yourself don't even believe God exists: Remember you stated "there is no such thing as "supernatural.""

to further clarify; the choice of language shapes the perception about the idea. everything that exists is natural. spiritual beings that exist are natural. i would reserve "supernatural" for things that truly do not exist, like the stay puft marshmallow man, or santa claus. even those exist in the form of ideas.

(NeterHeru) - in spite of all this, you claim there is no such thing as "supernatural," seemingly implying that the concept is artificial without any practical merits to its application whatsoever. Well, correct me if I'm wrong but the word 'super' means "beyond," "limitless," "exceeds," "boundless," "superior," "of the highest power," and the list is endless as to what it means.

i do not challenge your definition of "supernatural".

(NeterHeru) - Now, how is it "supernatural" does not exist, yet everything you've described (e.g. God, astral projection, spiritual nature) is superior to or exceeds nature itself?

astral projection, spiritual beings, deities...etc. do not exceed nature. what you refer to as nature is actually a subset of the natural world, which encompasses the material. it is actually the supernatural that is the driving force (consciousness) behind the material manifestation of nature.

(NeterHeru) - According to nature human beings are not superior (read: spiritual) to nature, because everything else would be too.

that is correct.

(NeterHeru) - Sorry but the logic of your argument makes no sense, for why should only human beings be Godly, have a spiritual nature, have the ability to astral project, and tap into the spiritual world (if spiritual world is what you meant by "non-material influences within yourself and the world around you), and yet nature itself does not have this ability????

nature exists in the spiritual realm as well. animals, plants, rocks...etc. all have a spiritual extent to them. all of material nature is divine in essence.

(NeterHeru) - In other words, why aren't animals, birds, insects, plants, microbiological organisms and everything in and of nature entitled to the same Godliness on the planet earth as human beings are, when we all are beings and organisms of nature itself?

they are. everything that exists is a manifestation of the divine. even thoughts.
humans are better able to experience and manipulate their own nature.

NeterHeru

03-01-2007, 01:58 AM

HIPHOPOLX:

I understand you focus on purpose and reason within the debate rather than the language and labels used within it. However, you must understand that the language and labels in a debate are used to express what each participant is trying to convey. Therefore, if the languages or labels are unclear then so will the meanings trying to be conveyed, via these same labels and languages. So I suggest a concentrated focus on both rather than just one part.

“I gave several examples of how I used the term 'common divine knowledge' And you chose not deal with the context of how I use it. But I guess you are more comfortable dealing with language and definitions from each word that I found on the net.” With all due respect did it ever occur to you that I did not understand how your examples connect to what we are discussing? If I do not understand how they connect in terms of what you say they mean, respecting the existence of supernatural beings and things, then you must explain.

You may not want to explain it, but it’s your meaning, your understanding, your concepts and your terms; therefore you’re obliged to explain them to those who are seeking clarification. So it’s not that I’m more comfortable with dictionary definitions, because I’m requesting you to provide me with your own definitions. If I wanted dictionary definitions for the terms and concepts you used I’d go to the dictionary myself, but I was more interested in what you mean in terms of what you say.

I also realize what you mean in trying to explain the complexity this "unlimited and unformed" knowledge, but if you cannot explain or simplify precisely what you mean to an audience or person, that signifies you haven’t done enough analysis of this complexity, in order to explain it. And don’t get me wrong brother, as I mean no offense in what I just stated. However, as just a fact of reality if you cannot explain the meaning of that which you claim or purport beyond just metaphors and allegories, this indicates you do not fully understand the meaning of your claims and purports. I guess its just life itself, but I assure you if someone asks you to explain something and all you provide them with are examples of what you’re trying to say, and then when asked to explain the concepts or terms you’re using in these examples, and all you can give them are more examples, the same response will occur.

If you want I can explain what my consciousness is and define it, but I know you didn’t ask. Yet the point I’m making is that it’s easier for some people to explain what seems unexplainable if they’ve pondered the “unexplainable” for any appreciable amount of time. Also I understand you’re not making a distinction between the two words (i.e. natural and supernatural), but obviously there is a difference between them. So if you use them understand I’ll have to ask what you mean when they’re used.

Additionally, when you state “I’d say nature=God,” what do you mean by that? That is, since you’ve made it clear you are neither a Jew, Christian, nor Muslim how can you use “God” the word in reference to either what they claim “God” is or what non Judeo-Christian-Islamic individuals say the word means, as defined in the dictionary? It would be completely different if you used the word “god” then I would have a better idea of what you mean. However, I’m forced to ask: For instance, do you mean nature is divine, sacred, and pure, or do you simply mean it should be worshipped?

“Being that I also am not at my peak yet I think NIBS might be able to answer that better right now.” I have a huge problem with this statement of yours brother, for how can you make an assertion such as this one you did, and not be able to support it yourself? Why do you need another person to explain or edify a point of view asserted by you? Regardless I’ll take this to mean you simply cannot substantiate the claim.

You also say “Maybe this individuel/s understands these problems were meant to be to make us a stronger ppl. Given the the fact we become more wise in the face of conflict,” which in all respects is a very Judeo-Christian-Islamic like approach to trying to make sense of what they cannot understand. Why would starvation, homelessness, poverty, AIDS, War, racism, sexism, white supremacy ad infinitum make us stronger brother? How do these problems make us a stronger people?

And, generally speaking, in as much as people panic and act irrational in the face of conflict, where exactly does wisdom come into play? Does wisdom come into play for White Americans after they’ve destroyed nearly all of the Iraqi people, and the world with their insane Global War on Terror? Does wisdom come into play for Israelis after all the Palestinians are dead and gone? Does the wisdom begin coming, when the conflict starts or after it’s over with? Needless to say these are exploratory questions for your consideration, and do not require any answers.

“There are ppl around the world that can do certain things I can't do yet.” All right I grant you that and totally agree, as this applies to me as well. Still unless these individuals can generate matter out of thin air or destroy matter with a mere thought, they are simply ordinary human beings and not supernatural. Please do not give these people my e-mail address, so they can woo me with their fanciful stories of how “supernatural” they are. If they cannot physically manifest themselves in my dwelling as proof positive of how powerful they are, then I’m not interested in anything they have to say.

As a final point to ponder, Dr. Malachi Z. York is considered to be God, a Supreme Being, Supernatural person etc. by many of his followers. Yet he’s rotting in prison for child molestation. Forget about whether he’s guilty or not, that’s not the point. The point is if he’s so powerful and supreme why is his power nullified by the White Man’s Criminal Justice System? How could the White Man send God to court and lock him away for child molestation? Why is he sitting in prison and not just teleport himself elsewhere? He is either a god or normal ordinary Black man, he cannot be both.

NeterHeru

03-01-2007, 03:45 AM

MENNEFER:

Actually brother you didn't point this specifically out. Recall my response to HipHopolx was qualified with "if I am correct." Moreover, my explanation was based upon my understanding of what you were attempting to convey, and not an explanation of what you personally meant. I have no idea as to what you really meant, but only what I understood as to what I thought you meant.

NIBS:

Point One: I did not misunderstand, you simply failed to clarify. How am I supposed to extrapolate what you precisely mean in using a word, beyond it's dictionary defined meaning, unless you do not specify precisely how you're using the word? However, in one sense we agree things which do not exist are supernatural (like the Easter bunny), but don't agree in another context, as you claim supernatural things do exist (e.g. spirituality).

Point Two: Define what you mean by spirituality. Then provide me with an example of a spiritual experience.

Point Three: Of course I'm basing my assertion on all available existing evidence to me, just like you. The difference is you seem to dismiss deductive logical evidence (i.e. objectively tangible evidence), while completely embrace inductive logical evidence (i.e. direct experience). So to your question "do you deny direct experience as proof," absolutely not.

Direct experience is precisely why I make such a claim, because from my own direct experience verification of these supernatural things and beings was absent. Even more so I realized that all of what I thought to be supernatural, divine, spiritual, out of body experiences, spiritual protection etc. was simply a manifestation of my own mind--they were what I wanted them to be rather than accept them for what they were.

However, as the logical person that I am, I sought to disprove my own conclusion by seeking objective evidence of supernatural things and beings. That is, just because my own direct experiences did not corroborate the existence of the Divine, does not mean objective evidence would result in the same. To my surprise objective evidence resulted in the same, but that still wasn't enough for me: I needed unequivocal proof.

So I sought out people I knew personally, members of the Ausar Aset Society, members of the Nuwaubian Nation Of Moors, Moorish Science Temple members, Egyptian Priestesses, Vodoun Practitioners, Dream Time followers, etc.... I sought them to get their experiences to see some sort of commonality. You know what I found? Complete anarchy regarding these experiences. None were the same, none could be verified, none could be tested, and none resembled my own. Thus direct experience is very important, but to the degree that it can be buttressed by deductive reasoning; that is personal experiences must be testable and verified by worldly knowledge--book knowledge--if a person makes a claim based upon their direct experiences.

Point Six: What is the "original conception of deities, gods and spiritual beings"? I'm not asking you this question for my own enlightenment mind you. I'm asking to get at what you mean by it, because if you are a student of comparative religious studies then we should come to the same conclusion as to what this original conception was, or at least a similar rendition of what the concept is. Regardless, I still want you to explain what this original concept is, if it differs from my own.

Point Seven: "the choice of language shapes the perception about the idea. everything that exists is natural. spiritual beings that exist are natural. i would reserve "supernatural" for things that truly do not exist. . ." Agreed respecting language, which is why when using American English to communicate one must be as specific and precise as definitively possible, in order to express what they mean, since American English is an extremely ambiguous and imprecise dialect.

However, I have a few requests for you. Define what a spiritual being is. Then explain to me, after you have defined the latter, what spiritual being you know does not exist, and therefore not natural. For you said "spiritual beings that exist . . .," hence the implication being there are spiritual beings that do not exist and are not natural. So tell me about these non-existing "supernatural" spiritual beings. Additionally tell me who is a spiritual being.

Point Nine: "nature is actually a subset of the natural world, which encompasses the material. it is actually the supernatural that is the driving force (consciousness) behind the material manifestation of nature." And you said I was arguing semantics. This statement of yours is exemplary of arguing, if not playing with, semantics. Let me explain.

You say nature is just a part of the natural world, which basically includes the material world within it. This is a tautological point, which makes it fruitless as to the point you're really trying to make. It's like saying a branch is a subset of a tree, or the earth is a subset of the universe and expecting relevance within the statement.

In any case explain what you mean by "supernatural" and supernatural. You appear to be making a distinction between the two since you first say that which is supernatural does not exist ("i would reserve "supernatural" for things that truly do not exist"), then you claim that the supernatural does exist ("the supernatural . . . is the driving force (consciousness) behind the material manifestation of nature). Which is it; does it exist or doesn't? I'll have more to say with your explanation.

Point Eleven: Define "the spiritual realm." You appear to be contradicting yourself, in that previously you stated spiritual beings and deities "do not exceed nature," but now you say "nature exists in the spiritual realm." Well, if this is the case then how can nature be "a subset of the natural world"? Is the natural world encompassing the material or is it encompassed by this spiritual realm? If nature exists in the spiritual realm and not as part of it, along with the spiritual realm encompassing the material, then "astral projection, spiritual beings, deities...etc," do exceed nature contrary to what you asserted earlier. Explain all of this however.

Furthermore explain precisely what you mean by saying "all have a spiritual extent to them. all of material nature is divine in essence." I'm uncertain as to what you mean by "a spiritual extent," which seems to imply humanity does not have "a spiritual extent," hence there's no limit to our spiritual attainment. But this is the implication; I want the explanation from you. Also define what you mean by "divine." If something is divine then it has divinity, so knowing what is believed about what divinity is I'll await your explanation without further commentary.

Point Twelve: Again what is "divine," and tell me what this "the divine" is also that everything existing is a manifestation of. If "humans are better able to experience and manipulate their own nature," I demand to know why? Why did this 'divine' whatever deliberately make humans better at experiencing and manipulating their own nature, when they are the furthest organisms from nature itself?

Moreover if you believe "even thoughts" are 'divine' then why don't you accept divine revelation? Why do you not accept divine inspiration? Why do you not accept the divinity of Jesus Christ, at least as a thought if concepts are simply a manifestation of the 'divine'? Even the Gnostics accepted the divinity of Christ in principle as a thought and not as a man, and at least considered heretical Christians, now why don't you? You have a lot of explaining to do.

Love_Unknown

03-01-2007, 11:38 AM

PREFACE: Millenniums ago human beings had sufficiently resolved the age old questions respecting existence and reality. However, it appears that some African people are still stuck in this mental quagmire of "Do I exist or not," "Am I a self-created being," or "Created to Be," "Is reality real or simply what I conceive it, believe it to be?" If this is any indication of where some of our most useful people's focuses are, then we're indeed in very bad shape.

It's little wonder then why European men still control and dictate world affairs. The Europeans have no compunction and confusion, whatsoever, regarding the reality they live in: It's a reality that they seek to completely control for their own specific purposes. Africans said to White people called Greeks and Romans, "Our goddesses and gods are more powerful than your Gods and Goddesses." And the White people said "Well that maybe so, but your deities are not more powerful than our Spears, Swords, Physical Methods of Torture, and Phalanx." Thus many African civilizations and people vanished consequently.

Millenniums later the same situation played out, between these same White people, Africans and Native Americans. Africans said to White people, now known as Europeans, "Our goddesses and gods will protect us from your God!" And the Europeans said "Well that maybe so, but your deities can't protect you from these Canon Balls and Guns." Native Americans said "Our Great Spirit and Lesser Spirits will protect us from your God!" Europeans said, "Well that maybe so, but your deities can't protect you from our Canon Balls, Guns, and Natural Diseases." Thus we all know the results of what happened to both peoples, with such encounters.

How ironic that within the 21st century there are still African people who think, feel, and believe that their conception and belief of the world as it is, will save them from the wrath of European conquest, destruction, and continued world submission and domination.

HIPHOPOLX:

I'm completely there with you respecting your disagreement with Love_Unknown. However, I must warn you that you're treading upon territory, which has no tangible foundation of perspective. That is, the entire basis and context of your discourse with him will remain within this abstraction of what reality and life are supposed to be, and never what reality and life really is. Thus there is no end to a discussion when life and reality itself are all reduced to the simplification of what is abstract, obtuse, and verily devoid of any concrete meaning whatsoever.

Nonetheless, with that said, I must tell you once again you're using something natural to prove, something you claim is supernatural. Your computer metaphor is sensible, but wholly inapplicable to human beings, and only applicable to computers. Why? Well human beings are not computers; we don't function like computers, anymore than computers function like ourselves. We created computers, computers did not create us. The designs of computers are based upon the processes of our brain and sociobiological development. The design you’re seeking and attempting to explain is the human design itself, which cannot be explained with something we designed based upon aspects of what we are in our own development.

Additionally, and I mean no disrespect with this, if you cannot define the terms, phrases, and concepts you're using then I am forced to conclude you accept common definitions of such terminology. You have to be able to define something in your own specific or particular way of understanding it, else you really do not know the meaning (s) of what you're using, to explain such terms, phrases, and concepts. In short, I have no idea what you precisely mean when you say "our Divine common Intelligence," anymore than I exactly know what Christians mean when they say "I caught the Holy Ghost Spirit!"

If we are having a debate then in order for the debate to be a learned experience, which can be applicable to our lives, the parameters of terms, concepts and the like must be defined. These concepts must be clearly understood prior to the debate, so there can be no ambiguity and miscommunication upon the part of those debating. Or else you will be having the kind of debate you're presently engaged in with Love_Unknown, which is superfluous in purpose and philosophically insoluble. And in as much as this kind of debate is intellectually hackneyed, it is a debate equivalent to the kind of argument one theist has with another theist, respecting whose religion is the better.

Still if this discussion is really going to be about my assertion that there is no proof of any spiritual being existing, beyond a belief and faith in the existence of the being, then we will have to have a definition of what a 'spiritual being' means or is. Metaphors (as well as analogies) are insufficient for conveying the meaning of abstract terms and concepts, since metaphors are in and of themselves abstract too, and can convey a number of meanings. In other words, abstract terms and concepts are subject to needless interpretations, unless they're concretely defined and rendered no longer obtuse or abstract; hence they will no longer be hostage to interpretation and easily clarified. If we cannot get to this, then we will be simply having a circuitous discussion of metaphors, terms, concepts, and phrases, which have no real meaning.

