Why we're here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... D4cGSxLNwM
This is only part 3
I'm beginning to think us aspies will ascend.
Woah. Ok. Listen to the videos man, it makes sense. Just analyze it - i don't know how to better explain this to you. Theories evolve from truth, so don't diss any theory unless it's derived from hogwash.
Woah. Ok. Listen to the videos man, it makes sense. Just analyze it - i don't know how to better explain this to you. Theories evolve from truth, so don't diss any theory unless it's derived from hogwash.
I did not understand what the fellow in the woodshed was talking about. Not a word.
ruveyn
1. He's taking too long to get to his point. Does he even have one?
2. Sounds like meaningless gobbledygook.
3. Sound like he's reaching for...nothing.
There's a saying you read on the walls in some colleges: If you can't dazzle 'em with, brilliance, baffle 'em wit BS.
Case dismissed.
_________________
One Day At A Time.
His first book: http://www.amazon.com/Wetland-Other-Sto ... B00E0NVTL2
His second book: https://www.amazon.com/COMMONER-VAGABON ... oks&sr=1-2
His blog: http://seattlewordsmith.wordpress.com/
At times I think I got what he was trying to say but he wasn't clear.
I liked the bit at the beginning where he says from one thing came lots of things because nothing was happening and the one thing wanted things to happen....
I have no weed to help me listen to him I'm afraid.
2. Sounds like meaningless gobbledygook.
3. Sound like he's reaching for...nothing.
There's a saying you read on the walls in some colleges: If you can't dazzle 'em with, brilliance, baffle 'em wit BS.
Case dismissed.
I second the case dismissed, can I have those 10 minutes of my life back please?
I tried to be open-minded while listening to this. I really did. But I have to tell you, his theories sounded a little too much like the plot of Prometheus for me to take them seriously. My skepticism was piqued the moment he mentioned sacred geometry in connection with the actual layout of the Universe. He appears to be making the case that the world and man were both somehow intelligently constructed, and yet he also seems to be talking about our future in terms of adaptation and evolution. I'm not sure how he thinks he can reconcile the two viewpoints.
I can appreciate the concept that duality or multiplicity arises from a sort of monolithic unity. Alan Watts delivered a lecture in 1960 entitled "On the Nature of Consciousness", in which (in contrast to the Judeochristian or Western scientific understanding of the world, termed the "ceramic model" and "fully automatic model", respectively) he spoke of the "dramatic model" of consciousness-- the idea that all life on Earth is part of a singular divine consciousness, and that our fractured perception of reality and each other is an illusion. On The Colbert Report last night, there was a physicist from the University of Arizona named Lawrence Krauss. He was there to promote a book he has written about the concept of something-- in this context, the totality of existence-- arising from nothing. He said that what we conceive of as "nothing" is inherently unstable at a quantum level, and given a long enough time, "something" will inevitably eventually spring forth from it. Both of these ideas seem to me to be very much akin to the concept of disparity coming from uniformity which the man in this video was discussing. However, just because I appreciate his premise, doesn't mean I agree with it in the context he has presented. The idea that we have somehow been "quarantined" because of our inability to handle the true nature of things, and the threat we, in our inhibited state, pose to the "outside", is something I would expect to hear from an enthusiast of millinery of the pressed metal variety (i.e, someone wearing an aluminum foil hat).
Or, as it turns out, a guy making "philosophy" videos in his garage/shed.
_________________
Mediocrity is a petty vice; aspiring to it is a grievous sin.
I can appreciate the concept that duality or multiplicity arises from a sort of monolithic unity. Alan Watts delivered a lecture in 1960 entitled "On the Nature of Consciousness", in which (in contrast to the Judeochristian or Western scientific understanding of the world, termed the "ceramic model" and "fully automatic model", respectively) he spoke of the "dramatic model" of consciousness-- the idea that all life on Earth is part of a singular divine consciousness, and that our fractured perception of reality and each other is an illusion. On The Colbert Report last night, there was a physicist from the University of Arizona named Lawrence Krauss. He was there to promote a book he has written about the concept of something-- in this context, the totality of existence-- arising from nothing. He said that what we conceive of as "nothing" is inherently unstable at a quantum level, and given a long enough time, "something" will inevitably eventually spring forth from it. Both of these ideas seem to me to be very much akin to the concept of disparity coming from uniformity which the man in this video was discussing. However, just because I appreciate his premise, doesn't mean I agree with it in the context he has presented. The idea that we have somehow been "quarantined" because of our inability to handle the true nature of things, and the threat we, in our inhibited state, pose to the "outside", is something I would expect to hear from an enthusiast of millinery of the pressed metal variety (i.e, someone wearing an aluminum foil hat).
Or, as it turns out, a guy making "philosophy" videos in his garage/shed.
Thanks for adding some light to the video. If that is the plot of Prometheus I will definately go to see it soon.
God Like Productions. When I'm not on seroquel I'm a tin foil hat wearer but I woke up this morning and ate a bowl of cereal feeling like a total NT baked on Nabilone too. So when I read everyone else's viewpoints I took them into consideration which is something I never do with someone's viewpoint off meds. So right now I'm intrigued by the concept that we share a divine consciousness and that what each individual perceives is a fraction of the whole number just like in math.
After giving the OP that dope slap I did decide to give his garage guy a second chance.
The OP put us on "part 3" ( no wonder we all cant figure it out- we are all in the middle of the movie) so I searched around and found "part one" so I could see it from the beginning.
Found pt one, clicked, and started watching again.
Basically he is putting old wine in a new bottle- taking concepts like the soul vs body, and the creator vs creation dualities of judeochristianity, and restating them in modern coloquial terms so that folks of different creeds arent put off by it, and so that each little babystep of what he is saying seems reasonable to a wide audience. The trouble is that he takes ALOT of baby steps to get anywhere.
Not sure where he is going with it- whether his destination is evangelical christianity, or some idosyncratic theology of his own, but where ever the destination- it takes ALOT of patience to take the ride with him to get there! I didnt stick with it long the second time either.
Woody Allen takes a good run at it:
Allen: You can see them as searching, but you would find that after time, the conclusions are grim. No matter what kind of sugarcoating people put on it – whether it's a religious sugarcoating or a philosophical sugarcoating – no matter what they tell you, the facts are grisly.
AP: So what, then, is the point of art or a movie? Some look for enlightenment when they open a book or go to a movie.
Allen: The answer to your question, I think, on both sides of the camera or the novel: Distraction. I'm obsessed with: Can I get this actress or my third act to work? I'm distracted. I'm interested in that so I don't sit home and think, "Gee, life is meaningless. We're all going to die. The universe is pulling apart at breakneck speed." So I'm distracted with relatively solvable trivia
I thought it was an interesting video. The basic idea is that we came from a singularity, and our consciousness differentiated from a unity to become competing and contradicting egoes. From this conflict, we'll go through a process of knowing ourselves and then re-merge back into the unity we sprung up from.