Edvard

Member
  • Content count

    260
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Edvard

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

814 profile views
  1. Sam Harris isn't an atheist, he just sometimes accept having that label for practical reasons and the associations the word «god» has. It's just a word. God would be the source of creation, but God has traditionally in culture for most people meant a personal figure in the sky, and in that sense he is an atheist, and so is you I guess...
  2. - Eckhart Tolle He goes on: «Nothing is simply denial. But no thing means there's a presence there, but it has no form. Nothing that you can grasp. There is no shape and no thought and no name. The ancient Chinese call it the Dao; which cannot be named. (...) The Dao that can be named or spoken of is not the true Dao.» From (About 31 mins in)
  3. I.e. many Christians don't want stem cell research, Muslims don't have that problem. Why? Because the Bible says life begins at conception, while the Koran says it happens some time later (I think couple of months). Advertising the killing of infidels is a really bad metaphor if killing infidels is viewed as a bad thing.
  4. If there is only one truth, then surely no religion can be The Truth. Which means that there are differences between them. For a fundamentalist the fundament matters, how the different holy books are written matters. For people who value the Koran, different behaviour will result depending of how committed the person is to what the text says. Religion is really ideas for how to live life, and how the books are set up matters. So, the Koran is not the Bible and vice versa. Jesus is not Mohammed. Who you idolize matter. Beliefs matter. It's not just the same.
  5. Things still arise in consciousness, and one thing that arises is death of a life that yes the mind has come up with, and that may be due to the condition of the mind from a previous life, perhaps, but this is the question. Duality is what makes life life, even if it's ultimatelity nondual. The mind generates dualities, like life and death. The mechanism behind this generation is still a mystery, partly because yes, there is no self, there is no you in control as an ultimate planner, it's just consciousness expressing itself. This is how I see it at this point, which I think is important to say, and given that you have changed your mind on things you have seemingly presented as knowing absolutely, what about actually admitting that you don't really know? You are speaking from the human mind, and also thinking and interpreting with the human mind.
  6. The way I see it is that life comes as a package, really. The experiences plays themselves out, and just be with it, accept that what comes up comes up. When you die, then that is part of the package. This one moment will still be there, though. What on one level could make it scary is that it's unknown, but so is everything in life, ultimately. This moment is all you have. But the content of this moment dies instantly. Nothing is permanent, except for the Now. We get born and reborn every day, week, year, and life.
  7. Right. It's probably true it comes a lot down to that pyramid. It's a little like, I kind of see it behind the horizon that if I got to the point your talking about, with sex all day and money, it would be boring and it's not the be all end all. But then you self-actualize... for some reason though.... so the question becomes, what is that reason? I think this depends a lot. I mean, at some point one sees that you can do whatever you want with your life, and also what happens happens, what is is, and you just get this drive to do good things and be kind to the world, and you do these things as a natural bi-product of just being. Now, does this have something to do with evolution, is there a certain gene that makes us become like this? There certainly seems to be a psychological evolution leading to more of what we would call kindness and compassion, not to mention "cosmic thinking" as Sadhguru puts it, saying it's very important that intelligence is combinded with having "cosmic identity", or something similar to that. So, like, one thing seems true when I ponder it a little more. Humans have indeed evolved the capacity to think and conceptualize, to reason, and we evolved that for the purposes of survival and reproduction, but now that we have that capacity, it seems we indeed can go away from that process using our thinking to understand that what matters is happiness or being at peace, or at least understand how meaningless our suffering is, and what generates it, if we manage to be honest, which indeed is hard given our evolutionary baggage. And who knows whether there is some divine plan to this or not. In some sense it has to be, we are God in a sense after all, although I can't understand God by thinking with the human mind I put myself in the perspective of, or whatever I did... I don't think I even had a choice in creating the universe. It's getting deeper..
  8. Well, why care about human suffering then? If we are going to design a morality based on suffering, what matters is not who or what the sufferer is. Why should we care about humans if we don't care about rats, from a holistic and consistent moral perspective? I liked the post. And I laughed of the suggestion of taking it to the vet. Imagine the vet's look when someone comes in with a rat that was found. Makes you think about what morality to humans actually is... With that said, you may also have a point - which is inevitable given that morality is concept.