LOVE_UNKNOWN:

There are many inconsistencies and illogical postulations within your post. The only tangible remark you made, which truthfully is not really tangible, was respecting the African understanding of the supernatural and Eurocentric education. However, even that is only tangible in relation to everything else you said, but wholly subject to perspective and interpretation. Allow me to qualify this.

You posit the following stipulation:

"Empirical evidence is a farce. Seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, or smelling does not actually evidence anything. What we “perceive” as elements of physical reality are only registered as thoughts and images in the mind. There exists no proof of an actual physical existence of anything that the mind perceives, and our crude human senses (among the crudest in the entire animal kingdom) are easily and often fooled."

So again we come back to this notion that nothing can be proven; one person says nothing can be proven beyond what an individual believes, another person says nothing can be proven beyond what our minds can perceive. If what you say is true within this statement of yours then why can't human beings simply just imagine and think physical existence away, or out of existence? Furthermore, if "elements of physical reality are only" perceptions as images and thoughts of the mind, then what is the image of mind itself? How does the mind perceive itself, does the mind even have an image?

Moreover, if you conceive your mind as simply a perception of itself--which is what you appear to be saying--then Jacob Caruthers was right in that "power is the ability to define reality and have others accept it as their own." Franz Fanon also stated that "The most powerful weapon in the hands of the Oppressor is the mind of the Oppressed." Thus, since you are simply a reflection of your own mind all the oppressor has to do is take control over this thing called mind, and now you become a reflection of the oppressor's will, not your own mind since reality is no longer yours to perceive.

Yet this nebulous discourse gets even more intellectually ad lib considering this statement made by you: "I cannot prove that anything other than myself is anything more than an image in my mind." So you really are simply an image in your own mind and do not truly exist, within the natural world. Here's a challenge for you: Try thinking your physical reality out of existence and become complete mind, if you can the challenge is what does your mind perceive when perception itself is all that there is? If all there is in your reality is simply some vague thing called mind and the awareness of itself, what is there left to perceive? Thus, could your mind conceive physical reality into existence when--according to you--physical reality is simply a perception of mind itself, and does not exist beyond that?

Leaving that aside you then say "My own existence however is self-evident. I know for certain that “I am.” Actually no, you're existence is not self-evident and there is no certainty of you as 'I am.' Why? Simply because if you're an image in your own mind--as you said--of your own creation, then you do not exist in any shape, form, or fashion as anything but an image within your own mind. You are not certain of anything that 'I am' and your self-evident existence, because once again as you said "What . . . . “I” am is not physical. My own self-awareness (thought) is “all” that is conclusively and essentially me."

Therefore, you are not "sitting here discussing" anything, because in order for some-thing to sit-here-discuss it has to be physical and have physicality to its existence. It has to be temporal, perception is atemporal, it has to have dimensionality--length, width, and height--which an image has none; in order to discuss you have to have an esophagus, larynx, and mouth for audibility, but we know Image has nothing of the sort. Needless to say, I don't know what is "sitting here discussing" regarding this debate sir, but it certainly isn’t you. But maybe, just maybe it is the Holy Ghost....

Here's another inconsistency of yours: "What I am cannot be touched, tasted, smelled, heard, or seen, and is therefore by definition supernatural. The . . . essence of my being itself, is supernatural. I am therefore a supernatural being, and with my own existence being the only thing in existence that I can effectively prove, all that can conclusively be proven to exist is the existence of the supernatural." Wrong again, sir.

If I take my nightstick or baton and shove it up your rectum I'm touching you. If I pour urine down your throat you're going to taste that--except if you have no tongue and lost your sense of smell. If I locked you in a room of feces, with no ventilation, you'd smell that unless of course you have no nose or loss your sense of smell. If I took a pistol and placed it at the base of your earlobe, unloaded my clip while in this position, you'd definitely hear that--although you would be certainly deaf afterwards. If the police raided your home--or wherever you are at utilizing a computer console--guns drawn and blazing, to essentially impose brutality upon you, they would see you and not some intangible, intelligible, and inaudible image.

How do I know all of this? I know this because you said "The very act that I am sitting here discussing this issue is proof positive of my own existence." Therefore you are a material being. Furthermore, how can you manifest perception as "being" when "beingness" and be-ing is the act of doing? In other words, be-ing is an action oriented process entailing doing, which also entails having the ability to do, but an Image cannot become anything other than an image. You sir are a perception of your own mind, therefore all you can do is Be, you cannot be-come, be-ing is becoming, evolving, elevating, thus a natural part of physical existence. A "being" must be something essentially other than an image to exist beyond simply that "I am" or that which only exists.

With all that said you continue this further spiral into an anomalous discourse with the following assertion: "I am both self-evident and supernatural, and so is whatever else that brought me into existence. . . . As a conscious being I am aware that I cannot, could not have, and therefore did not bring myself into existence. . . .at no point during my existence can I begin to conceptualize creating myself. . . .I exist as a “created” being. The process of my own creation is beyond my understanding . . . the full identity of my creator cannot be stated with any degree of certainty, but . . . is likewise both self-evident and supernatural." Wrong again.

Nothing else brought you into existence but your own mind; this is what you have maintained from the very beginning of your post. There is nothing else in existence but your conscious awareness of the existence of your own mind, perceiving this non-existent physicality as an image of what is actually real. There is nothing else that brought you into existence other than your mind.

Nothing is self-evident other than the fact of your own existence as an image within your own mind. As you said 'LIFE IS BUT A DREAM' and if you see life as such then you are not a conscious being; for dreaming is not a conscious act but an unconscious or subconscious process. So you are not conscious of anything reflecting this natural world that you say does not exist, but is merely ephemeral, an illusion of what is real, because all that is real is gnosis. Furthermore why would your mind be conscious of something that is only a perception of your existence, and not your existence itself? Surely your mind would find such instance of consciousness to be inconsequential and irrelevant to its own real, provable, boundless existence.

How do you come to conclude you're a "created being" when you made it clear that you're existence is Imagined? You are an imaginary being, not a created one: To have been created some-thing has to first not exist, but according to what you have declared your mind was never created--it just simply exists, "I think therefore I am." Your mind thinks, therefore it is. Your mind has neither beginning nor end because it exists for its own sake, and neither do you because you're just an image in your mind.

Simply put your conscious awareness of existing as a "created being" is only a mental perception of your existence as being created. Your consciousness of this existence is illusory and therefore does not exist in reality, because reality is your mind.

Why are you looking for the identity of your 'creator' when you already know your creation as a being is mere perception? How could some-thing that remains uncertain as to its identity (which is a euphemism for existence) be self-evident and supernatural? Moreover, "full identity" implies that you know with some certainty who, what, is your creator but have not resolved as to which of these who, what, is your creators. Regardless, again, nothing is self-evident other than the gnosis, that is your mind, and supernaturalness doesn't exist because in order for something to be super-natural naturalness must exist.

Nature is physical, but "elements of physical reality are only registered as thoughts and images in the mind." Therefore, nature is simply another image within your own mind, not a materiality. Consequently neither your created beingness nor creator (s) are real, all that appears to exists physically and absent of the mind itself is simply a projection of your minds' thoughts, nothing more.

Consider this: The only intelligibly tangible statement you said, which has the most germane truth to it is "The process of my own creation is beyond my understanding. . . ." All of this philosophizing about you're simply a Mind walking around talking, breathing, typing, sexing whatever and everything experienced by you is merely a perception in your mind, is nonsense and simply an indication of your own lacking knowledge regarding the process of your own creation.

Since you cannot grasp the simple fact that you were born from your mother's womb, you seek an answer outside of that which makes the most sense; that is you're searching for an answer outside of the natural world you reside within. You're "lost in the storm" as the old saying goes. However, you will not find this understanding in metaphysics and philosophy--you were created from a woman, within a woman, and in order to understand this creative process you must go to women, learn from and understand her. Otherwise you'll be wasting your hard earn human energy away trying to make sense of something men cannot and will not understand, unto themselves.

But of course you can simply just think your physical existence away since it's not actually real anyway. Or you can simply say "The process of my own creation is beyond my understanding . . . .," however this process is irrelevant because it is merely a perception of my own creative existence as Mind.

Hello brothers/sisters
I am very busy at the present time, so I would love to rejoin this little debate but time does not permit. I have written a few words to address Neterheru’s comments on my posts, but his/her misquotes/misinterpretations of my statements are simply too many to address at one time, so I’ll simply post what I have written so far.

[I]So again we come back to this notion that nothing can be proven; one person says nothing can be proven beyond what an individual believes, another person says nothing can be proven beyond what our minds can perceive. If what you say is true within this statement of yours then why can't human beings simply just imagine and think physical existence away, or out of existence? Furthermore, if "elements of physical reality are only" perceptions as images and thoughts of the mind, then what is the image of mind itself? How does the mind perceive itself, does the mind even have an image? (Neter Heru)

I never once said “nothing can be proven.” The very title of my post was “proof of the supernatural.” (Brother Nibs, by the way, was very much correct in saying that the word supernatural is a misnomer, but I’ll expand on that thought at a later time, but for the sake of discourse I’ll continue to use the phrase, at least for now) What I said was that the spiritual world is self-evident, and therefore provable, but the physical world is not. You’ve extracted something from my words that simply is not there, something that contradicts other things that I say in the very same post. Essentially, you have created your own erroneous meaning from my words, and then proceed to argue with your own illogical postulation.

Moreover, if you conceive your mind as simply a perception of itself--which is what you appear to be saying-- (Neterheru)

No, this is not what I “appear” to be saying. Once again, when did I once say that “your mind is simply a perception of itself?” This is what I mean about “quoting me exactly.” I see now that I must quote myself:

1. “My own self-awareness (thought) is “all” that is conclusively and essentially me.”
2. The “mind” (your thoughts, feelings, intuitive sense, self-awareness) cannot be touched, tasted, smelled, seen, or heard. It is not a physical thing, yet it is alive, it exists. Another word for this living entity is a “spirit.” This is what “you” are.
3. The body comes and goes, but the spirit remains because it is essentially all that is you.
4. What you believe is your body now is constantly changing, and coming and going, because it was never really a real part of you in the first place. Only the life force, the spiritual essence, the mind, remains intact and unchanged, because it is all that is actually you.

Over the course of three posts I have used the words self-awareness, thought, feelings, intuitive sense, spirit, life force to express what is “me.“ Not one time have I used the word “image.” How stupid would it be for me to believe that I am an image in my own mind. We both know that an image in the mind is quite different from the mind itself. Would you say that an image in the mirror is the mirror itself? Of course not. My question is, why would you put such idiotic words in my mouth? Perhaps you’re used to talking to unintelligent people. This is not the case here. So before jumping to conclusions about what you “think“ I‘m saying, please look harder for the intelligent line of reasoning when you’re reading my words because I guarantee you it will be there.

Yet this nebulous discourse gets even more intellectually ad lib considering this statement made by you: "I cannot prove that anything other than myself is anything more than an image in my mind." So you really are simply an image in your own mind and do not truly exist, within the natural world. (Neterheru)

Here we go again. Where did I say that I am an image in my own mind? Let me make this perfectly clear:

I AM NOT AN IMAGE IN MY OWN MIND.
FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, I AM MY MIND.

I stated that, “I cannot prove that anything [other than myself] is anything more than an image in my mind.” If I would have omitted the words “other than myself” I can see how you would perhaps conclude that I somehow believe that I am an image in my own mind. But how could you possibly conclude that I made such a statement when these are so very clearly stated? This is the reason that I suggested that you re-read my posts. My points are clear to see, and your misinterpretations of my words are too many and too obvious. For the sake of intelligent discourse they should have been corrected.

Nothing is self-evident other than the fact of your own existence as an image within your own mind. (Neterheru)

You continue to argue with a ridiculous statements of your own creation, statements that I never once made.

As you said 'LIFE IS BUT A DREAM' (Neterheru)

Did I say “life is but a dream?” I said that enlightened minds around the world have come to this conclusion. And this is a metaphor by the way. Of course life is life, and a dream is a dream. It would be more accurate to say that life is like a dream, or has many similar qualities to a dream. I use the phrase “life is but a dream” to denote this idea simply because it is a phrase in common use. Again, I would appreciate it if you quoted my words exactly please.

So you are not conscious of anything reflecting this natural world that you say does not exist (Neterheru)

AGAIN! When did I say that the natural world doesn’t exist? In my second post in this thread (which I gave you plenty of time to read,) I dedicated an entire paragraph to exactly what the physical world is, and our place in it. In case you haven’t done so already, please go through and read “all” of my words before making your own assumptions about them.

And when did I once say that I’m not conscious of anything in the physical world? I SAID, THAT MY AWARENESS OF THE PHYSICAL WORLD IS ENTIRELY IN THE FORM OF THOUGHTS AND IMAGES. Again, please quote my words exactly!

How do you come to conclude you're a "created being" when you made it clear that you're existence is Imagined? (Neterheru)

More discussion about “increasingly absurd” statements that I never made.

Simply put your conscious awareness of existing as a "created being" is only a mental perception of your existence as being created. Your consciousness of this existence is illusory and therefore does not exist in reality, because reality is your mind. (Neterheru)

And the ignorance continues. AGAIN, WHEN DID I ONCE SAY THAT MY CONSCIOUSNESS IS ILLUSORY? Is this your opinion, because it’s certainly not mine? Saying that “my consciousness is an illusion” is as equally ridiculous as saying that “I don’t exist.”

And AGAIN, where did you get the idea that “reality is your (my) mind?” Are you getting these ideas from fortune cookies, because you’re certainly not getting them from me? For the “umpteenth” time, I never said that “reality is in my mind.”

I did not say that physical reality doesn’t exist. I said that IT CAN’T BE PROVEN. Our only “proof” of the physical world, are the thoughts and images of it that register in our mind. That is not to say that the physical world doesn’t exist. That is saying that the existence of the physical world cannot be proven, because we cannot say “for certain” whether the thoughts and images of the physical world, are any different than any other of the thoughts and images in the mind. Scientifically speaking, the sensation of anything that is touched, seen, smelled, heard, or tasted is transformed into information which is sent through the nervous system and is registered in the mind as a thought/image. This is exactly why it is so easy for the mind to be fooled. In the dream state, for example, we very often believe that the thoughts and images that we see are real, because the mind perceives images in a dream the very same way that it perceives images in the “physical” world, as thoughts and images in the mind. I am not trying to confuse you. I am not talking in circles. This is a basic scientific fact. The perception of all that the mind perceives is the same, in the form thoughts and images. That’s why nearly every night, over and over again, we are fooled into believing that the thoughts and images in a dream are real.

Answer this question, yes or no: Is the mind able to perceive anything in the “physical” world as anything more than a thought or an image?

Leaving that aside you then say "My own existence however is self-evident. I know for certain that “I am.” Actually no, you're existence is not self-evident and there is no certainty of you as 'I am.' Why? Simply because if you're an image in your own mind--as you said--of your own creation, then you do not exist in any shape, form, or fashion as anything but an image within your own mind. You are not certain of anything that 'I am' and your self-evident existence, because once again as you said "What . . . . “I” am is not physical. My own self-awareness (thought) is “all” that is conclusively and essentially me." (Neterheru)

My own existence is self-evident. (Love Unknown) Here I am making a statement that “flat out” contradicts the completely idiotic insinuation that “I am an image in my own mind, and therefore do not exist," and you still insist on trying to accuse me of making this statement! Why are you trying “so hard” to find some type of fallacy in my statements? “My own existence is self-evident.” Is there a more obvious statement in the world than this? My simply "being," is conclusive proof (to myself) that "I" exist. If my mind were transfered into another body would I then be "somebody else other than me." Of course not. I would be "me" in another body, because, my "mind" is me.

I said that the fact that I am “sitting here” discussing blah blah blah proves my own existence. Then you get stuck on the words “sitting here.” We both know that this a figure of speech. If you are following my line of reasoning you should know that I am not referring to my physically “sitting here.” I am referring to the mental discussion in my mind, which has nothing to do with the physical body. The mind requires no part of the physical body to “exist” or to “think.” As I stated in my third post in this thread, the physical body comes and goes, but the mind remains. The atoms and molecules that make up this entire physical body are coming and going as we speak, and within 7-10 years (if I remember correctly) every molecule in the entire body will have been replaced, yet the mind remains. Why, because the body is not really a part of “you” in the first place.

AND AGAIN! When did I once say that my mind is of my own creation?

