who wants to think?

[Digit]

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html

[WookiesAreCool]

Very good read, I totally like what this guy was saying.

[MelT]

Well worth the read. The parallels between the world then and now are startling. Would you mind if I posted the link in the main forum Digit?

MelT

[Rasta_Man]

My family survived the Nazis, we'll survived the American Neo-cons too.

[urgr8estfear]

Originally Posted by MelT

Well worth the read. The parallels between the world then and now are startling. Would you mind if I posted the link in the main forum Digit?

MelT

Agreed!
Depressing isn't it?
Thousands of years of enlightenment through spritituality and religion and we still have to live in fear & hate.
If I wasn't such a pessimistic, cynical and ironic 'infidel' I would start praying to God.

You know what bothers me most?
Choice!
You can choose your fears and you can choose who you hate!
(you can train your fears and forgive those you hate)

That is if you BELIEVE people REALLY have a free will to begin with.
If this is the case, we either

a. fail to notice what's going on
b. are to stupid to figure it out **OR**
c. CHOOSE for it to be

If you don't believe in free will and think the now is the total and direct result of the past + all the changes leading up to the now (like in physics) we are totally helpless to begin with.

So looks like we are either :

BLIND, DEAF, DUMB, STUPID and EVIL

or

TOTALLY HELPLESS, INCOMPETENT AND INNOCENT

(the void gave me a 'special' perspective on things, I'm sure you notice )

[Digit]

Originally Posted by MelT

Well worth the read. The parallels between the world then and now are startling. Would you mind if I posted the link in the main forum Digit?

MelT

WOULD I MIND!!?

get outta here and diseminate what you will. fuck man.. this is the internet, freedome of information... i didnt bother to ask the guy i got it from, i dont expect you to either. just a waste of both our times. if you get the vibe that it should be shared further farther etc, then do so.
heh, oh, you got the vibe to ask...

sorry, had a little drink tonight... not to mention the excess adrenaline and lactic acid from cycling 7 miles in head on wind... it's making my posts seem a little high strung.

[Digit]

Originally Posted by urgr8estfear

Agreed!
Depressing isn't it?
Thousands of years of enlightenment through spritituality and religion and we still have to live in fear & hate.
If I wasn't such a pessimistic, cynical and ironic 'infidel' I would start praying to God.

You know what bothers me most?
Choice!
You can choose your fears and you can choose who you hate!
(you can train your fears and forgive those you hate)

That is if you BELIEVE people REALLY have a free will to begin with.
If this is the case, we either

a. fail to notice what's going on
b. are to stupid to figure it out **OR**
c. CHOOSE for it to be

If you don't believe in free will and think the now is the total and direct result of the past + all the changes leading up to the now (like in physics) we are totally helpless to begin with.

So looks like we are either :

BLIND, DEAF, DUMB, STUPID and EVIL

or

TOTALLY HELPLESS, INCOMPETENT AND INNOCENT

(the void gave me a 'special' perspective on things, I'm sure you notice )

choice

indeed we can.

however, there is still to a great extent to which we are at the mercy of our bio such and such.

there are ... how shall i put it.... persuasions.


like when a smoker smokes his first cigarette of the day. they CAN choose not to, but there are many factors corralling them to do so.
Like when a worker goes to a job they hate, they CAN choose to do something they'd find more constructive with their day, but there are many factors that present the perspective of being forced to.
When anyone get's comunicatively angry for any reason, they CAN choose to find a tranquil means of delivering their message that would fullfill their dessire and intent far better, but they have numerous perceptions, sociological influences and neurochemistry impelling/compelling them to succumb to their emotional outburst.


just a suggestion...
we just gotta get with our own meta creator inside.

...which reminds me... i gotta go post something i forgot to in .... uhh.... shit... where was that again... right, i'll post it here until i remember... http://energeticbalancing.us/quantum3sm.jpg

[urgr8estfear]

Digit, another intellectual potsmoker.
I'm amazed how many 'smart' potsmokers I meet on this forum.

Nice post. I allmost understand all of it.
Until you said meta creator, then I got lost.
Could you please explain?
What you call 'angry and aggressive' I call 'assertive and cynical'.
Maybe I'm putting the latch for the 'angry and aggressive' label a notch up too high.

BTW I saw the JPG about quantum theory.
Those 5 points make a interesting topic for debate.
I'm pretty sure I can shoot statements 1 & 5 full off holes.

Are you gonna post, what you said you would post, on GC?
If so, can you post us a link to your post?

[Digit]

Originally Posted by urgr8estfear

Digit, another intellectual potsmoker.
I'm amazed how many 'smart' potsmokers I meet on this forum.

