Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 182

Thread: No Sex

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    4,033
    "Give me immortality or give me death!"

    Had a chuckle at that one, since if you don't get immortality you get death anyway, goes without saying....anyway carry on and good luck with your endeavours.

  2. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by DarinHamel
    (This is like pulling teeth.)
    LOL!! Well, it is a matter of being specific. This is the first time you have been this specific about what you mean.

    Quote Originally Posted by DarinHamel
    Do you believe a "realized" being can discorperate at will? Not whether they would or not but can they?
    I don't know and I don't care. It is of no consequence to me because if it does occur it is a side effect and not the goal.

    I do not consider the ability to discorporeate a measure of development. For at least two reasons:

    1) Apparently there are those who can perform the same effect without significant maturity. Therefore, it cannot be an accurate measure of ones development.

    2) It only has meaning on the physical plane! It is apparently common practice on the other side, as consistently cited by those who have performed research into life after death. This makes it nothing more than a skill. I understand you may say, ”Well, we don’t have a physical body on the other side.” But what is the value of discorporeating? It is to spontaneous disappear here and spontaneously re-appear, over there! This is apparently easily accomplished on the other side according to the research. To me this makes the ability, on the physical plane, nothing more than a toy and possibly a distraction if one becomes preoccupied with getting the toy and not winning the game!

    Here is a metaphorical illustration of my point:

    An Athlete concerns himself with winning the competition. Every part of his training is designed to assist him in his goal, which is to WIN!! He is only concerned with gaining abilities that will assist him in attaining his purpose. If it does not assist him he may perform the inconsequential activity as a form of recreation, but he will recognize it as un-necessary to attaining his goal. A powerlifter will not concern himself with having a superior VO2 max. This has a limited bearing on achieving his goal. In fact, too high of a VO2 max will inhibit the powerlifter from attaining his goal. That particular ability then becomes a detriment to his goal when it exceeds a certain level of development. A chess expert will have little interest in gaining superior strength for the purposes of his chess game because it has no bearing on his ability to win the game. A side effect of a water polo player’s training is superior aerobic ability, but the water polo player is not concerned with what his VO2 max measures he is concerned with winning the game. Elevated VO2 max is the side effect, winning is the goal! The lesson then is: Focus on winning the game and not the inconsequential side effects of the training.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Columbus, OH, USA
    Posts
    1,024
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott R. Brown
    2) It only has meaning on the physical plane! It is apparently common practice on the other side, as consistently cited by those who have performed research into life after death. This makes it nothing more than a skill. I understand you may say, ”Well, we don’t have a physical body on the other side.” But what is the value of discorporeating? It is to spontaneous disappear here and spontaneously re-appear, over there! This is apparently easily accomplished on the other side according to the research. To me this makes the ability, on the physical plane, nothing more than a toy and possibly a distraction if one becomes preoccupied with getting the toy and not winning the game!

    Hi Scott,
    I've noticed now that you've mentioned this "research" on a number of occasions. Being a onetime professional researcher in the social sciences and generally a critical consumer of research, I'm curious if you could reference legitimate scientific research in this regard. No offense intended, I've just never encountered anything in this area that had any academic rigor. A lot of anecdotal stuff, and stuff by neuroscience types who say they can recreate any of the supposed NDE type experiences by stimulating parts of the brain, but no serious studies supporting life after death, etc...
    The cinnabun palm is deadly, especially when combined with the tomato kick. - TenTigers

  4. #49
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Detroit area
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by dwid
    Hi Scott,
    I've noticed now that you've mentioned this "research" on a number of occasions. Being a onetime professional researcher in the social sciences and generally a critical consumer of research, I'm curious if you could reference legitimate scientific research in this regard. No offense intended, I've just never encountered anything in this area that had any academic rigor. A lot of anecdotal stuff, and stuff by neuroscience types who say they can recreate any of the supposed NDE type experiences by stimulating parts of the brain, but no serious studies supporting life after death, etc...
    Speaking of researchers I too am one. I am a drug researcher for the Govt. Just saying...
    Give me immortality or give me death!