Neterheru, I am about half way through all of the misinterpretations of my words that you have made. It would be a much more efficient use of our discussion time if you would read over my posts again, and begin to discuss the points that I “actually” made. Otherwise you leave me with little more than misquotes and misinterpretations to discuss. Also, as brother Nibs alluded to, it might lead to some very positive and exciting conclusions if you decided to regard me as a reasonably intelligent person, and really made an earnest effort to see the logical line of reasoning in my statements. You are exerting a great deal of energy negatively, trying to "disprove." Why not spend more of it positively, trying to broaden your understanding. Peace.

Love Unknown

hiphopolx

03-02-2007, 07:16 AM

(hiphopolx) - I really appreciate you taking the time to reply thanks.

the appreciation is mutual. :)

initially i touched on the basic distinction of material & spiritual.
the spiritual realm is generally divided into 7 levels between the physical body, and the source (god consciousness). 9 total, but 7 intermediate planes of existence.
the lowest planes are occupied by beings with physical bodies, but the higher planes are occupied by ancestral spirits, deities...etc.
in most african religions, they will use invocation to allow their deities to use the invokers physical body as a vehicle to manifest in the physical. with obe's, and projecting the astral body and higher bodies in particular, it is possible to communicate with the deities in the spiritual realm. ancestral spirits as well. in kemet these practices typically include protection rituals, and purification rituals (ablutions + prayers) for protection from negative forces/entities.

my own knowledge of this comes from experimenting with it and also books by robert bruce and a couple other authors.
i find it easier to "get out" from the hypnogagic state when i awake or am falling asleep, but as it is difficult to catch those, i am working on projecting from a meditative state.

Thank you This has been very enlightning.
I definitly want to cont. this convo

Peace

ShemsiEnTehuti

03-02-2007, 10:58 AM

Now to be fair here is a link to that whole post http://destee.com/forums/showpost.php?p=464348&postcount=135

Now again dealing with the part

" Now religious people say it's some-thing called Ausar, God, Yahweh, Jesus Christ, Allah, Krishna, Ahura-Mazda, Marduke ad infinitum, that is this spiritual being or being of energy who has already told us what's it like not physically existing, and personally interferes with our lives everyday to help us get through our material existence. The question is can this assertion be proven as a basis in fact?

The answer is unequivocally no; the existence of any spiritual being has never been able to be proven beyond faith and belief in the existence of the being itself. All religions are based on belief and faith, in order to maintain their existence; metaphysics and spirituality are also based on belief and faith in order to exist as well. None of these understandings are based on facts in reality, which is the reality we are living in; this is a reality of energy and matter, not solely energy (spirit). "

I'd like to ask the authur of this statement? Is it possible that a dozen different car manufactoring companies(Ford Toyota Honda and the like) who haven't seen or comunicated in any way come up with the same car designs? (and b4 someone comes up with any other way. I'm talking a design engineer making a blueprint design of the next line of cars and all the others design engineers from the various other companies coming up with the same design)

If you agree that this isn't possible Then you'd have to agree that if you see a bunch of cars with the same basic design then it would have to come from One particular company. I think we all can agree that car factory could not have been made out of some random combinaton of chemicals that exploded (the Big Bang Thang) Yet in nature these same basic designs in Life and non-Life (see the elemental periodic table) keep coming up. So could anyone reading this ask any Atheist they know How could anything but an Intelligent being come up with these basic (mathematically) designs in our universe. I'm interested in listening with a open mind :)

peace

The similar designs by cars have nothing to do with some divine over-arching force. Most of the car companies are owned by GM or Ford, and you just think you are buying a different car when you purchase a Mercedes, Volkswagen, Saab, etc.

Secondly, it is easier to see where the trends are going before the cars are even designed. That has more to do with the small subset of available choices than some divine intervention. I am an engineer, and I work for one of the largest corporations in the world. I see multiple designs that are very similar to each other until one has access to a different technology...then the design architecture changes to exploit the new technology. For example, the similarities in the luxuries and technology in cars have nothing to do with divine intervention, but almost everything to do with microprocessors. In the last 15 years, cars on average had 1-3 processors, now they have as many as 20 due to the technological advancement of the microprocessor that is being exploited by all the car manufacturers. If one company decides to go with a different technology for processing, moldings, or whatever, then you will see different trends as well.

nibs

03-02-2007, 08:44 PM

(NeterHeru) - Direct experience is precisely why I make such a claim, because from my own direct experience verification of these supernatural things and beings was absent. Even more so I realized that all of what I thought to be supernatural, divine, spiritual, out of body experiences, spiritual protection etc. was simply a manifestation of my own mind--they were what I wanted them to be rather than accept them for what they were.

this is actually the same argument that love unknown made about physical reality. ultimately, everything that you perceive, whether it be physical or material, is a matter of your own interpretation. the only being you can be absolutely certain of, is your self-consciousness/awareness.

(NeterHeru) - I sought out people I knew personally, members of the Ausar Aset Society, members of the Nuwaubian Nation Of Moors, Moorish Science Temple members, Egyptian Priestesses, Vodoun Practitioners, Dream Time followers, etc.... I sought them to get their experiences to see some sort of commonality. You know what I found? Complete anarchy regarding these experiences.

this is completely what i would expect. what a person can convey is based on how they interpret what they experience.

if you tell a joke to two people, one might laugh, one may remain stern-faced and unaffected.
the interpretation, the experience of the joke is completely different between the two. however, they both could reveal the steps (retell the joke).

(NeterHeru) - None were the same, none could be verified, none could be tested, and none resembled my own.

the original purpose to spirituality was to live a better/more complete life; to know one's self better, connect with beings beyond the physical...etc.

if your practices manifest themselves beneficially, then you should continue them. if your practices yield no results...discontinue them.
a chef can prepare a meal, without understanding the exact nature of each ingredient, or how the heating process effects those ingredients. yet the see the results.
comparing people's interpretation is essentially trying to understand the mechanism of things; the fundamental nature of all things.
in contrast; the foundation and development work for many spiritual practices is focused on conditioning and training the mind...it's a results based approach, rather than understanding the mechanism.
any system is merely a construct to condition the mind how the manipulate the mechanism, the essence; in a consistent manner.

this is why there are multiple "correct" approaches. you don't need to know how physical exercise works to see the results.

(NeterHeru) - What is the "original conception of deities, gods and spiritual beings"?

consciously guided forces. conscious entities embodying or capable of manipulating or manifesting some force. manifesting either within (the human microcosm) or without. or both.

(NeterHeru) - Define what a spiritual being is.

everything that exists whether material or not is a spiritual being.

(NeterHeru) - Then explain to me, what spiritual being you know does not exist, and therefore not natural.

the easter bunny exists as an idea only. there is no manifestation of the easter bunny on any level; other than conceptual.

"nature is actually a subset of the natural world, which encompasses the material. it is actually the supernatural that is the driving force (consciousness) behind the material manifestation of nature."

(NeterHeru) - And you said I was arguing semantics. This statement of yours is exemplary of arguing, if not playing with, semantics.

everything that intrinsically exists is natural. there is no need to belabor this point. that was the statement that i was making.
the core to our debate is "what exists" and not "what is supernatural".

(NeterHeru) - You say nature is just a part of the natural world, which basically includes the material world within it. This is a tautological point

the problem is that i switched view points in mid-sentence; without indication. "nature" was your term, your viewpoint. "the natural world" was my viewpoint.

my statement was that your idea of "nature", the physical; is actually a subset of the true "natural world" which is all of existence.

the issue is "what exists?"

(NeterHeru) - now you say "nature exists in the spiritual realm." Well, if this is the case then how can nature be "a subset of the natural world"?

it's the same issue. you asked why nature was excluded from "divine existence" or something along those lines. my response was that [your idea of] "nature" did exist in the spiritual realm.

(NeterHeru) - Is the natural world encompassing the material or is it encompassed by this spiritual realm?

everything that exists is natural.

(NeterHeru) - Furthermore explain precisely what you mean by saying "all have a spiritual extent to them. all of material nature is divine in essence."

everything that manifests from the chaotic, unmanifest state does so in stages. each stage builds on the last. the physical/material is built on an immaterial blueprint. that blueprint, and all prior stages, is it's spiritual extent.

(NeterHeru) - If "humans are better able to experience and manipulate their own nature," I demand to know why? Why did this 'divine' whatever deliberately make humans better at experiencing and manipulating their own nature, when they are the furthest organisms from nature itself?

i didn't say "it made humans better"; i said "humans were better able"

goldfish are "better able" to swim than cows.

hammers are "better able" to pound nails into boards than bananas. it's the nature of differentiation.

separate is inherently unequal. see: brown vs board of education.

(NeterHeru) - Moreover if you believe "even thoughts" are 'divine' then why don't you accept divine revelation?

every thought is a divine revelation. we must pick and choose the good from the bad.

(NeterHeru) - Why do you not accept the divinity of Jesus Christ

jesus christ, like the easter bunny, never existed. purely an idea. the difference between jesus christ and the easter bunny is the number of followers.

(NeterHeru) - at least as a thought if concepts are simply a manifestation of the 'divine'?

sure. the nature of an idea is divine. this doesn't make the idea "true", "positive" or worth paying attention to. in fact, that particular idea is harmful and should be dismissed.

(NeterHeru) - Even the Gnostics accepted

why should this sway me?

(NeterHeru) - the divinity of Christ in principle as a thought and not as a man

the essence of existence is divine. this is what i meant by divine thoughts. i do not deny that your own essence is divine; however jesus christ never existed; other than as an idea. there is no benefit to worshipping an idea as a savior, unless that idea happens to be "save yourself"...

deities that don't manifest, people that never exist...these cannot be regarded as gods.

one would be better off worshipping themself. literally. much better off. "know thyself"

hotep.

NeterHeru

03-02-2007, 09:32 PM

LOVE_UNKNOWN:

Thank you for responding. Allow me to provide some clarity, so there will be less confusion in terms of what I was saying respecting your post.

I apologize for making you feel or think I see you as an unreasonable and unintelligent person, for that was not part of my intention. Moreover I don't know you well enough--actually I don't know you at all--to consider you intelligent or stupid. So, again, sorry for either making you feel that way or implying it.

In any case, my intent with responding to your post was to point out the contradictions I saw within what you said and concluded. So much of my response was not literally respecting what you have said, but based upon exposing these contradictions, which is why I prefaced most of my responses with "if," "appears," "seems," in order to indicate that I really don't know until you tell me otherwise. Nevertheless, I duly apologize for giving you the impression that I am creating arguments where there are none--essentially arguing with myself--and claiming you said something that you literally did not say.

However, and here is where the contradictions I saw come into play, based upon your statements respecting the physical world I did not see the rest of what you claimed to be tenable. Thus these are the contradictions. So, from my perspective, if we are to look at or cite your most salient point--respecting "proof of the existence of the supernatural"--it would be the following: "What we “perceive” as elements of physical reality are only registered as thoughts and images in the mind. There exists no proof of an actual physical existence of anything that the mind perceives. . ."

That specific point made by you is the guiding light or intellectual prop for everything else that comes later; everything respecting your post later on is simply a derivative of that point, which exists to support it. Would you agree to this?

If you agree to this observation of mine then perhaps we are totally seeing a different paradigm, of what physical reality is, from what you are saying and what I am seeing in what has been said by you. That is, although you have clarified that specific point, from my perspective I don't see how what you've stated cannot be anything other than saying the physical world does not exist. Let me explain.

"I did not say that physical reality doesn’t exist. I said that IT CAN’T BE PROVEN. Our only “proof” of the physical world, are the thoughts and images of it that register in our mind. That is not to say that the physical world doesn’t exist. That is saying that the existence of the physical world cannot be proven, because we cannot say “for certain” whether the thoughts and images of the physical world, are any different than any other of the thoughts and images in the mind. Scientifically speaking, the sensation of anything that is touched, seen, smelled, heard, or tasted is transformed into information which is sent through the nervous system and is registered in the mind as a thought/image."

I quoted that explanation of the point in question, in order to edify what I see as opposed to what you say is not a contradiction. Let's deal with the first part.

Honestly you certainly did not say that physical reality does not exist. However, what is the difference between saying physical reality does not exist and the actuality of physical reality is unprovable as existing, since physical reality is simply a perception within our minds? From my framework there is no difference, because if we consider what a perception is then it's impossible for physical reality to exist, and even more impossible for someone to claim it does exist, but exists only as a perception.

Brother you and I both know a perception is simply a mental explanation of what our minds conceive and imagine, which is registered within our brain, with no tangible properties of physicality whatsoever, hence it has no basis in materiality. Therefore, if this is what a perception is what else am I to conclude by your statement that "Our only “proof” of the physical world, are the thoughts and images of it that register in our mind"? How can I not conclude that from what you are saying what we call our physical reality does not exist? How could I conclude otherwise from what you're saying, respecting this point?

Perhaps we have different understandings of what a perception is, and I grant that. But how many ways can one define what a perception is absent of being an explanatory or intuitive process, of conceptual and imaginative constructions within our minds? I don't know, but I am open to looking at a definition of difference. Now, let's move on to the second part of your explanation.

I totally agree with your scientific assessment of what sensations are in terms of our brain. However, just because these sensations are registered within our minds as thoughts and images, does not mean the catalyst for stimulating them are not physically real, tangibly existing. I do not think any scientist would say that the stimulation of our five senses by a tangible catalyst is physically not real or not provably material real, because the catalyst is perceived to be stimulating our senses and it's not really happening.

Now don't get me wrong, because we have scientists--psychotherapists, psychoanalysts, psychologists etc.--who point out that there are indeed times when the catalyst for stimulating our senses are not tangibly real and have no basis in materiality (e.g. paranoia, schizophrenia, psychosis, neurosis etc.). Yet these same scientists would not say that physical reality in and of itself is a thought and image within our mind, because its physicality cannot be proven to exist beyond being a perception of our brain. This it appears is what you're saying, and if you are saying this then I strongly and most assuredly disagree with you.

And, to echo brother HipHopolx, if you personally are uncertain as to whether or not "the thoughts and images of the physical world are any different than any other of the thoughts and images in the mind," then give me all of your money. You don't need money if you cannot know "for certain" whether or not the physicality of this money is actually real or merely a perception (read: image or thought) within your own mind, hence no different than an image or thought conceived by us while we are dreaming.

I am trying to not sound insulting here brother, but as earnest as possible respecting what it appears you are saying. Yet if you are not saying what I think it seems you're saying, I am completely reasonable about being clarified. But honestly speaking it is quite certain that what we call the physical world or reality is very real: What happened to Sean Bell and the elderly sister shot over 130 times by police in Georgia was physically real.

Regardless, like you I agree that it would be pointless to challenge every particular thing I said that you said in relation to that specific point since--if you look at all my responses respecting your post--you'll see they all revolve around that one issue of physicality being nothing more than an unprovable perception of the mind. Also, I make no distinction between our brain and mind; they are one and the same, but you seem to liken our minds to souls or spirits. If this is a correct interpretation or not please let me know.

To me, once again, spirit and soul are simply the energy (or animating life force philosophically speaking) that keeps our material existence functioning. The brain is the physical structure, which keeps our minds processing. Thus, our minds stop functioning when our brain ceases to; our souls and/or spirits no longer inhabit our corporeal bodies, once its energy dissipates. Nonetheless, since you know my understanding of these concepts, this should offer additional clarity as to where I stand on the issue regarding mind and spirit. I'll await your response.

nibs

03-02-2007, 10:02 PM

(NeterHeru) - And, to echo brother HipHopolx, if you personally are uncertain as to whether or not "the thoughts and images of the physical world are any different than any other of the thoughts and images in the mind," then give me all of your money. You don't need money if you cannot know "for certain" whether or not the physicality of this money is actually real or merely a perception (read: image or thought) within your own mind, hence no different than an image or thought conceived by us while we are dreaming.

that conclusion is non-sequitur.
dreams have parameters, which is why some are pleasant and others unpleasant.
asking a person to waste away all of their money, throw themselves off a bridge...etc.: would be the same as saying "turn this dream into a nightmare".

there's no benefit to that; only detriment. perceived, imagined...perhaps. however, why should a person willfully ruin their own experience of existence at any level of awareness?

hotep.

hiphopolx

03-02-2007, 10:44 PM

The similar designs by cars have nothing to do with some divine over-arching force. Most of the car companies are owned by GM or Ford, and you just think you are buying a different car when you purchase a Mercedes, Volkswagen, Saab, etc.