Nice post. I allmost understand all of it.
Until you said meta creator, then I got lost.
Could you please explain?

i could

Originally Posted by urgr8estfear

What you call 'angry and aggressive' I call 'assertive and cynical'.

yeah, totally. perspective. scalar.

Originally Posted by urgr8estfear

Maybe I'm putting the latch for the 'angry and aggressive' label a notch up too high.

Originally Posted by urgr8estfear

BTW I saw the JPG about quantum theory.

woah dude, i'm still a pot smoker at core, so if u want me to remember something, its better if its right in front of me

Originally Posted by urgr8estfear

Those 5 points make a interesting topic for debate.
I'm pretty sure I can shoot statements 1 & 5 full off holes.

please do. everything is worth giving a shake and a challenge to see if it still stands

Originally Posted by urgr8estfear

Are you gonna post, what you said you would post, on GC?
If so, can you post us a link to your post?

??? what did i say i would post?
(i kinda get the feeling i'm gonna use my standby retort at some point soon.... "patience")

[Digit]

Who wants to think?

http://exopolitics.org/Study-Paper1.htm

[Zylark]

First post link was great, thanks Digit.

Personally I find the premise that there are good and bad people is wrong. We're all governed by nature just as much as we're a product of nature. And if it's one thing that nature is, it's ruthless.

The basic premise is that all people are bad, but they're on opposite sides with regards to interests. It's a great sea of greed and lust or any other instinct dominating our more rational tendencies. The more reptile and ancient parts of our brain running amok. Most of us can control it to some degree, others not. The most rational of us build small rafts and boats of law and reason too keep the currents of irrationality controlable and survivable.

Most accept what could be called evil (or at the least powermongering), not because they support it, but because they do not oppose it.

Your last post and link though Digit?! Do you promote UFO visitations? Do you, otherwise quite rational, buy into the UFO myth?

Did you look at that link? Did you see what they took as correlations and probable indications (I won't say evidense. It's way too weak argumentation) for UFO visits?

It's [the entire paper] so full of logical pitfalls and unfounded claims that i cannot believe anyone could take it seriously.

It took me several years to figure out that this blatant disregard for public opinion was a plan designed to keep and maintain the pressure of proof on certain elements of our society. The plan was basically to place the burden of proof on the UFO researchers and to steer the public away from the military organizations that were directly involved in UFO research.

/Dissection mode on

The most basic flaw in this argumentation is that he tries to reverse the burden of proof. In scientific method (generally regarded as the most trustworthy method to extract facts and thus advances, as evident by technology) the ones who make a claim must do two things:

a) Make a theory that can predict or explain certain behaviour or observation.
b) Construct a reproducable [even double-blind as needed] test to verify and most importantly facilitate to falsify the prediction or explanation made.

In short, he who makes a claim is also the one responsible for proving it. And evidence BTW is not anectdotes. Those are dismissable. A personal experience requires interpretation within a situation, and can never be accounted for as a factual occurence of anything that is claimed by that person. So physical evidence is needed.

Next he argues from personal increduelty. He cannot fathom that sometimes governments [or any large organization for that matter] act in quirky ways, and thus he reaches for for an explanation that seems to fit a pattern he perceives in society. It's all subjective. And since it's a basic human trait, many believe in the same as him. Totally without evidence a herd of people ascribe their unexplained experiences to the most pervasive trend in society.

This is how religions start people. People believing things that isn't so. Previously one saw deamons and angels at play. Now it's ET. Well, at least it's better than classic religions. Worst of it is, it's not _entirely_ unplausible either

[Digit]

Originally Posted by Zylark

Your last post and link though Digit?! Do you promote UFO visitations? Do you, otherwise quite rational, buy into the UFO myth?

i know it doesnt take much to get you to think zylark.

"the UFO myth", "promote UFO visitations".


:confuse:

what boggling questions.

i accept that all that flys has not been identified. i rarely identify what i see flying, and so, they are unidentified, identified only so far as to be classed an object. so, unidentified flying objects is, despite some mild oxymoronia, is as accurate a term as i've heard used and generally understood, for describing that which to me is unidentified.

i realise there's alot of crap about this, and frankly, i've never seen any document that can't be picked at for flaws, we're all so good at finding flaws we can even do it to flawless things. it's just here to make us think. (although granted, alot of that trys to get you to think some very specific things)

i thought it set up it's modes of evidence very openly.
and generally on the topic of inteligent life from extra terrestrial sources i ascribe to the thought that it is entirely plausable, though not specifically the article i posted.

[Zylark]

You put your trust in a report that promotes channeling, remote viewing? A report that promotes a number of non-founded woo-woo to establish an outlandish idea? You put your trust in a report that assumedly got thousands of people working together (including independent scientists) to achieve some kind of coverup?

Get real. Or better yet, prove what you believe in. Employ your critical thinking and review what you take trust in.