  5. #50
    Hi dwid,

    The legitimacy of research is pretty much in the eye of the beholder and I am well aware scientific organizations attempt to define what they consider legitimate research and acceptable evidence. I do not automatically accept the limitations on evidence that these organizations might seek to use as a definitions. Nearly everyone has had experiences that we consider REAL that some researchers might consider invalid evidence, yet we would not accept their negation of an experience we KNOW we had. I would not allow a researcher to define for me the taste of an orange, because I have tasted it for myself and would consider their disregard of my valid experience as foolishness.

    Having said that, because of the nature of the topic there is some controversy as to the validity of the evidence. It is not a hard science, it is a social science and therefore the evidence is acquired through observational studies. Researchers gather information from various sources, collate and compare reports and then draw conclusions based upon the consistency of the reports over hundreds or thousands of incidences. In this field of study there can be no absolute evidence in the sense of consistently repeatable measurement with instrumentation, although there are some conducting studies on paranormal phenomena utilizing instruments of measurement. The evidence is based upon relatively similar reports repeated over time amongst individuals of different ages, educational levels, cultures and religions.

    The researcher I have come across with the most impressive credentials regarding this field of study is Brian Weiss. The following is a short biography from his website:

    A graduate of Columbia University and Yale Medical School, Brian L. Weiss M.D. is Chairman Emeritus of Psychiatry at the Mount Sinai Medical Center in Miami.

    As a traditional psychotherapist, Dr. Brian Weiss was astonished and skeptical when one of his patients began recalling past-life traumas that seemed to hold the key to her recurring nightmares and anxiety attacks. His skepticism was eroded, however, when she began to channel messages from "the space between lives," which contained remarkable revelations about Dr. Weiss's family and his dead son. Using past-life therapy, he was able to cure the patient and embark on a new, more meaningful phase of his own career.

    Brian Weiss, one of the first doctors to explore the past lives of his patients as a means of therapy, reveals how past and present lives can affect our future lives, and how our future lives can transform us in the here and now.


    There are others, but Dr. Weiss is the one with the most traditional scientific background I have come across so far. He also discusses in one of his books his skepticism and how he stumbled upon the phenomena and how his research changed his view of life, death and reality.

    Before anyone passes judgment on Dr. Weiss I recommend they read his works. He was very skeptical from the beginning having been trained in traditional scientific thought and practicing as a traditional psychotherapist.



    The researcher who investigated reincarnation evidence I do not remember off hand. He was referenced in an interview I listened too a year or more ago. The researcher was identified as an Ivy League professor who interviewed children with remarkable memories of past lives all around the world. He did follow up research to verify their reports. Some of the things they recalled were events that occurred with the past life family members that few would know or recall had they not been present at the time of the original event. The research then tracked down the past life family members that were still alive and verified the information. If you are truly interested and this is not just a passing fancy I will make an effort to see if I can locate the source or the researcher and then get back to you.

  6. #51
    I don't know if this is the guy, but it would be a good start:

    Dr. Ian Stevenson

    http://www.childpastlives.org/stevenson.htm

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Columbus, OH, USA
    Posts
    1,024
    Thanks Scott,

    I'll take a look at the stuff you referenced. I'll admit I'm a skeptic by nature, which is not to say I'm closed-minded. I put a lot of stock in the scientific method, and unlike lots of people who use this as a rationale to not consider ideas outside of their biases or whatever, I look at it as a tool for examining evidence and being as honest with myself as the limitations of my mind permit with regards to what the evidence suggests.

    Anyway, I appreciate your honesty about your own perspective and your willingness to put forward some of the evidence on which you base your own ideas.
    The cinnabun palm is deadly, especially when combined with the tomato kick. - TenTigers

  8. #53
    Hi dwid,

    No problem!

    Just to be clear about my own position, I take the view of semi-neutrality. I consider it a likely plausibility, but not definite surety. I may discuss it as if I accept it, but it is somewhat unknowable except for people like my wife who are able to talk to some form of being she considers either the dead or spirits as the case may be. This isn’t something that comes and goes for her. She is able to turn it on or off as she wishes. I even take a neutral position personally with her experiences, but I discuss it with her according to her belief system about it. As her husband I see my primary responsibility to be a support for her and not a naysayer while personally keeping a questioning, but open mind. This field of study is difficult to have hard science proof. So we have to accept evidence of a lesser quality by necessity.