Secondly, it is easier to see where the trends are going before the cars are even designed. That has more to do with the small subset of available choices than some divine intervention. I am an engineer, and I work for one of the largest corporations in the world. I see multiple designs that are very similar to each other until one has access to a different technology...then the design architecture changes to exploit the new technology. For example, the similarities in the luxuries and technology in cars have nothing to do with divine intervention, but almost everything to do with microprocessors. In the last 15 years, cars on average had 1-3 processors, now they have as many as 20 due to the technological advancement of the microprocessor that is being exploited by all the car manufacturers. If one company decides to go with a different technology for processing, moldings, or whatever, then you will see different trends as well.

Why is this reply under what I wrote as oppose to the person who claimed
"The similar designs by cars have something to do with some divine over-arching force.:confused:
" Also ask that person what they meant by "divine arching force"
Or maybe You could tell me what that is since you at least know that is has nothing to do with similar designs of cars.

I can see and concur with your statement that
"Most of the car companies are owned by GM or Ford, and you just think you are buying a different car when you purchase a Mercedes, Volkswagen, Saab, etc" If you did your reserch and feel this to be true I'll believe you until I see otherwise. no prob :look:

Peace

NeterHeru

03-02-2007, 10:49 PM

NIBS:

Believe it or not we agree more than we disagree respecting this issue, but allow me to point out the areas you highlighted which I do not agree with.

"ultimately, everything that you perceive, whether it be physical or material, is a matter of your own interpretation. the only being you can be absolutely certain of, is your self-consciousness/awareness." Actually this is not necessarily so. I already pointed out the logical flaw within this argument, but I'm not going to reiterate this flaw here. However, I submit there are many things perceived or otherwise, in materiality that are not a matter of our interpretation and are simply what is.

"the foundation and development work for many spiritual practices is focused on conditioning and training the mind...it's a results based approach, rather than understanding the mechanism." Agreed, but this is the same for all religions too, even the Judeo-Christian-Islamic ones. The mass followers of these religions are not concerned with understanding the mechanics of their religions, and wholly concerned with its results. The point I'm alluding to is why do you continue denying the application of your postulations to the logical behavior of theists?

If you truly believe, as you say, that "everything . . . is a matter of your own interpretation," why do you deny Jews, Christians, Muslims their own interpretations? In other words, why can't you simply just say "Well your interpretation is not my own, and although you see your religion as a living one I see it as a dead one," and leave it at that? You appear to extend your interpretation as a matter of fact in reality itself.

Now don't get me wrong, because I agree with your interpretation in this regard. But, the difference between you and me, on this issue is that I claim nature and the natural world is not subject to human interpretation in terms of its existence, it is what it is. You claim, and I could be wrong with this, that "the only being you can be absolutely certain of, is your self-consciousness/awareness." This is not so, since nature and the natural world exists outside of our self-consciousness/awareness, hence its existence and own awareness is not predicated upon our perceptions, interpretations or whatever, of it.

Basically I just don't see how you say Jews, Christians, and Muslims' God does not exist, and yet maintain that everything is subject to interpretation. Therefore, how can you with any certainty tell them that their interpretation of their God's existence is void, because the only certain thing is "your self-consciousness/awareness," but everything is interpretive? Perhaps it's me, but I see a contradiction here, but am always open to clarity and correction.

"everything that exists whether material or not is a spiritual being." All right, if this is the case then how do you conclude a concept or idea is not a spiritual being? You stated, immediately following the above quote, "the easter bunny exists as an idea only. there is no manifestation of the easter bunny on any level; other than conceptual."

Well the logical question is what's a thought, concept, or idea? And, before that question can be answered, let it be known that a thought and concept is immaterial. Thus, it falls within the rubric you set forth, which says "everything that exists whether material or not is a spiritual being." That's a contradiction from my perspective, even your statements regarding divinity of thoughts has neither implication nor application for materiality.

"the problem is that i switched view points in mid-sentence; without indication. "nature" was your term, your viewpoint. "the natural world" was my viewpoint." How very true, but unlike yourself I make no distinction between what is nature and the natural world; all of nature is the natural world in my mind. But thank you for that clarity.

"everything that exists is natural." You forgot to add "and a spiritual being." All right I admit I am poking fun at that statement :) But if I am interpreting what you're saying correctly, for you a spiritual being and nature are equal, no different from each other. If this is incorrect please let me know.

"i didn't say "it made humans better"; i said "humans were better able" it's the nature of differentiation." You're still making a tautological point here. What you basically described is evolutionary theory in a nutshell. Yet you qualify what you're saying by citing examples of how "humans are better able to experience and manipulate their own nature," with psychic experiences, out of body and mind projections and the like.

And this has nothing to do with differentiating natures and everything to do with human attempts to explain the natural world to them. All organisms evolved on earth in a manner conducive to their natural habitats, which is why marine life is better able to swim then terrestrial life. Therefore human beings are not better able to "experience and manipulate their own nature," anymore than other life forms are able to within our natural world.

If this were the case then all life forms on earth would be psychically projecting their thoughts and bodies into the dwellings of all human beings. I'm certain that laboratory animals would have a lot to say and do to us, if they could telepathically speak to us and astrally interact with us. So until life forms--at the very least animals--can "experience and manipulate their own nature," as you say humans are better able to do, I say what you're talking about is evolutionary adaptation to habitats, not actual experience and manipulation: Spirituality and religion are merely human adaptations to our natural world.

"every thought is a divine revelation. we must pick and choose the good from the bad." Good, then you accept Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as valid religions worshiping a living God. The notion of good and bad divine revelations is irrelevant, since good and bad are interpretative extrapolations of something valued. And, as you pointed out, once again if you believe everything is interpretation then you must also equally agree nothing is good and bad in and of itself; what determines the harmfulness or beneficence of something is how an individual interprets it, if we are to accept your logic "everything that you perceive, whether it be physical or material, is a matter of your own interpretation."

Lastly, while I do enjoy engaging in these highly speculative discourses, let it be known heretofore that nothing I say is meant to be taken personally, but meant affectively and said for edification. That is, what I say is intended to be for a person to reason and feel their way through what was expressed. Nonetheless, you forgot to define the word "divine" for me. And once you do this I'd like to know your definition of "divinity," since whatever is divine has divinity also.

NeterHeru

03-02-2007, 11:04 PM

NIBS:

Recall the statement is regarding the notion that the physical world only exists as a perception of our minds, and cannot be proven to exist beyond that. So, with this understanding in mind, tell me realistically how what you just stated has anything to do with that? There's nothing beneficial or harmful about analyzing what he said, which has nothing to do with dreaming. Let me clarify what I'm saying.

If you tell me that everything that people claim physically exists, does not actually exist physically, and is only a thought or image being perceived to exist physically by our minds, what do you think my logical retort would be? Well I would ask you if you conceive reality this way then what is the point to maintaining any physicality at all.

Why bother physically existing if you cannot prove that you physically exist beyond an image within your own mind? Or, more specifically, what is the point to saying you have favorite foods, terrible foods, likes, dislikes, and so forth, when according to you (not "you" literally here, but figuratively) our five senses are not sensing anything at all, but are sensations being perceived by our minds to be sensing something that's not really there?

This is the essence of the point I used echoing brother HipHopolx's example, however if you have another way of interpreting, ""What we “perceive” as elements of physical reality are only registered as thoughts and images in the mind. There exists no proof of an actual physical existence of anything that the mind perceives. . .," I'm certainly open to entertaining it.

MenNefer

03-02-2007, 11:33 PM

Although still a Hot and heavily debated issue, this site (for me) seemed to explain "intangible affects" well. http://www.science-of-consciousness.com/

Also a Neurobiological account of Consciousness "The Feeling of What Happens" was a good read and reference when understanding perception, emoting, and feeling as well. Although perception shared between us appears to be fundamentally consistent and deterministic, the processes involved with sensing a monolithic self that owns experiences (*autobiographical memory*) and nervous energy; alerting the organism that damage is being done to it in some way, can be reduced to vibratory patterns or energy fields preceding multilayered bio-electrical processes. ( Book written by Antonio Damasio)

Stuart Hammerhoff (the cat in "What the Bleep") sheds light on what is termed "Micro tubules" ; Billions of these molecular switches that oscillate in a quantum like field (in the brain inside the dendritic cells) that are being postulated to be the outgrowth of quantumly entangled processes universally. http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/

There is alot more to what we think we are experiencing as concrete when we could just be externalizing a crude 3 dimensional cognitive landscape that stretches as far as we are prepared to accept it:baby: ......then again thats just an opinion.

MenNefer

03-03-2007, 03:08 AM

Well I would ask you if you conceive reality this way then what is the point to maintaining any physicality at all.

That is a **** good question!

What is the point.... that is.

What is the point?

"Where is the point" is (and has always been) the existencial unrest of those who have *Pointy* noses, pointy hair; and deifies the closed systems mathematician.

Is it wave or particle? Whats the point? ("The point" will always reveal ones fondness of the particle)

I am Wavicle/Particle....I am Neither...I am not here ,,HERE, or there. I AM here but not really...I am an indivisible duality. I am YOU :ilu:

Love_Unknown

03-03-2007, 12:38 PM

nibs

03-03-2007, 10:38 PM

(NeterHeru) - this is the same for all religions too, even the Judeo-Christian-Islamic ones. The mass followers of these religions are not concerned with understanding the mechanics of their religions, and wholly concerned with its results. The point I'm alluding to is why do you continue denying the application of your postulations to the logical behavior of theists? If you truly believe, as you say, that "everything . . . is a matter of your own interpretation," why do you deny Jews, Christians, Muslims their own interpretations?

a) the abrahamic beliefs are based on a false idea. there is no allah, no jesus, no elohim or yahweh.
b) abrahamic faiths are a form of mental enslavement. islam is a culture, it's patriarchical patrilineal. it denies the goddess (divine femine) principle. the arabic qu'ran destroys communities, it literally tells "believers" to turn their backs on their families and communities that don't share their beliefs. the same principles can be found in the old testament.
the abrahamic religions define the identity and nature of a person for that person. people need to know themselves, find themselves and define themselves.
my issue with the abrahamic doctrines is that they are a false form of indoctrination into indo-european culture and values. it's a political issue.

i don't have any issue with the original atenism, worship of the solar life force.
i do not have any large issue with the nation of islam; or the moorish science temple; which attempt to reclaim, reinterpret and redefine those bastardizied teachings of islam, gnosticism...etc.

black hebrews that are reinterpretting fiction; rastafarians...etc. no problem in my eyes. african people are free to reinterpret doctrines that are stolen bastardizations of their [african] knowledge.

however, i would recommend returning to the source, and the unbroken spiritual traditions of our ancestors.

indo-europeans have hidden their lies under the guise of religion.

you say "jews", "christians" & "muslims". i don't have any problems with those people. my objections and issues are with their doctrines that enslave africans.

europeans and arabs can remain christians and muslims from now until eternity; that is their business. they were taught true religion, were not able to maintain any divine connection; fell away; and are only capable of "believing" in fiction.
every african religion from kush to the indus valley was corrupted and distorted by the indo-europeans that moved in later. it is those corruptions and distortions that i object to.

distortions and corruptions that serve to enslave the minds of african people to this day.

(NeterHeru) - why can't you simply just say "Well your interpretation is not my own, and although you see your religion as a living one I see it as a dead one," and leave it at that? You appear to extend your interpretation as a matter of fact in reality itself.

it is a fact that those religions are dead, were never living traditions, and are corruptions of original knowledge. that is "reality" on any level.

hotep.

nibs

03-03-2007, 11:09 PM

(NeterHeru) - I claim nature and the natural world is not subject to human interpretation in terms of its existence, it is what it is.

"what it is" to you is a matter of interpretation. do you percieve the intrinsic essence of "nature" or what your mind interprets from the data known?
we agree, and are looking at the issue from different perspectives.

the difference between an object in the physical realm, and an object in a dream, or an idea; is that the object in the dream does not "consciously agree" about it's own existence. only the perceiver agrees.
physical objects "consciously agree" about their nature, and thus exist independent of the perceiver.

however, what if someone else was projecting their idea, and you choose to agree with it. this idea would exist independent of you, but not intrinsically of it's own volition.

(NeterHeru) - Basically I just don't see how you say Jews, Christians, and Muslims' God does not exist, and yet maintain that everything is subject to interpretation.

the gods of muslims, christians and jews does not exist outside of their texts and minds. those gods have never manifested on any level of existence. the texts themselves are fictional and plagiarism.

(NeterHeru) - "everything that exists whether material or not is a spiritual being." All right, if this is the case then how do you conclude a concept or idea is not a spiritual being? You stated, immediately following the above quote, "the easter bunny exists as an idea only. there is no manifestation of the easter bunny on any level; other than conceptual."

the gods of abraham, and the easter bunny, are no different. they all exist as ideas. they are not self-aware ideas, they do not self-perpetuate or self-exist. they exist and perpetuate only through the minds of those that choose to believe in them.
the bible & quran are not historical accounts of these idea/beings.
these idea/beings did not create the planet, the universe or themselves.
these gods, were created by men. the men that created them were self-existent. these gods are lesser than the men that created and perpetuated them.

(NeterHeru) - Well the logical question is what's a thought, concept, or idea?

a thought, concept or idea is a temporary arrangement of nu.

(NeterHeru) - "everything that exists is natural." You forgot to add "and a spiritual being." All right I admit I am poking fun at that statement :) But if I am interpreting what you're saying correctly, for you a spiritual being and nature are equal, no different from each other.

spiritual beings are a part of nature. everything in nature has a spiritual counterpart. the physical is a subset of nature as it only includes spiritual beings that have a physical/material counterpart.

(NeterHeru) - All organisms evolved on earth in a manner conducive to their natural habitats, which is why marine life is better able to swim then terrestrial life. Therefore human beings are not better able to "experience and manipulate their own nature," anymore than other life forms are able to within our natural world.

using your perspective, one can conclude that "any being better able to survive is better able to manipulate their own nature".

(NeterHeru) - If this were the case then all life forms on earth would be psychically projecting their thoughts and bodies into the dwellings of all human beings. I'm certain that laboratory animals would have a lot to say and do to us, if they could telepathically speak to us and astrally interact with us.

i agree with the essence of this idea, and will state that it is unknown to what extent humans and animals can communicate.

many claim to have encountered their pets while astral projecting and etheral projecting.

i have no reason to doubt those claims.

(NeterHeru) - Spirituality and religion are merely human adaptations to our natural world.

i don't disagree with this.
the principles that were developed, or given to us, should be based on true principles, and not on fiction.

(NeterHeru) - Good, then you accept Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as valid religions worshiping a living God.

no i don't, because their gods are not real, and have never manifested. as i mentioned above.
from their perspective, we can open the old testament and see moses and aaron cursing false gods, destroying their temples...etc.
a false god is a god with no history, a foreign god whose name means nothing.
the abrahamic gods are false gods by definition.

(NeterHeru) - The notion of good and bad divine revelations is irrelevant, since good and bad are interpretative extrapolations of something valued.

this is true.

(NeterHeru) - And, as you pointed out, once again if you believe everything is interpretation then you must also equally agree nothing is good and bad in and of itself; what determines the harmfulness or beneficence of something is how an individual interprets it, if we are to accept your logic "everything that you perceive, whether it be physical or material, is a matter of your own interpretation."

i don't disagree here either; but the distinction you are drawing is very tricky.
my stance against false gods is a political stance against historically fictional, manipulative doctrines; regarding gods that do not self-exist.

(NeterHeru) - I'd like to know your definition of "divinity," since whatever is divine has divinity also.

the spiritual, immaterial essence of physical beings.

hotep.

nibs

03-03-2007, 11:24 PM

(NeterHeru) - If you tell me that everything that people claim physically exists, does not actually exist physically, and is only a thought or image being perceived to exist physically by our minds, what do you think my logical retort would be? Well I would ask you if you conceive reality this way then what is the point to maintaining any physicality at all.

my understanding of the purpose of life & physical existence is to enjoy the experience.
for a person to recognize that the physical mode of existence is an illusion, this does not somehow exclude them from enjoying that illusion. to "give away all your money" would undermine the very purpose for why the illusion was created.

this is no different than having a "good dream"; waking up; and trying to get back to sleep and back into that good dream.

(NeterHeru) - Why bother physically existing if you cannot prove that you physically exist beyond an image within your own mind?

for the experience. you can continue to search for proof as you experience.
technically, you could give away all of your money to experience that...only "fear" prevents one from doing that...but unless you had a specific purpose/need to actually do that...what is the benefit?