  9. Felt like sharing some thoughts. What other reason can there possibly be to do life purpose than to get sex? At the bottom of it, what else could be the underlying reason? It's all ego, which is not even true because ego is non-ego. It is what it is, we're just surpressing it - and that's kind of the problem. We want sex, but do we? If it wasn't, selling tomatoes would be perfect. Eckhart Tolle would be fine with that. He said he wanted to do it if he didn't succeed as a writer. But also, after hearing about coral and «being cognition», it's again about meeting you authentic biological needs, it seems. The idea that a biological creature is here to respond to its environment. The funny thing is that the same goes in a different way for red, orange and yellow as well, while blue, green and turquise is again wanting to distance from this survival-, «meeting my needs» -pattern. So one would imagine the same goes after coral. So then what is this game in the end? (I am by no means overly educated in spiral dynamics) The paradoxical nature of life seems to be that when the ultimate reason we tend to regard porn as unbeneficial, is because it's distracting you from achieving a life where you will get laid. Haha. I mean, what else? Of course you could include fulfillment, passion, etc... but why do we have passion, and why do we strive for fulfillment? Maybe it's because it makes us think that there is another purpose than to survive and reproduce? That it's an evolutionary resonse to us guilting ourselves for the underlying goal of chasing sex, so we trick ourselves into thinking there is another reason, like passion, curiosity and fulfillment. Or religion. Life is still a puzzle though, and it's very complicated. Might as well try to figure it all out, so we try enlightenment. But why chase enlightenment? Hmm... because that's the true path to become happy, but problem is, we don't really want to be happy -- we want sex... so we easily chase enlightenment with that in mind, even when we think we are not, because part of succeeding in life is being right about things, so one may think that pursuing Truth must definitely be right... and special... and fulfilling... and in extremely subtle ways, honorable... that's why it's so hard. And we trick ourselves all the time. But we're already enlightened, and yet we may even know this conceptually, but still suffer.
  10. But God could still invent time? It experiences itself through different perspectives and could design any purpose it wants, also beyond each individual perspective, I could imagine. There's so much we don't know, I think. I'm not sure if an enlightenment experience can make you know everything about the mind of God. Then, why is it that Leo's life is unfolding right now? Why not as Edvard? There are only two (slash, three) options for this; either it's a coincidence, or it has a larger purpose, or it is part of a larger «process». I'm starting to think a little about this. Life is just so mysterious. Even after enlightenment - I guess that's when you really start to realize and appreciate how mysterious it is. As human, I don't really know anything, and I can't even know that... maybe I'm deluding myself in saying that I don't know anything - I don't know...
  11. Now the real question begins; is it in the interest of God for less cows to be killed? Is there some goal, higher purpose, or order in the myriad of infinite «dreams» that God experiences itself through? That's an interesting one. Maybe, just maybe, God has set it up so that it experiences itself throughout history of a specific mankind at a time, and now it concentrates on this one, on Earth, so that I will be reborn into the same Earth in the next life, so that the actions I took in my previous lives will affect the reality of the next one. Just a wild theory, but not any wilder than the imagination God had to dream the dream it's already dreaming today.
  12. I didn't really disagree, I'm just trying to investigate if there's some balance to the idea that scientists are soo closeminded. You seemed to assert that a simulation is not materialism. But I see that you wanted to make a point, although maybe Super Mario wasn't the best example, given that it requires having been simulated by the reality you're discussing whether is material or not. My notion is (of course): I don't know, given our limited minds, but I actually do believe that there is no such thing as a «base», or «real», reality. I do think consciousness is the ultimate reality. I like this one:
  13. So, the majority (it seems) of scientists are not committed to the materialist paradigm, given that they're open to us being in a simulation. Although they may perhaps believe there's a base reality on some level.
  14. @Leo Gura sure, you could label it like that if you want to. But you can't really have death without life, that's how the word «death» came up... words are created by there being distinctions made. So to me it makes more sense to use that label when this particular dream is over, if one is gonna use it at all.