    You might say i neither believe nor dis-believe. I accept it as a possiblity and perhaps even a likelihood!
    Last edited by Scott R. Brown; 06-10-2006 at 08:40 AM.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Columbus, OH, USA
    Posts
    1,024
    Thanks for clarifying.

    I understand how you wouldn't express any skepticism to your wife. No good could come of that.
    The cinnabun palm is deadly, especially when combined with the tomato kick. - TenTigers

  10. #55
    Hi dwid,

    I don’t know if I would really call it skepticism on my part. To me skepticism tends to presume something is impossible or unlikely first and then looks to be convinced otherwise secondly, whereas my tendency is to try not to make any form of value judgment; maintaining a sort of wait and see attitude while collecting evidence to determine for myself the veracity of any claimed phenomena.

    If I get to the point where I accept a phenomenon as true/real I try to recognize that just because I accept something as true/real does not make it true/real and equally just because I do not accept something as true/real does not necessarily make it untrue/unreal! Because of this I sort of view all things from one particular perspective as possibilities, but also as inherently unknowable from the perspective of Absolute Truth/Reality. What I consider known or knowable then is merely what I accept as known or knowable and does not mean it is actually true/real in the absolute sense, merely true/real for me according to my perspective. So from my perspective all things are possibly true/real with the only limitation being the arbitrarily accepted boundaries of an individual’s personal perspective.

    From a hard science point of view this could seem ludicrous, however many people do not understand that worldviews (definitions of reality) are determined by arbitrary agreement. We have a generally accepted definition in the scientific community about what constitutes real and unreal, knowable and unknowable. However definitions create arbitrary limits that have the tendency to restrict our perspective. Limits restrict what we will consider to be possible. Because of this there will be knowledge that is considered by some as unreal or unknowable that is in reality real and knowable. By allowing that anything is possible one is open to the possibility that the unreal is real and the unknown is knowable. If we maintain too fixed of an attitude about true/real we limit the opportunity to know what may be considered untrue/unknowable, but is in reality true/knowable. Since we don’t know what is unknown we remain open to knowing the unknown by accepting its possibility. In the mean time it is wise to follow the generally accepted structures of reality, the arbitrary definitions of what is true/real, as provisional truths. They are seen as tools we will use for a specific purpose, but to be discarded when they are no longer useful. This attitude frees us to be receptive to phenomena that occur outside the arbitrary boundaries of the commonly accepted limits.

    I tend to approach a subject according to the belief system to the other person while interjecting thoughts or ideas meant to broaden the perspective concerning whatever the topic is. To many, life is about imposing personal beliefs upon others, and I understand that at times it may appear I do the same thing, however my purpose generally is to broaden perspectives not impose my own perspective. It springs from a belief that a broader perspective is of greater benefit than a narrower one. This itself is only one perspective however and therefore not necessarily true within every context.

    To me Tao is like water, it is inherently formless. Like water Tao takes on the form of whatever contains it. In this way limit is imposed upon limitlessness, but this limit occurs for a purpose. It should not be perceived as a negative quality or phenomena. The interaction of limit upon limitlessness may be thought of as a form of divine playtime, dance, or game!

    Just as a cup gives form to the water it contains, each cup defines/forms the water it contains differently than that of dissimilar cups. Each individual is a dissimilar cup of Tao that uniquely defines and expresses/manifests Tao.

    Since we are active participants in determining the shape of our cup, our personal definition and manifestation of Tao, we project our own value and meaning onto Tao. The projection of Tao we perceive and interpret is actually a reflection of ourselves onto the field of experience, and therefore a manifestation of only a limited aspect of Tao. By introspecting into ourselves, our self-imposed limitation and the effects we have on the world around us, we may learn about Tao, but more importantly about how we limit the manifestation of Tao in our lives.

    The value and meaning of our unique manifestation of Tao is determined by each of us for ourselves. When we interact with others, sharing our ideas and thoughts, we are merely limited aspects of Tao contained within a cup of our own creation commingling with other limited aspects of Tao. Through this commingling (socializing) we are changed and the expression of Tao we manifest changes in quality. We will each determine the meaning and value of that change in the quality of our personal expression of Tao for ourselves.