(NeterHeru) - Or, more specifically, what is the point to saying you have favorite foods, terrible foods, likes, dislikes, and so forth, when according to you (not "you" literally here, but figuratively) our five senses are not sensing anything at all, but are sensations being perceived by our minds to be sensing something that's not really there?

the "point to saying" those things is to express how you feel. many people deny themselves those things they find pleasure in, and endure those that cause discomfort, to transcend the dependence and enslavement on the sensual aspects of nature.

action should be based on purpose. purpose should be based on knowledge, and not belief.

hotep.

nibs

03-03-2007, 11:56 PM

nibs

03-04-2007, 12:34 PM

(NeterHeru) - I make no distinction between our brain and mind; they are one and the same

seperate consciousness & awareness from this concept of brain & mind.

the brain is a processor and interpretter of stimulus. the brain is the translator of the physical/material realm for the mind. our perception of material existence is dictated by the brain. the brain & body are vehicles of expression for the soul.

(NeterHeru) - To me, once again, spirit and soul are simply the energy (or animating life force philosophically speaking) that keeps our material existence functioning.

our material existence functions on energy from the sun & food. the function of that material existence is guided by our soul + consciousness.

the spirit is the embodiment [spiritual] of our identity. the soul is the source of awareness, higher consciousness...etc.

this distinction is to allow the understanding of how the "spirit" of a person can exist without, and independent of, a physical body.

additionally, just as the soul, is the guiding force of the physical existence of the body; to say that "all of physical nature is divine" is to say that there is a guiding "animating" soul (consciousness) behind all physical manifestations of nature.

the distinction made above regarding "living gods" is a reference to the guiding consciousness [soul] behind manifestations of nature, and spiritual beings (identites) that exist & are interacted with outside of the physical realm.

everyone has their own terms that they are using in this thread, in order to facilitate understanding; we need to understand what each other means by their usage of these terms; in contrast to interpretting terms others use by our own conception.

hotep.

hiphopolx

03-05-2007, 02:41 AM

[color=brown](nibs) -

this sounds like you are slipping into a hypnogagic state; which is the state right before sleep; where you remain somewhat aware of your surroundings, but your indwelling intelligence is moving to the forefront of your awareness as well. your awareness would be a blend of dream/imagined + material.

it's often possibly to use this state to trigger an out of body experience; as the body is relaxed, the awareness is no longer focused on the material...etc. if you can become aware of yourself in this state; if you project your bodily awareness in the material away from your body (another part of the room), that can trigger an obe.

your hallucinations could be a dream influenced by your material surroundings; or you could be experiencing some type of obe already.

Nibs is it possible to willfully go into a hypnogagic state for the purposes of having an obe.
Also if I follow the pattern our physical realm and everything having a purpose then what is the purpose of obe?

:coffee:

nibs

03-05-2007, 08:20 AM

(hiphopolx) - Nibs is it possible to willfully go into a hypnogagic state for the purposes of having an obe.

you can consciously trigger an obe from a deep trance/meditative state. this is essentially entering a hypnogagic-like state.

(hiphopolx) - Also if I follow the pattern our physical realm and everything having a purpose then what is the purpose of obe?

dreams are a mechanism for our higher selves, ancestral spirits...etc to communicate with us.

an obe is consciously entering into a spiritual realm, where one has a greater awareness of their environment; but can stlll learn from their higher selves, and encounter and communicate with ancestral spirits, deities, spirit guides...etc. if you focus on a particular purpose/idea, that concept can manifest in what you interact with during your experience.

hotep.

hiphopolx

03-06-2007, 05:57 AM

NeterHeru
peace bro I never did address these statements you made which I've been meaning to do

I understand you focus on purpose and reason within the debate rather than the language and labels used within it. However, you must understand that the language and labels in a debate are used to express what each participant is trying to convey. Therefore, if the languages or labels are unclear then so will the meanings trying to be conveyed, via these same labels and languages. So I suggest a concentrated focus on both rather than just one part.

“I gave several examples of how I used the term 'common divine knowledge' And you chose not deal with the context of how I use it. But I guess you are more comfortable dealing with language and definitions from each word that I found on the net.” With all due respect did it ever occur to you that I did not understand how your examples connect to what we are discussing? If I do not understand how they connect in terms of what you say they mean, respecting the existence of supernatural beings and things, then you must explain.

HIPHOPOLX:

I have been focusing on both (the reason of the debate and with the labels and languages) with you. My problem is getting you in particular to connect with the examples and terms that I use. I'm not gonna claim I'm the best at it based on others here in my opinion doing a better job than me. But based on the replys I've gotten some ppl have connected the meaning of the terms and examples I gave. I find examples better than just a definition of the the words or prases that I use cause with the examples I can also use it in the context that I mean it, to cover the many cases when ppl use the same words but have different definitions and meaning for those words.

I also realize what you mean in trying to explain the complexity this "unlimited and unformed" knowledge, but if you cannot explain or simplify precisely what you mean to an audience or person, that signifies you haven’t done enough analysis of this complexity, in order to explain it. And don’t get me wrong brother, as I mean no offense in what I just stated. However, as just a fact of reality if you cannot explain the meaning of that which you claim or purport beyond just metaphors and allegories, this indicates you do not fully understand the meaning of your claims and purports. I guess its just life itself, but I assure you if someone asks you to explain something and all you provide them with are examples of what you’re trying to say, and then when asked to explain the concepts or terms you’re using in these examples, and all you can give them are more examples, the same response will occur.

Not necessarily true. Just because you(NeterHeru) don't make connections to what ppl are saying sometimes does not mean the the person explaining hasn’t done enough analysis of this complexity, in order to explain it. The particular subject we are conversing about requires alot of examples to explain what the person is trying to say. Alot of ATRs equate Gods/Goddesses with themselves. So if they said they were God I could relate and no explaination would be needed. Here with you I know I would have to explain myself. I had used the example with the bloodcell realizing it was not an individual but part of a whole and you in particular didn't make the connection. I also tried to explain my term" common Divine intelligence" (which I equate to someone saying indwelling intelligence) thru the example of common programs PCs utilize. Again you in particular didn't make the connection.

If you want I can explain what my consciousness is and define it, but I know you didn’t ask. Yet the point I’m making is that it’s easier for some people to explain what seems unexplainable if they’ve pondered the “unexplainable” for any appreciable amount of time.

I'd definitly like to know your definition of what your consciousness is

That's all for now I need some sleep but I'm looking frwd to continuing this with you

:PEACE:

NeterHeru

03-09-2007, 01:59 AM

NIBS:

Points 1&2: Your commentaries on the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions are based upon your own interpretations, notwithstanding the fact that I agree with you.

Point 3: "physical objects "consciously agree" about their nature, and thus exist independent of the perceiver." We totally agree on this and it supports the point I made.

However, regarding your statement upon an idea not existing upon its own volition, I have to disagree. Let me give you this simple example. You and I have been told that a four-legged organism with a head, mouth, ears, eyes, nose etc., which barks, is a "dog." This is someone else's idea, indeed it is society's idea, but if you and I both do not accept this idea called "dog" the four-legged organism still exists, upon its own volition. Therefore, once again, nature's existence is neither predicated upon nor determined by our interpretations, perceptions, and conceptions of it.

Point 4: Agreed, but still your interpretation of these religions.

Point 5: You did not answer my question, although you provided further clarification of ideas. Allow me to repeat the question in this format: If you and I both know that ideas are immaterial, and according to you "everything that exists whether material or not is a spiritual being," how can you claim that some ideas are spiritual beings while others are not, when all ideas are immaterial? This is my question, so please answer it.

Point 8: Actually with my perspective you cannot manipulate your own nature, because evolutionary development is a natural part of our existence, which remains undeterred and unfettered by ourselves. What I was addressing is adaptations to our habitats; adaptations are responses to our natural evolutionary development, they're the effects of our evolutionary process not the process itself. However, if we ever reach a point portrayed in movies like Gattaca where at the DNA level of molecular biological genetical manipulations--which allows geneticists to choose how a child's phenotype and behavior will be at the fetus stage of development--then I'd agree with you and say humans are "better able to manipulate their own nature."

Point 9: Since you're skeptical as to what degree humans are able to communicate with animals do you believe David Berkowitz was telling the truth, when upon being arrested by law enforcement officials he confessed that his dog told him to murder the women he murdered? If you don't believe he was telling the truth, considering your view of human being-animal communication, why don't you?

Point 11: Again this is your interpretation: What you are really saying is these gods "have never manifested" to "me."

Point 15: "my understanding of the purpose of life & physical existence is to enjoy the experience." I understand the latter view to be also the pinnacle understanding of purpose for living, as taught by Ra Un Nefer Amen. However, my problem with such understanding is when physical existence is not enjoyable. When physical existence is not enjoyable then what? That is what is left to enjoy out of life & physical existence when both are not enjoyable?

The answer obviously is nothing, if you believe in such an understanding. An individual subscribing to this view leaves their self wide open to nihilism and existentialism, because once purposeless sets in due to an absence of enjoying living and physicality, a person no longer wishes to either live or wants reality as it is destroyed (to no longer exist). You might want to consider this problem, with such a view of life and physical existence.

Keep in mind I am not saying this view is wrong brother. I am merely saying the view is problematical once the logical proposition within the understanding (i.e. life's purpose is to enjoy the physical existence) either is confronted with a reality contradicting the purpose, or made null by experiences one has in reality itself.

However, this understanding is precisely why you have made the mistake of seeing life as either a "good dream" or a "bad dream." For you see no one can dream their selves out of the "hood." They set a realistic goal for their selves to attain, while wide awake, which changes their dynamic position from being impoverished to prospering. There is not a single person who has ever existed in the "hood" who dreamed of being a millionaire and then woke up a millionaire and left the hood; therefore there is a huge distinction between dreams and physical reality despite what you and Australian Aborigines believe.

Point 16: "for the experience. you can continue to search for proof as you experience. technically, you could give away all of your money to experience that...only "fear" prevents one from doing that...but unless you had a specific purpose/need to actually do that...what is the benefit?" You answered your own question brother, for the benefit of giving away all your money is simply for the experience, because you believe the point of physical existence is merely to experience the reality of it.

Yet allow me to ask you this question: When you decide to stop searching for "proofs" in your physical experience, can you then end your physical existence? In other words can you then kill yourself? If you answered "yes" to the latter question would you consider advocating Suicide Clubs for people who wanted to end their physical existence, since they are no longer interested in searching for proofs in experiencing it? If you answered "no," I'd like to know why.

Point 18: Well if I understand your questions correctly I can provide you with two examples of these experiences, which were simply my mind handling the situation, and not some supernatural or spiritual force.

One day while riding the train in New York City this brother--about 9 times the size of my body--used his leg to batter against my own, in response to me talking to a young lady whom at the time I did not know was his sister. He told me quite sternly "Yo! You know this is my sister!? Check this here: If you say another word to her I'm going to kill you!" Well I calmly told him "I won't say another word to her."

However, at that moment I could swear I wasn't myself, due to the robotic nature of my response, and was floating above my body seeing everything as it happened. Yet, with more reflection I simply realized that this wasn't an out-of-body experience I had, but simply a defense mechanism: My mind had completely shut down my emotions, which caused an unflinching, robotic, lackadaisical response rather than a confrontational one.

My second experience with such so-called phenomena was in response to my mother's twin sister being murdered. I always thought, months after she was murdered, that her spirit protected me in times of trouble. Yet, again, after much reflection I gradually came to realize it was simply my way of dealing with her no longer being around, ever again.

Point 19: Sorry brother but there is no soul and mind. These are simply terms we have used to explain the behavior and mentality or cognitive processes of people, nothing more. Realistically understand that before human beings identified our brain as the seat of our cognitive functions we called it our Mind, similarly prior to identifying our nervous system as the seat of our emotional functions we called it our Soul.

However, if you believe you have a soul and mind, then where are your soul and mind, when you're sleeping, and awake? And, once you have identified where they are, you must acknowledge the fact that if your soul and mind can be identified then both can be entrapped, destroyed, and tortured.

Point 20: Tell me precisely where your soul, spirit, and mind are located in relation to your physical body? Telling me your spirit is the spiritual embodiment of your identity really means nothing, since it's like saying your heart is the embodiment of your emotional functions or feelings. Regardless, where does your soul and spirit go when you're unconscious or, in other words, comatose? Also tell me where your mind goes, along with spirit and soul, when there is no longer brain activity, thus when your brain is no longer functioning and is simply an inactive organ. Lastly, tell me exactly where your soul, spirit, and mind all go when you are dead Nibs? Thanks for the clarity though.

NeterHeru

03-09-2007, 02:23 AM

HIHOPOLX:

Brother I totally understand your decision to utilize examples, in order to explain the terms that you're using. Still the point I was making is that you cannot simply solely rely upon examples to explain what you mean, by what you say. Utilization of examples is not enough as explanatory vehicles in a debate, wholly confined within an ontological context.

Anytime you engage in a metaphysical discussion about life, reality, nature and the like definition of terms must be foremost within the discussion itself. In any case, I will try to understand your examples more, if you work more at trying to define your terminology.

Let me give you an example of what I'm describing here: Say you have never heard of the Nation of Gods and Earths, and never met a 5%. Knowing this, if you were confronted by 5%'s and they started speaking mathematics to you, which you and I both know is essentially symbolic and acronymic speak, would you understand precisely what they meant, if they did not defined the terms used by them? Knowing they speak metaphorically (symbolically) would using examples help you understand exactly what they're saying, if you don't even understand the terms they're using?

Well I think you'll agree that obviously no understanding on your part could possibly take place, in such a situation. As a present example of this, I have no idea what you mean by "ATR's," for I am not familiar with this term.

In any event, my consciousness is simply awareness of my own existence in terms of whom and what I am, what I'm becoming, and what I can be. The basis of this awareness, or consciousness itself, is my brain in conjunction with my nervous system; without both my brain and nervous system either existing or functioning I have no consciousness or awareness of self. This is consciousness explained from a practical non-metaphysical point of view, which is the most natural view of awareness itself in my opinion.

MenNefer

03-09-2007, 06:22 PM

Point 3: "physical objects "consciously agree" about their nature, and thus exist independent of the perceiver."

I am trying to agree as well. Although it's okay not to, it doesn't hurt to attempt without perseveration. (obsessing)

Ironically it seems one would need a partial (objective) source of measurement in order to validate the assertion that physical objects exist independent of the perciever. Especially when the phenomenon of perception is not solely individual but ubiquitous. Like determining whether there is an afterlife to death we would need to somehow determine the physicality of an object without any normal means of perception which is not only an enigmatic problem but utterly empirically impossible.

However, regarding your statement upon an idea not existing upon its own volition, I have to disagree. Let me give you this simple example. You and I have been told that a four-legged organism with a head, mouth, ears, eyes, nose etc., which barks, is a "dog." This is someone else's idea, indeed it is society's idea, but if you and I both do not accept this idea called "dog" the four-legged organism still exists, upon its own volition. Therefore, once again, nature's existence is neither predicated upon nor determined by our interpretations, perceptions, and conceptions of it.

This again (in my understanding of deductive reasoning) would require a comparable designation that would conform, in some sort of way, (even with a standard deviation) to our perception of this "Four legged organism" in order to *truly* assert the organism exist on its own accord. In the example above, I agree that if the three of us don't accept the idea (description, definition) the organism still exist. I am also to assume that our acceptance or non-acceptance is based on the pretext that what we are left to percieve would naturally fit into some sort of categorization (even subconsciously) to authenticate our basic perception of it. One could still not say with probability that it exist of its own volition until we remove our (equally) fundamental perception of it (devoid of any means of categorization). Although the plausibility is provoking (like the acceptance of m-theory or superstrings), we would only be dealing with a philosophical statement.

Point 15: "my understanding of the purpose of life & physical existence is to enjoy the experience." I understand the latter view to be also the pinnacle understanding of purpose for living, as taught by Ra Un Nefer Amen. However, my problem with such understanding is when physical existence is not enjoyable. When physical existence is not enjoyable then what? That is what is left to enjoy out of life & physical existence when both are not enjoyable?

RUNA (from my reading and trance) asserts that existence does not have the intrinsic property of pain, enjoyment/pleasure. To truly en-joy is to engage physicality with an uninterupted state of peace (Hetep) which is the grounding of our BEING; knowing there is no-thing enjoyable in the object, we partake in the activities without sensitivity to gain or loss. We Will ourselves to enjoy (Joy is the engine of success) and return from the climax unmoved. (This is a gradual process but no less one that I see visible results (already) in varying degrees in relation to my former person and those I examine around me.)

MenNefer

03-09-2007, 06:55 PM

In any event, my consciousness is simply awareness of my own existence in terms of whom and what I am, what I'm becoming, and what I can be. The basis of this awareness, or consciousness itself, is my brain in conjunction with my nervous system; without both my brain and nervous system either existing or functioning I have no consciousness or awareness of self. This is consciousness explained from a practical non-metaphysical point of view, which is the most natural view of awareness itself in my opinion.

"Consciousness explained from a practical /non-metaphysical point of view" is definitely an option that we all have (taking into consideration the properties of this organic navigation system (brain/body). Based on the various properties/functions of the nervous system, we know that phenomena can be split and categorized into a hierarchical framework, that analogs can be drawn from congregative wholes, we place things or measure them with a numerical system of abstract sets, and, give or take the athropological implications, we can form the basis of our core beliefs from the nuances to build an inductive platform from whence our deductive reasoning would ensue. The question arises for me in regards to the circumspective numerical patterns underlying the predicating factors that set the stage for you to be who you *think* you are (Sekert for those who Know). These factors seem to have been culminating before the event of * self awareness* and yet are an invaluably inextricable agency of "whom and what I am, what I'm becoming, and what I can be." My ability to critically examine these processes as a crystallization of it come subsequent to its purposeful agenda. I say purposeful because things seem to have been in autopilot (for better or worse) before I began adjusting and taking more response-ability. These factors precede and are involved in the formation of ones nervous system/Brain. Therefore it is (for me common sense) feasible to develope an alternative inductive premise to the mechanistic view (materialism) in all of its modalities. The Paut neteru reconciles this seeming dichotomy within the relationship between Sebek (apuat/Anpu) and Tehuti for those who Know.

NeterHeru

03-10-2007, 02:31 AM

MENNEFER:

Brother you did a masterful job of agreeing without disagreeing, yet equally providing a parallel perspective that is wholly complementary to all that is being said, or rather discussed. In retrospect I should have edified, nay I should have qualified my understanding of what the Ausar Auset Society has been teaching--regarding life's purpose--for decades, because you're quite right.

As a younger person my issue, or rather what I found problematical, with this view--which again I say is neither wrong nor right--is that if it is true we choose to come back however we want in life, for the experience, during our creation process I could not reconcile why so many of our people have willfully come back to experience racism, sexism, poverty, impoverishment, hunger etc... It just was something I could not find to be tenable to my own existence.

At the same time, I'm also willing to accept the fact perhaps I may have misunderstood precisely what Ra Un Nefer Amen meant by explaining this process, throughout Metu Neter Vols. 1&2. Nevertheless, it could be said that my own understanding of life itself also fits into this pinnacle understanding as taught by Ausar Auset.

You know in relation to consciousness it's really interesting in that I agree that the factors or elements pertaining to consciousness do seem latent within us, prior to consciousness itself. I recall when I was 17 years old I decided to get my spiritual incarnation objective uncovered, for myself. So I went to an Ausar Auset sister who conducted the process and when she told me that Tehuti was my spiritual incarnation objective I was not the least bit surprised.

In fact, knowing what I knew about whom Tehuti was and his basic role in Egyptian mythology and cosmology, this uncovering validated my own identity. Yet what I realized was that if my inherent abilities were not cultivated--particularly regarding erudition and lucubration--then Tehuti as my spiritual incarnation objective would never have manifested itself.

So, in agreement with you, these factors do seemingly culminate within us prior to our conscious awareness of them, but it also appears to me that if these elements of our being are not cultivated--like a latent talent--then they'll surely not manifest in our reality. However, this is just my view of it and I cannot actually prove that latent talents exist, which is why they are called latent in the first place--lol. But thanks for sharing that parallel and complementary thought :)

nibs

03-11-2007, 01:29 PM

(NeterHeru) - However, regarding your statement upon an idea not existing upon its own volition, I have to disagree. Let me give you this simple example. You and I have been told that a four-legged organism with a head, mouth, ears, eyes, nose etc., which barks, is a "dog." This is someone else's idea, indeed it is society's idea, but if you and I both do not accept this idea called "dog" the four-legged organism still exists, upon its own volition.

that idea is a description which is merely an interpretation of an observation. that idea is not the intrinsic nature of "a dog".

which dog? snoopy? snoopy doesn't exist, other than in cartoons or comics. ditto scooby doo.
if you encounter an actual dog, then your idea now matches your perceptions of the dog you encounter.
thus you associate the two.

(NeterHeru) - Therefore, once again, nature's existence is neither predicated upon nor determined by our interpretations, perceptions, and conceptions of it.

nature's existence? no. your interpretations of of that existence? yes.

(NeterHeru) - If you and I both know that ideas are immaterial, and according to you "everything that exists whether material or not is a spiritual being," how can you claim that some ideas are spiritual beings while others are not, when all ideas are immaterial? This is my question, so please answer it.

ideas that are interpretations of things in nature, whether it be spiritual or material; are different from ideas that are imagined only in the mind. ideas that are created mentally.
everything that exists is a manifestation of an idea or stream of consciousness.
the distinction being made is with regards to those ideas that do not manifest on their own.

(NeterHeru) - Actually with my perspective you cannot manipulate your own nature, because evolutionary development is a natural part of our existence

what drives evolution?

(NeterHeru) - if we ever reach a point portrayed in movies like Gattaca where at the DNA level of molecular biological genetical manipulations--which allows geneticists to choose how a child's phenotype and behavior will be

what determines the dna & mutations? what guides a particular sperm cell to a particular egg?

your definition of "i" and "we" is human beings, and not spiritual beings or consciousness. there are two ends from which to approach this problem.

(NeterHeru) - Since you're skeptical as to what degree humans are able to communicate with animals do you believe David Berkowitz was telling the truth, when upon being arrested by law enforcement officials he confessed that his dog told him to murder the women he murdered? If you don't believe he was telling the truth, considering your view of human being-animal communication, why don't you?

i am unfamiliar with david berkowitz; but even if his dog told him to murder those women...why did he listen to the dog?

i'm open to hearing what any dog has to say (i mistyped 'god' twice before that came out); but once the dog begins advocating murder...i'm inclined to desist from listening to that dog any further.

(NeterHeru) - Again this is your interpretation: What you are really saying is these gods "have never manifested" to "me."

no. i am saying that the biblical history is fictional, so the biblical "gods" have never manifested to anyone. there is no moses. no god manifested to moses, as moses is fiction. there is no jacob/israel, there is no abraham...etc. fiction.

if i repeat your story of your experience on the train, and claim it happened to me...the story is false; although there may be a truthful event at it's basis.
there is no moses, thus moses has no god.

tehuti writes laws on stone tablets, not yahweh.

yeshua is bastardized symbolism, not a literal historical figure.

according to the qu'ran, that message was delivered indirectly through gabriel; and seeing as that message is riddled with errors (asserting that mythical characters and symbolic events are literally true) it's origin is that of an obvious plagiarism. fiction.

if you want to restore the original characters and storylines and question whether or not there is an aten, a tehuti...etc. that is a separate issue.

(NeterHeru) - I understand the latter view to be also the pinnacle understanding of purpose for living, as taught by Ra Un Nefer Amen.

you can hear chief elder osiris teaching that principle on saturdays. we cn go to the pert em heru and see that souls essentially have to "petition" to return to this world.
i arrived at that conclusion while sitting in the sun one day.

(NeterHeru) - However, my problem with such understanding is when physical existence is not enjoyable. When physical existence is not enjoyable then what? That is what is left to enjoy out of life & physical existence when both are not enjoyable?

you live for both the present and the future. the future meaning "future lives"; as you live on through your descendents...
to say "life is not enjoyable" is to focus on a small portion of one life; and ignore the big picture.

(NeterHeru) - An individual subscribing to this view leaves their self wide open to nihilism and existentialism

that would be short-sighted; and only focused on one lifetime individually.

(NeterHeru) - I am merely saying the view is problematical once the logical proposition within the understanding (i.e. life's purpose is to enjoy the physical existence) either is confronted with a reality contradicting the purpose, or made null by experiences one has in reality itself.

as unpleasant as it seems; there is [can be] benefit to the "negative", in that it reminds one of the bigger picture. negative is a matter of perception.

(NeterHeru) - However, this understanding is precisely why you have made the mistake of seeing life as either a "good dream" or a "bad dream." For you see no one can dream their selves out of the "hood."

take control of the dream. the analog to "lucid dreaming". the tone of a dream can be actively changed.

(NeterHeru) - They set a realistic goal for their selves to attain, while wide awake, which changes their dynamic position from being impoverished to prospering.

"while wide awake".

are we really disagreeing when i've stated that "awake" vs "dream" is nothing but varying levels of consciousness?

raise your consciousness and you control the dream. it's your dream.

also, i don't remember stating that "life" was a "dream" i believe i used "dreams" as an analogy.

(NeterHeru) - Why bother physically existing if you cannot prove that you physically exist beyond an image within your own mind?

(nibs) - for the experience. you can continue to search for proof as you experience.

(NeterHeru) - When you decide to stop searching for "proofs"

to clarify this; a person does not need proof to enjoy existence; and if they need proof they can search in parallel; while they live..

(NeterHeru) - When you decide to stop searching for "proofs" in your physical experience, can you then end your physical existence? In other words can you then kill yourself?

during the middle passage, some slaves would jump overboard with the understanding that they would reincarnate and be at home for another go-round. (after god is dibia)
doris lessing actually answers your question in the affirmative, as "canopeans" (an advanced civilization in some of her books); incarnate in certain worlds to perform tasks, and commit suicide to return home.

for you to put suicide on the table as an option, the question is "what are the benefits; and is there a need"?

(NeterHeru) - If you answered "yes" to the latter question would you consider advocating Suicide Clubs for people who wanted to end their physical existence

if a person consciously transcended "life" & "death" and had no ties to the world...they can do as they wish.
i would not suggest anyone select a course of action whose outcome they did not know. suicide contradicts the purpose of coming into being in the first place.

(NeterHeru) - at that moment I could swear I wasn't myself, due to the robotic nature of my response, and was floating above my body seeing everything as it happened. Yet, with more reflection I simply realized that this wasn't an out-of-body experience I had, but simply a defense mechanism: My mind had completely shut down my emotions, which caused an unflinching, robotic, lackadaisical response rather than a confrontational one.

what you experienced may have been an out of body experience. your rationalization, and how you have convinced yourself otherwise; does not affect whether or not it was or wasn't. the only issue in question is how you understand it.

interestingly, your consciousness/awareness was outside of your body and elsewhere; it had some other vehicle. the point love_unknown was making earlier was that you are not your body, but the consciousness; which you seem to have seen can be disassociated from the physical body.

(NeterHeru) - My second experience with such so-called phenomena was in response to my mother's twin sister being murdered. I always thought, months after she was murdered, that her spirit protected me in times of trouble. Yet, again, after much reflection I gradually came to realize it was simply my way of dealing with her no longer being around, ever again.

i am sorry to hear about your aunt.
in general, if i get premonitions or messages...etc; i try to figure out if the information is something that i knew that has arisen to the forefront, or something that i did not know. something that i did not know is likely to be external.

the practices of ancestor veneration are designed to strengthen those ties, strengthen those connections to the spirit of our ancestors; the offerings are intended to strengthen the spirits themselves...etc. if you convince yourself that there are no spirits, those ties & connections will likely weaken.

(NeterHeru) - Sorry brother but there is no soul and mind. These are simply terms we have used to explain the behavior and mentality or cognitive processes of people, nothing more. Realistically understand that before human beings identified our brain as the seat of our cognitive functions we called it our Mind, similarly prior to identifying our nervous system as the seat of our emotional functions we called it our Soul.

the emotional body is typically regarded as the astral body and not the soul. the soul transcends emotions.
the brain and nervous systems are the physical junction points that connect the higher bodies to the lower. both the brain and nervous system are charged with transmitting and interpretting electrical impulses; which means they serve as junctions from energy to material.

(NeterHeru) - However, if you believe you have a soul and mind, then where are your soul and mind, when you're sleeping, and awake?

to use mathematical or physical science principles; i would say the spirit is the extension of being "in a different dimension"
the mind is the spiritual counterpart to the brain, and thus represents the junction point along the dimensional axis.
the soul is the essence of existence. the fundamental state of existence.

(NeterHeru) - And, once you have identified where they are, you must acknowledge the fact that if your soul and mind can be identified then both can be entrapped, destroyed, and tortured.

entrapped, destroyed and tortured by what? in terms of "spirit"; it's posssible...

(NeterHeru) - Tell me precisely where your soul, spirit, and mind are located in relation to your physical body?

the extension of being in a higher (or lower actually) dimension.

(NeterHeru) - Regardless, where does your soul and spirit go when you're unconscious or, in other words, comatose?

their location would not need to change.

(NeterHeru) - Also tell me where your mind goes, along with spirit and soul, when there is no longer brain activity, thus when your brain is no longer functioning and is simply an inactive organ.

the mind, as the connection between the physical brain & soul would potentially represent a jumbled or malfuntioning connection. similarly, the spirit, as the embodiment of the identity, may be negatively effected by that jumbled connection; or could simply persist unaffected, but unable to transmit any experiences/stimulus back to the brain.

(NeterHeru) - Lastly, tell me exactly where your soul, spirit, and mind all go when you are dead Nibs?

the soul is unaffected by death. the spirit can persist in close proximity with the physical plane, or venture off further along it's own plane.

hotep.

NeterHeru

03-11-2007, 08:53 PM

NIBS:

You’re right about the “life is but a dream” issue, because I can’t recall actually now whether you mentioned it or not, although I know brother Love_Unknown did. Be that as it may since I cannot recall, nor am I going to attempt to research whether you did or didn’t mention it—for the sake of argument—please accept my apology for stating that you did, when you did not. Also, this discourse I find to be stimulating although your method frustrates me (you know responding to every little thing I say) LOL! Anyhow, this exchange is enjoyable. Okay onward to the commentary ;)

Point 1: We agree a lot more than we disagree I think Nibs. Certainly descriptive ideas are interpretations, which essentially are our perceptions. However, although I agree with you that an idea is not the intrinsic nature of “the dog,” my point was that what we call a “dog” does not exist, and only exists as an idea. It does not exist because that which we refer to as a dog is only a dog because we say and agree that it is, but realistically speaking it’s just a four-legged organism, with a mouth, nose etc. This is the point I was making; in other words whatever we describe or think nature—and aspects of nature--is, has no effect and affect on nature itself, because as I said before nature is what it is regardless of how we conceive and interpret it to be.

Point 2: I’m curious but how can you interpret nature’s existence to be other than existing? That is, you agree with me that nature “is neither predicated upon nor determined by our interpretations, perceptions, and conceptions of it,” for its existence. Therefore, how could our interpretations of this existence have any bearing upon and influence of the existence itself? Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you here, yet it seems you’re saying there is another way to interpret the existence of nature, but from my perspective there are only two ways to interpret nature’s existence: it either exists or does not exist.

Point 3: I think you’re misunderstanding me here. What you’re describing are perceptions, not ideas. Perceptions, interpretations, and extrapolations are not ideas, but are description of these ideas, and can also be known as descriptive ideas. Your statement, however, does not make a distinction between descriptive ideas (perceptions) and ideas themselves. Ideas, thoughts, and concepts are all the same—no description just an imagined element.

Now the trigger for the generation of concepts and ideas result from external (e.g. nature) and internal (e.g. dreams) stimuli. However, interpretations or perceptions of these concepts comes from attempting to explain—at least sufficiently—to ourselves precisely what they mean, in relation to our own reality. In any case, “ideas that do not manifest on their own” are perceptions of already existing thoughts, but again your statement does not make a distinction between ideas already conceived and ideas already extrapolated, from being conceived.

Point 4: What drives or consists as the basis for engendering evolution is nature itself. Evolution is a natural change that is inevitable; we cannot determine precisely how anything will change respecting evolution, but we know evolutionary changes are inevitable. In other words, just how our climate, fauna, and flora all occur seasonally human adaptations to our natural world also happen continuously. Evolution is a continuous change, which at times is repetitious and at other times sporadic, exactly like nature itself.