    As i re-read this it seems I am making no sense at all! But this is the best I can do for now, LOL!!
    ____

    If you read any of the sources I have mentioned please share your thoughts and insights in that regards. I have read many of your postings and I have found your thoughts interesting and of benefit in broadening my own perspective!

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Columbus, OH, USA
    Posts
    1,024
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott R. Brown
    Hi dwid,

    If I get to the point where I accept a phenomenon as true/real I try to recognize that just because I accept something as true/real does not make it true/real and equally just because I do not accept something as true/real does not necessarily make it untrue/unreal! Because of this I sort of view all things from one particular perspective as possibilities, but also as inherently unknowable from the perspective of Absolute Truth/Reality. What I consider known or knowable then is merely what I accept as known or knowable and does not mean it is actually true/real in the absolute sense, merely true/real for me according to my perspective. So from my perspective all things are possibly true/real with the only limitation being the arbitrarily accepted boundaries of an individual’s personal perspective.

    From a hard science point of view this could seem ludicrous,
    Actually, this is almost the definition of a hard science point of view. Everything is probabilistic, and you must always be willing to accommodate theory to new data. To me, the scientific method, at its heart, is as open a perspective as there can be while still trying to extract meaningful data/infer meaningful relations between phenomena. The trouble is that most scientists forget all about this and get hooked on one particular theory or other and their bias becomes a gigantic blind spot to their observations.

    Also, as far as skepticism, we were just operating from differing definitions of the word. To me, skepticism has gotten a bad rap and thus has this negative connotation you suggested. But in my mind, well... see the following definition:

    skep·ti·cism also scep·ti·cism (skpt-szm) KEY

    NOUN:

    A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety. See Synonyms at uncertainty.
    Philosophy
    1. The ancient school of Pyrrho of Elis that stressed the uncertainty of our beliefs in order to oppose dogmatism.
    2. The doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible, either in a particular domain or in general.
    3. A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty.
    4. Doubt or disbelief of religious tenets.


    As you can see, by the original definition, I would say, based on your posts, you are very much a skeptic. A lot of people call themselves skeptics today who are really just wrapped up in a different dogma that they don't see as a dogma. True skepticism is rejection of all dogma or absolutism and the acceptance of the reality of uncertainty.
    The cinnabun palm is deadly, especially when combined with the tomato kick. - TenTigers

  12. #57
    Hi dwid,

    Yes, I agree with your views concerning the scientific method and skepticism. It would have been more accurate if I had qualified that I was referring to both as commonly practiced as opposed to their ideal form.

    Thank you for you comments!

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    1,317
    Discorporating at will implies a relativity to time, meaning this: If you can choose the time and place in which you would discorporate and do so, then you have displayed the ability. However, if we accept the notion that time is actually an illusion realized by enlightened beings as such, what is to then be said about discorporating at a given time?

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    1,317
    Related to this discorporating at will tangent, there is a movie called "The Notebook" that has an ending related to the topic, where two lovers joined hand in hand, pass away in eachothers arms during the night.

    It's a love story movie for those interested. It has it's tear-jerking moments.

  15. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Nexus
    Discorporating at will implies a relativity to time, meaning this: If you can choose the time and place in which you would discorporate and do so, then you have displayed the ability. However, if we accept the notion that time is actually an illusion realized by enlightened beings as such, what is to then be said about discorporating at a given time?
    Hi Nexus,

    Good point!

    Also, if there is nothing but “here and now” then when discorporeating, it isn’t only WHEN did you go, but WHERE did you go? You have basically, GONE NO WHERE, RIGHT NOW!! LOL!!!

    This means all action is a product of mind and not a physical manifestation in the manner we accept. It only “appears” to be physical and is therefore an illusion! This coincides with the teaching of Hui-Neng 6th patriarch of Ch’an who teaches that everything is a product of mind!

    So, to seek to learn to discorporeate is to pursue an illusion and does not seem to be a very productive use of ones time!

Posting Permissions

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