Point 5: Evolution determines DNA and genetical mutations, while nature determines a sperm cell going toward an egg, which is not a particular process and is a normative and natural occurrence. Well you know my concept of a spiritual being and consciousness, however I will say that yes I am only referring to human beings because there are no spiritual beings and consciousness is simply human awareness—an awareness of whatever is in their reality.

I know you have said human beings are spiritual beings and that we just have to remember our spiritual abilities (of course paraphrasing you here), however I have yet to encounter and meet anyone personally who can do anything considered spiritual, otherworldly, or Godly. Of course I read and hear about these people all the time, but until they show themselves in physical form performing miraculous things—like Christ Jesus—I will maintain a posture of their nonexistence.

Point 6: LOL! Brother Nibs you are funny :) Well not that I’m agreeing and disagreeing with your remarks on the matter, because as I said I was merely curious as to your thoughts, I can tell you briefly who David Berkowitz was. Basically he was a European Jew who paraded around the streets of New York City during the 1970’s as a serial killer.

And I don’t mean paraded in the sense that he dressed up to act like one, no he was the real thing. He mutilated more than a dozen (I forget the exact number) White women during this time and when he was finally caught openly admitted to the murders, but qualifying it by saying his dog told him to do it LOL. Anyhow that’s David Berkowitz; also Spike Lee made a movie about him some years ago called Summer of Sam.

Point 7: You’re still missing my point of your views of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions being just your interpretations; in light of the fact you believe "everything . . . is a matter of your own interpretation.” I don’t believe that, however let’s just leave this issue alone since you keep telling me things I already agree with ;)

Point 12: “take control of the dream. the analog to "lucid dreaming". the tone of a dream can be actively changed.” All right I have nothing against taking control over a dream. But, out of curiosity and clarity, are you actually saying that by taking control over a dream an individual can make what they’re dreaming about manifest in reality, which is the reality of being wide awake? If you are saying this can you accomplish such a task or do you know anyone who can accomplish such a task?

Point 13: We are not necessarily disagreeing on the matter of dreams, as you can see from the abovementioned questions. But I was under the impression you believed as our Aboriginal sisters and brothers that the dream world is the real world while the physical world is illusory. I’m open for correction though.

Point 14: True, respecting committing suicide, but recall I said early on within this debate that I have yet to meet someone who has returned from the other side, to tell me exactly what the other side is like, and what’s it like not existing physically on the other side and now, or then, returning to the physical world. This is basically why, although I have entertained the ideas of a netherworld existing, I do not assume an otherworld to exist beyond our materiality, unless there is unequivocal and unambiguous proof in our materiality of beings returning from this other existence.

Point 15: I agree with you regarding the point Love_Unknown was making and your interpretation of what I described, as an out of body experience. However, the reason why it wasn’t an out-of-body experience is precisely because I knew that I had not gone anywhere. That is, I knew my consciousness did not become displaced (i.e. unconscious); I also knew that I was terrified, but at the time could not comprehend why this fear did not show or manifest itself during the situation.

As I analyzed my self for months, regarding this situation, it occurred to me that the reason why I was terrified for my life—and actually thought this man would kill me—but was unafraid to talk, is due to the fact that I, like any person, has the ability to completely turn my emotions off. If need be, in a traumatic situation, which requires a person to act without consciously deliberating upon what course of action should be taken, I can easily cut my emotions off and deal with the situation as it is, until the time is right for me to assess what I’m feeling in relation to the situation itself.

This kind of self-analytical depth is not an out-of-body experience, but a natural process of human capability, when the situation requires. The same goes for our minds, which is the principal reason why meditation is so useful for tuning out mental distractions; by focusing on suppressing and completely shutting down our thought process, we allow ourselves to simply experience ourselves as a being of feeling and emotion. Such an existence allows us to simply feel our way through interacting with nature, rather than thinking about it. And sometimes thinking about things is a distraction.

Of course I’m not saying we cannot do both (think and feel about nature simultaneously). I’m simply saying that often times what we see or perceive to be supernatural and otherworldly is simply a naturally occurring process within nature, and in this case humanity.

Point 16: “the practices of ancestor veneration are designed to strengthen those ties, strengthen those connections to the spirit of our ancestors; the offerings are intended to strengthen the spirits themselves...etc. if you convince yourself that there are no spirits, those ties & connections will likely weaken.” Agreed, which is why every year during the winter we honor her untimely passing, but it hits my mother the hardest. Still I have to disagree with you respecting that last point you made, because—as I see it—we are honoring her memory, not her spirit. In any case, thank you very, very much for your condolences :)

Point 17: You know Nibs it occurs to me that the reason why I like debating with you so much is because arguing with you is like arguing with myself, and—like me—you have a logical and reasonable answer for everything (LOL!) Anyhow we both completely agree on this: “both the brain and nervous system are charged with transmitting and interpretting electrical impulses; which means they serve as junctions from energy to material.” Yet our difference concerns the fact that I say human beings are only comprised of energy and materiality, but you say we also have a soul, spirit, and mind.

See you are totally right that our brain and nervous system are not the sources of this energy, but unlike you I don’t say the source of this energy is our soul, spirit, and mind (you didn’t say the latter three were the source, but I’m extrapolating this from your commentary on the subject). This energy to me is self-generating; electricity is latently and kinetically existing within the human body, therefore it’s its own source of energy, although one could make the argument that our very DNA, genes, and cells are its source, which I wouldn’t contest.

Points 18 – 21: “entrapped, destroyed and tortured by what? in terms of "spirit"; it's posssible...” Yes that’s precisely where I was going with the statements regarding entrapment, destroying etc. Thanks for answering. Also, if the soul and spirit of a person need not change upon becoming comatose, then what are the souls and spirits of people doing, while such persons are comatose? See I grant you that the soul and spirit are the substances, which animate materiality (Note: I’m not agreeing the soul and spirit exist, but just stating they do for this specific context). However, if the physical body or physical vessel housing both the soul and spirit is inactive, immobilized, and completely inoperative what then do souls and spirits do in consequence thereof?

Point 22: Could it be safe to say that from your perspective since the spirit is the embodiment of identity that it’s also the sum total of our personality? Also if someone has “lost their mind,” to use that old pun, and according to you it connects the soul to the brain, what happens to the soul after this connection has been severed? That is, we know when a person loses their mind the brain still stays attached physically to their body, however given the fact we cannot mathematically quantify the actual dimensions of a soul—and a spirit for that matter—does it become displaced, dispossessed, lost etc? I’m merely curious as to what your thoughts are respecting this disconnection.

Point 23: Do you believe that the soul, spirit, and mind all have their own distinctive and independent personalities, which entails that all three are sentient absent of human beings?

hiphopolx

03-12-2007, 08:28 PM

The next story, then ? goes as follows. We (Hiphopolx and Neterheru)both

work at a high tech robotics firm and were to trained to build and engineer

these high tech robots (far superior to anything anybody ever made). Now

we were given a blue print for the design and function for these robots.

Now for the purpose of the point I'm trying to convey. I don't want to get

too technical of how the robots can do what they do. But I'll say for energy,

instead of gas it uses the properties of hydrogen it sucks from the air

and light preferably from directly from the sun or the energy stored in

plants and the function of the robots is to be able to automatically

replicate themselves using the various metals it comes across. We've

programed these robots to be mobile, self sufficient and the purpose of

the robots is to serve us human beings. Now the size of the robots are an

eigth of an inch and were designed to be spheres. So they look like this

" 0 " These robots are also designed to interlock at any point of its

sphere like this

........................" 000".........." 00
...................... 000000...or...0000 0000
.......................0000000.........0000000
..........................000..............0 0..0 0
So as you can see they have the ability to form any shape.And like

computer programs they are designed to work together to do a variaty of

tasks. Now our robots are basically the same but I tell you that I made

mine to be conscious of its self and I could prove it.

What would be your criteria of proof?

I'll tie this in (hopefully provide you the connection)if you haven't

already with the subject of the thread after your feedback

peace

Love_Unknown

03-18-2007, 07:17 AM

Hello Neterheru,

Sorry for my hiatus, but I have still been following the development of this discussion, and I am very anxious to rejoin it. I hope this response is worth the wait.

What is spirit?
We can define spirit as “living immaterial being,” the essence of all things in existence whether physical or conceptual. Do not think of ghosts and transparent people walking around old houses, or invisible cherub like beings, or the image an old man with long white hair holding thunderbolts in each hand. Such European inspired illustrations are extremely limiting as to what can/should properly be called “spirit,“ and such manifestations are typically not what an African is referring to when he/she makes use of the term “spirit.” Like brother Nibs has already stated, you have to forget what you have learned about such things from white society and education. European spiritual/religious “understandings” are nonsensical, and therefore require “belief” to be accepted as true. Such beliefs of course do not hold up to intelligent scrutiny, making atheism the natural and inevitable result of a European religious mindset.

So what qualifies to be called spirit?
The mind lives. It creates, it postulates, it wills, it questions, it probes. Can any of these actions of the mind be proven to possess physicality? If thought has physical form then prove it. Thoughts of the mind cannot be touched, and as vivid as they can be seen by the mind’s eye, they cannot be seen optically. They cannot be heard, smelled, or tasted? There is not a scientific instrument in existence that can record, weigh, or measure thought in any way. And if you think that the electrical impulses that flow in and out of the brain qualify as “thought,” then perhaps you might also believe that your blender is thinking evil thoughts and cannot be trusted.

If you tell me that you have fashioned the image of a race horse in your mind, how can I prove that? I can’t see it, or touch it, or photograph it, or really validate the experience in any “physical” way. I cannot “prove” that there is the image of a race horse in your mind. But simply because I state that I cannot “prove” that there is an image of a race horse in your mind, is not to say that I do not believe that an image of a race horse exists in your mind. I can simply either choose to believe in the image in your mind or not. The mind then, and the images that exist within it, would seem to have a lot in common with spirit, because that is exactly what the mind is.

Perhaps though some confusion has come about in this discussion from the understanding of the word “thought.“ Without referencing any type of outside sources, and utilizing only a natural understanding of self, I can make a rough distinction between three types of thought: 1) innate, 2) manufactured, 3) outside stimulus.

Innate thought could best be described as “self-awareness” (a more accurate and concise term to my knowledge does not exist in the English language.) This is the essential aspect of “self” that thinks, feels, evaluates, and wills things to be. It evaluates the information it receives, decides if it is favorable or unfavorable, acceptable or unacceptable, and also wills things into being (commands the physical body to act, manufactures its own thoughts and images, etc.) This is the form of thought that simply “knows” that I exist, and is what I keep referring to as “the mind,” the essence of what is “me.”

Manufactured thoughts are simply products of the mind. As the conscious mind chooses , it can create whatever thoughts or images in the mind that it/I desire. Individual imagination could be seen as the only limit to our mind’s ability to manufacture thought.

The third type of thought, those from outside stimulus, are really irrelevant to the nature of this little debate, but seem to be the cause of a lot of confusion in this particular discussion. These thoughts are those that we “believe” are the products of something outside of our own mind, not an innate part of ourselves, and not a product of our own imagination. This would include everything outside the self: the physical world, and other spiritual beings, including God (the sum of all things.)

All of the information that is presented to the mind is in the form of immaterial thought/feeling, so how are we to be certain of the source. It is possible that thoughts/sensations that “seem” to come from outside sources are also actually products of the mind. The mind is very capable of such a thing, and demonstrates this capability every night that we sleep when it manufactures an entire world that we very often believe to possess physical reality.

Please however do not get stuck on the words “possible” and “is.” To say that something is “possible” is not to say that something “is.” It is “possible” that I’m not talking to a Black man right now. It is quite possible that you’re actually a white man that is pretending to be black in order to dialogue freely on this site. This is not to say that I believe that the person that I’m talking to right now “is” a white man. It is however “possible” that you could be a white man, in fact it is quite possible and is also true for each and every person on this site. Indications that I receive from the people on this site “lead” me to believe otherwise, but in the end it is simply my choice whether to believe such a thing or not. Although the contrary is very possible, I “choose” to believe that I am talking to a Black man and not a white one.

The same is true for the entire physical world. Our only knowledge of the physical world is presented to the mind in the form of thought and mental imagery. The fact that such thoughts are very strong and vivid in our minds does not “prove” that these thoughts are anything more than simply "thought." The mental stimulus that “seems” to be created from the physical world, could actually be a manufactured product of the mind. Generally speaking, I do not choose to believe that such thoughts are products of the mind, although I acknowledge the fact that it is quite possible that they are. The mind consistently and repeatedly proves its ability to perform such a feat. So I very much "believe" in the existence of the physical world, although I do so from an African understanding, which is directly opposite in perspective to the white western one.

The thoughts of the physical world however are consistent in my mind (for the most part at least,) and seems to provide a stimulus for me that I wish to continue experiencing and exploring (my very strong survival instinct attests to this fact.) I can easily choose to block out such stimulus and fully retreat further or even fully into the mind itself. The easiest way to do this would be to permanently separate myself from the body, what we mistakenly call “killing myself.” But speaking a spiritually ignorant language such as English, this term is yet another misnomer, as the “self” cannot be destroyed in such a manner.

You have very correctly identified the terms “spirit” and “soul” (synonymous terms for the sake of this argument) as being “energy,“ and even western science in all of its ignorance is knowledgeable enough to understand that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Scientifically speaking, are we aware of any exceptions to this rule? So understanding science as you do, and having correctly identified spirit as being energy, why would you assume that this energy “dissipates” after the physical body unit withers and dies. Webster’s dictionary defines the word dissipate as meaning to “scatter, clear away; waste, squander, disappear.” So why the two contradictory assumptions? You identify spirit as being energy, then you say that you believe it to dissipate (disappear, clear away, etc.) at the conclusion of the physical body, a belief that clearly contradicts universally established scientific principle.

The physical body (itself a form of energy) does not “dissipate,” but every bit of it changes form upon its separation from the human spirit and re-emerges as something else. All energy that we know of follows this pattern, so why then do you choose to prescribe a completely new and unique set of rules to the energy of the human body that we call spirit/soul? Believing that the energy of the body (the spirit/soul) follows a different pattern than the rest of the energy in the natural world would qualify the energy of the human spirit to be called “supernatural” (something other than natural, and different from the natural world.)

This is very ironic because it would appear that brother Nibs and I might actually be the only ones in this discussion that do not believe in the concept of supernatural. I think its safe to say that we both see “spirit” as part of the natural world, and necessarily reflective of natural law. So as brother Nibs keeps stating, the spiritual world is part of the natural world, and therefore should not be called supernatural. But when you try to ascribe a different set of rules to the energy of spirit, you create an immediate contradiction to your own disbelief in existence of the supernatural.

To avoid any confusion, I must say that the terms “spirit” and “supernatural” are not the same. “Spirit,” as I described earlier, can be thought of as living immaterial being. The word “super” means “above,” which implies that the term “super-natural” means “above natural.” This is a misnomer because there doesn’t exist anything that is above the natural world. “Spirit” is very much a part of the natural world, and is in fact the true living essence of the natural world. Once again, it is white western society’s lack of understanding of spirituality that constantly and consistently creates misnomers and confusing terminology when discussing higher concepts of this kind in English. All of us together are engaging in an arena of discussion that completely stumps the so-called “best” of the Western educated minds, and in my opinion we are doing an absolutely fantastic job. My hat goes off to everyone here. Ase to us all.

And Neterheru, I hope that you do not see yourself as the antithesis of this discussion, with yourself being in the company of so many of us who strongly affirm the presence of spirit. Your questions, answers, and different insights provide a very welcome and necessary fuel for this discussion, and I must say that this is the liveliest debate that I have so far seen on this site.

There is purpose for you being here. Hiphopolx is expanding his mind, MenNefer is coming with his best, brother Nibs is absolutely on fire, and your comments are becoming increasingly insightful which I have needed to take a week at a time to respond to. In the African understanding, this entire debate and our different roles in it are indicative of the very purpose of this physical reality that we presently exist in. The Yoruba describe heaven (the place where our spirits spend most of their time) as our true home, and describe earth as “the marketplace” where we purchase things (aspects of character, wisdom, understanding, personal strength, etc.) to take back home.

The concept of “purchase” in this analogy, would be synonymous with the concept of “sacrifice.” We spend/voluntarily offer/sacrifice our time and energy studying, working, learning, emotionally investing in our loved ones (“spending” quality time,) and making many other sacrifices in this life to purchase things (peace of mind, material comfort, safety, security, loving relationships, etc., the greatest things of which money can't buy remember.) The concept of sacrifice lies at the very core of the fundamental nature of this physical existence, and that is why its symbolic form (ritual sacrifice) is such an integral part of 95% of the world’s spiritual understandings, most notable the African spiritual understanding.

The African understands that we exist as spiritual entities (also called “energies” by many spiritualists) that require growth. The Judeo Christian concept of “heaven” is yet another wildly misunderstood concept in white western thinking. The original creators of spirituality on this planet affirm that what is called “heaven“ is simply the place where the spirit lives. It is not paved with of golden streets, it is not filled with people with wings playing harps, or any of the other ridiculous and humanistic ideas that Judeo Christianity has ignorantly brought into existence. Heaven is not some place where we may be “permitted” to go to if God likes us. Successfully navigating through the fallacious muck and mire created by the Abrahamic faiths would require MUCH more discussion than we have time for, but looking at the world through the eyes of our ancestors can keep us moving in a logical direction concerning such matters.

Our ancestors tell us that “heaven is our true home, and earth is the marketplace.” In other words, this entire physical world exists as an opportunity for us (our spirits) to “experience” and “grow” into something greater than we were before. This is why it is very necessary for such experiences as pain, death, disease, racism, loss, and other such things that present themselves as obstacles that must be overcome. This is why "that which does not destroy us, makes us stronger," and is also the reason why you (Neterheru) are so very necessary in this debate. Not to associate you in any way with pain, death, and other such things, but your presenting ideas in opposition to our own ideologies helps to create a fantastically fertile ground for the growth and development of every one here. This entire debate has been a very wonderful experience for so many of us because, whether we realize it or not, it falls exactly in line with the entire purpose of this physical existence that we call “life,“ providing us with a profound opportunity to grow. So I say “Ase” to you Neterheru.

This understanding is one of the MANY understandings that can readily be gained by looking at the universe from the perspective of “purpose.” The experiences of death, disease, racism and other such things can destroy our spirit if we allow it, but learning to look for the “purpose” of such things will greatly reduce their negative affects on our spirit, and will greatly increase our ability to learn and grow from such things, for this is the complete and entire purpose of the existence of such things. This is one of the MANY aspects of the “intelligent design” of the universe that many of us keep referring to.

The mind is not to be confused with the physical brain, the part of the body which simply processes information, and can be thought of as the body’s onboard computer. In fact, the human brain served as the model for the design of the modern day computer. Like the computer, the brain has programs, some of which are pre-programmed (body functions, instinct, evolved adaptations, etc.) and some of which are added mental programs created by the mind itself (learned behaviors, habits, thought processes, preferences, phobias, etc.) The brain also runs memory programs, and like its inanimate counterpart, it is simply a (biological) machine that does not itself “think” or “feel.”

The brain receives and records information, and according to its programs, displays the information to the end user, the “mind.“ The analogy is actually quite realistic, because like the computer, the body (physical brain included) also utilizes electricity to power many of its functions and to transmit data. But without an end user, both the computer and the human body/brain are simply lifeless machines. When referring to the mind, we are talking about the end user/life force of the body/brain machine that evaluates and utilizes the information that is sent to it. This life force thinks, feels, and knows. It is very much alive, in fact it is the essence of life itself, and is the quintessential definition of the African understanding of the word “spirit.”

Whether the physical world actually exists or not is essentially irrelevant to this discussion. The fact that all the information in the physical world is processed in the brain and presented to the mind in the form of “thought,” is simply a part of the language of the intelligent design that serves to establish the primacy of spirit over physicality. As we already know, all of the physical senses translate the information they receive from the physical universe into spiritual terms (immaterial thought.) They must necessarily do so because the human being is essentially a spiritual/immaterial being.

My purpose for dialoguing with you is not to “convert” you to my way of thinking, or even a more African way of thinking. My purpose is to demonstrate to you that the concept of spirituality, when approached with the proper mentality, is a purely logical one. Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) are antagonistic spiritual understandings and are designed to destroy other spiritualities/cultures for means of conquest and control. Correctly understanding that the mind controls the body, the architects of Christianity and Islam grafted their theologies into a form of psychological warfare designed to control people. And being that African spirituality is the origin, foundation, and cornerstone of all spirituality in the world, Abrahamic faiths are particularly hostile and brutally slanderous toward African spirituality and its various forms.

Through mass murder, genocide, and cultural and ideological destruction on an unprecedented scale, Judeo Christianity and Islam have come to dominate the world today, and now define what is to be called “religion” for many people of the world today. So much so in fact, that most book stores don’t even place books on African, Native American, and other such spiritualities in the religion section, and such sections are instead dominated by versions of the Bible, Koran, and other books centered around Abrahamic faiths. This being the case, Judeo Christianity and Islam have come to represent what many people think of as "religion," and to put it very plainly, these destructive non-sensical ideologies have given religion a bad name.

To effectively understand spirituality you must return to its source, the African source. Unfortunately, due to our prolonged stay and subsequent indoctrination into western society and its contaminant ideologies, many of us fail to break our habit of thinking of spirituality along the lines of a Judeo Christian/Islamic perspective, even when we attempt to study and practice traditional African spiritualities. When we effectively break this cycle and learn how to correctly use the science of our ancestors, we will dig ourselves out of this socio-political hole and elevate ourselves to the height of world leadership, just as our ancestors did before us.

I would also like you to know that by presenting yourself in direct opposition to the very concept of spirituality, you are (whether knowingly or unknowingly) invalidating everything that is African. In the African understanding, spirituality is the core essence of all things, and is always first. It is my intention to demonstrate to you that our ancestral way of thinking is truly intelligent, and is based on solid reasoning, and observable scientific principle.

I would like to know that our ancestors were not superstitious and irrational believers in “magic,“ as white western society has vehemently tried to portray them. I would like you to gain a deeper understanding for them, and develop a deeper level of respect for them, eventually leading to a deeper appreciation, admiration, and respect for you, me, and all African people around the world. I hope that I have been able to demonstrate to you that the African approach to spirituality is an intelligent one, and whether or not you ever wish to join the ranks of spiritual thinkers such as myself, I hope you find reason enough to respect us.

And in closing, I believe that you have already demonstrated your intelligence by rejecting the religious ideologies learned from an Abrahamic perspective. I wonder now if you will demonstrate the same intelligence in evaluating real spirituality. Hotep.

Love Unknown

hiphopolx

03-18-2007, 10:16 PM

Family 4 night vacation in The Savannah = $2000

Morpier Firenze
Gold Automatic - Men's 18K Yellow Gold Chronograph Watch = $3,750.00

2007 Toyota Camry (good car) = $20,000

Hiphopolx expanding his mind = priceless

Love Unknown just expressed alot of things here and there I've been meaning to convey. I too felt it was about that time to give thanks to all involved here in this thread, its been very enlightning and inspirational. I most def would like it to continue. (Nibs, & Love Unknown you guys need to write a book and I'd be amoung your 1st cust. ;) )

:)

peace

hiphopolx

03-21-2007, 05:34 AM

Originally Posted by NeterHeru
In any event, my consciousness is simply awareness of my own existence in terms of whom and what I am, what I'm becoming, and what I can be. The basis of this awareness, or consciousness itself, is my brain in conjunction with my nervous system; without both my brain and nervous system either existing or functioning I have no consciousness or awareness of self. This is consciousness explained from a practical non-metaphysical point of view, which is the most natural view of awareness itself in my opinion.

To get to my point I was trying to make with my awkward robot story was another off attempt to show a visual connection of the bodiless intelligence(proof of God the actual reason for the birth of this thread) behind our reality. By showing an example thru imagination the process we go thru upon conception. After the egg is fertilized 1 of the first things we all did was to multiply. We all do this based on the common knowledge/program we all share.(beginning stages of the fertilized egg to fully developed embryo; The 1st stage the The Cell divides, and is then called a “blastocyst”. The blastocyst travels down fallopian tube to uterus in order to implant in the wall of the uterus about 7 days after fertilization, which means a larger number of postovulatory days. The implantation process is completed in the in the 2nd week after fertilization.)
Everything we are doing B4 we come out the womb is not based on something we remember from somewhere. We are riding soul-y off the knowledge I have been trying to convey since I started this thread. Also as mentioned earlier in this thread this knowledge in true form as opposed to in-formed is under the radar of most ppl's awareness.

The error I am trying to point out with your definition of consciousness is by believing it's your(Neterheru's)consciousness as oppose to our consciousness. As far as my story of the robots I couldn't really prove the robot to be conscious unless I some how came up with a way to connect my or your own memory and ability to sense things(think 5 major senses and the ones they left out) to the robot. (maybe I'm off as to where I going that story) But the things I was trying to do was to picture yourself/god mearly working thru your physical body to experience this realm of existence, and to start this experience from your conception. You were following a program like other living things. You/God knows exactly what needs be done, your physical body was just another type of cell from mother's body until it became infused with another type of cell from father's body. After that physically you begin this stage of life as an individual. Your/our will at this point is working as one with same indwelling intelligence.(A better term I should have used than common divine intelligence, my bad). Since your memory will be starting a fresh you are gonna have to rely on what the ppl who raise you says (tells you about God) until you mature spiritually and can intuit(learn from within) knowledge yourself. At this point of the thread I think we need to really examine how we define consciousness. This consciousness or awareness as you call it. Is not made up of matter (and neither is your/our will for that matter). If anything is not made up of matter keep in mind it can't be added, subtracted, multiplied or divided at all let alone to us as individuals.

peace

nibs

03-24-2007, 12:24 AM

brilliant post Love_Unknown!

(Love_Unknown) - What is spirit?
We can define spirit as “living immaterial being,” the essence of all things in existence whether physical or conceptual. Do not think of ghosts and transparent people walking around

one issue is that there are levels of spirit. these concepts of "etheric beings" aren't the essence of being or existence; but are also vehicles for consciousness, just as the physical form is. "etheral" existence is regarded as one level up from material, and not the essence of existence itself.

this touches on the earlier tangent of astral projection. the astral body isn't your self, just as the physical body isn't your self. both are created vehicles for consciousness.

(Love_Unknown) - The mind lives. It creates, it postulates, it wills, it questions, it probes. Can any of these actions of the mind be proven to possess physicality? If thought has physical form then prove it. Thoughts of the mind cannot be touched, and as vivid as they can be seen by the mind’s eye, they cannot be seen optically.

the mind's perception of existence is initially trained and conditioned by the sensual perceptions as filtered and translated by the brain. thus, any particular peception of existence is governed by the interpretation of the sensual experiences of the brain.
the very nature of life, and perception of existence could be completely different in a different lifeform on another world.
the issue of spirit is an issue of the essence of existence itself, not a translation or interpretation from a particular life form.

(Love_Unknown) - The Yoruba describe heaven (the place where our spirits spend most of their time) as our true home, and describe earth as “the marketplace” where we purchase things (aspects of character, wisdom, understanding, personal strength, etc.) to take back home.

there is only one market day per week :)

(Love_Unknown) - The brain receives and records information, and according to its programs, displays the information to the end user, the “mind.“

the duality between the brain and mind cannot be overemphasized. this question of "material" vs "spiritual" reality can essentially be boiled down to whether reality will be dictated to the mind by the brain, or whether the mind will accept the brains role as a temporary interpretter of one phase of reality.

hotep.

nibs

03-24-2007, 01:31 AM

(NeterHeru) - Evolution is a natural change that is inevitable; we cannot determine precisely how anything will change respecting evolution, but we know evolutionary changes are inevitable.

why? what exactly is the essence of change and differentiation? fundamentally, what governs those processes and how they manifest? what is the essence of the rules of nature?
modern science cannot answer those questions and resorts to statistical analysis (quantum mechanics) to predict these rules.

(NeterHeru) - Evolution determines DNA and genetical mutations

evolution is the result of genetic mutations that persist and thrive. evolution is the effect and not the cause.

(NeterHeru) - while nature determines a sperm cell going toward an egg, which is not a particular process and is a normative and natural occurrence.

what is the essence of nature and natural occurrences? one interesting aspect of creation stories are of early attempts at creation that fail. the dogon tell that amma's first universe blows up; in that universe all the elements were superimposed on each other and the natural laws put in place there were unstable.
it isn't until all the ingredients are blended together beforehand that there is balance.
suggesting the interconnectedness of everything in essence.

(NeterHeru) - I have yet to encounter and meet anyone personally who can do anything considered spiritual, otherworldly, or Godly.

is divination "other worldly"? are only things like flight and direct energy/matter transformations considered otherworldy?
there have been scientific studies done on extra-sensory perception, remote viewing...etc.
ultimately either you will accept a philosophical argument, trust the testimony of others, or continue to experiment for yourself and ascertain results.

(NeterHeru) - David Berkowitz <snip> mutilated more than a dozen (I forget the exact number) White women during this time and when he was finally caught openly admitted to the murders, but qualifying it by saying his dog told him to do it LOL.

animals can be used as vehicles for communication from ones ancestors or elsewhere. both positively or maliciously. imagine the dog spoke to the man. the question is "what is the source of that information?" "why should the man listen to the dog?"

i see no need to question whether or not the dog told the man to kill. the real question is "why did david listen to his dog?"

“take control of the dream. the analog to "lucid dreaming". the tone of a dream can be actively changed.”

(NeterHeru) - out of curiosity and clarity, are you actually saying that by taking control over a dream an individual can make what they’re dreaming about manifest in reality, which is the reality of being wide awake? If you are saying this can you accomplish such a task or do you know anyone who can accomplish such a task?

we all can, to varying extents.
if i had a chocolate chip cookie and wished to have an oatmeal raisin cookie instead; western thinking would attempt to transform chocolate chips into raisins, and plain dough into oatmeal dough. african thinking would tell the baker to change the recipe.
"taking control of dreams", "spirituality" is interacting with reality at it's simplest stage of existence. the essence of existence itself and the recipe for what manifests.
western science interacts with reality at it's most complex stage; attempting to alter everything that has already been designed and come into being. attempting to change the nature of existence.

(NeterHeru) - I was under the impression you believed as our Aboriginal sisters and brothers that the dream world is the real world while the physical world is illusory.

all worlds should be appreciated in their proper perspective. the material world is a subset of the spiritual, and should be acknowledged as such.

(NeterHeru) - I have yet to meet someone who has returned from the other side

look in a mirror :)

in general, you would need to go to the other side on your own, or provide a vehicle for those from the other side to utilize here in order to communicate.

(NeterHeru) - I do not assume an otherworld to exist beyond our materiality, unless there is unequivocal and unambiguous proof in our materiality of beings returning from this other existence.

"birth" could be regarded as unequivocal, unambiguous proof.

(NeterHeru) - However, the reason why it wasn’t an out-of-body experience is precisely because I knew that I had not gone anywhere. That is, I knew my consciousness did not become displaced

a) in terms of out of body experiences you could investigate the various types further, and attempt to trigger a more satisfactory experience for yourself.

b) it's possible to have a dual-awareness where you don't completely leave your body and thus are simultaneously aware of multiple locations/perspectives.

c) we are interpretting one event, and one does not reflect all.

(NeterHeru) - The same goes for our minds

i'm going to point out that there is not yet a consistent understanding of the terms mind, spirit, consciousness, soul..etc.

(NeterHeru) - which is the principal reason why meditation is so useful for tuning out mental distractions; by focusing on suppressing and completely shutting down our thought process, we allow ourselves to simply experience ourselves as a being of feeling and emotion. Such an existence allows us to simply feel our way through interacting with nature, rather than thinking about it. And sometimes thinking about things is a distraction.

that is a very insightful perspective; but what dictates "feeling" & "emotion"? especially when meditation is meant to slow down the sensory receptions...etc.

the real question is how do we interpret stimulus that appears to be "internal". is it nothing more than random electro-chemical processes in the brain; or is it more? is it an energetic (spiritual) stimulus that triggers an electro-chemical reaction that leads to some sensation? matter and spirit are interwoven, and to ignore one is to leave many questions unanswered.

(NeterHeru) - This energy to me is self-generating; electricity is latently and kinetically existing within the human body, therefore it’s its own source of energy, although one could make the argument that our very DNA, genes, and cells are its source, which I wouldn’t contest.

what organizes and directs the energy, the dna and all associated life processes?
matter is a reflection of the immaterial processes that direct it.

hotep.

Black People | African Americans | Online Community

Black Chat - Black Poetry - Black Discussions - Destee