15 posts were split to a new topic: Hunter Journal
This sentence is so bizarre to me. Again, zero spiritual background. It is like the default position among humanity is that spirituality is proven. Some collective felt out truth.
The majority of humans, those following organised religion or sprituality have things in reverse. The burden of proof is on the claims of their beliefs. They just feel it to be right or true, rather than know. A lack of curiousity perhaps.
Makes me realise how different I already was from most of humanity before AF. Like not being part of the party, not getting picked for the team.
We might be puny humans in our tiny spinning blue space rock, but we understand about energy and matter quite a lot now, the types, constinuents, how these states are in constant flux. Energy and matter we know are interchangeable too, the insights of E = mc^2. Nothing points towards a type of energy in some permanent unchanging form, i.e. an infinite or eternal soul.
Karma, to me sounds ridiculous too. I mean Pol Pot got to die in his sleep the lucky duck. If ever a human being deserved to face the full force of karma it was that guy. He should have instantly mutated into a coackroach and got squished. What is it about karma that appeals to people?
It is hard to understand the appeal of spirituality. Doesn’t the authenticity and the facticity of things hold weight. I really dont get the appeal. As so many of you have come from this background it makes me realise there is a fundamental aspect of you all that I don’t understand. I guess I don’t like not knowing.
Don’t get me started on how I see quantum mechanics and other quantum phenomena co-opted for types of spirituality. Like it keeps mutating and evolving.
I am not trying to be an a-hole here @adam_b just trying to make headways into understanding what appeal these things have to you and others.
Being an emotional being results in suppression of intelligence, I’ve experienced it myself many times going both directions. So most people are existing in something of a fog. From a fog, it’s easy to imbibe things that don’t make much sense.
Further, certain principles are considered sacrosanct and to question them results in fear flaring → and therefore that same intelligence suppression. The loss of love is an example of such.
From this perspective, it all makes sense. A lot of what constitutes the ‘wall’ around humanity is a fog of confusion, created by our fears.
Consider how many scientists are somehow able to happily continue believing in God… or those that are happy to say “I don’t know” and cease questioning there.
3 Likes
Hi @henryyyyyyyyyy,
I can relate to my intelligence being impacted by strong emotions. This brain fog happens in anxiety and depression too so I understand what you mean.
There is nothing in my life that has ever been sancrosanct unquestionable. I have no experiential link here. There were subjects my family were less comfortable talking about but they were not sacrosanct.
Yes, in most cases it is the belief system they were raised in. Or they converted to one that made them feel good. Again arbitrary parameters. I have seen also when a scientist won’t put aside their ego when their theory or model is incorrect or incompatible.
At uni, I met people so much smarter than me and yet so afraid to challenge their belief system or parents. I realised I might not have their intelligence or capability but I had a different freer way to play and explore with the world.
I had a type of freedom in my upbringing not many people can ever understand. I never felt bound to any belief, scientific theory, etc. There were no barriers to curiosity other than my accessibility to knowledge and the technical limitations.
3 Likes
I think with some further looking you could answer your thee questions you pose here regarding the appeal of these things. It’s likely you have and you’re having a hard time understanding why others don’t see it the way you do. Is that fair?
I get the impression that Pure Intent is somehow non-spiritual and non-feeling based. But as someone who doesn’t experience it overtly, as some describe, I too share you’re musings.
I can say that the appeal to Pure Intent, for me, is that I need the help!
I am genuinely not 100% sure…is it that it offers some form of eternal existence? Validity to their existence. It is is very fair to say that I am having a hard time understanding. I don’t think I ever tried to understand.
These ideas/beliefs never met the criteria of validity or objective authenticity that has operated in me.
If I am honest, once it failed that internal check it was open game to attack it. Hence, I have attacked and struck out and never genuinely sought to understand the appeal. Religion, i think i get in the sense of being reared in that religion, as one is reared in a national culture. But many people seem to come to spirituality from other belief systems and the absence of belief, I have met atheists and agnostics who then gravitated to spirituality.
Richard alludes to something experiential and tangible and there is a transparency in what he writes.
Whereas other things seem wishy washy to me.
What’s bizarre about it because from the rest of your post, it sounds like you may be misunderstanding what I am saying about Spirituality and Pure Intent
Pure intent is non-spiritual.
From Richard, “Pure intent is derived from the purity of the PCE (which is when ‘I’ spontaneously cease to ‘be’) and everything is experienced to be perfect as-it-is at this moment and place … here and now… Pure intent is a manifest life-force; a genuinely occurring stream of benevolence and benignity that originates in the perfect and vast stillness that is the essential character of the infinitude of the universe.”
As a feeling being, one can tap into this manifest life force, this stream of purity but as a feeling being, “I” am still around while also experiencing pure intent and that often leads to a felicitous and innocuous (happy and harmless) state.
One can identify pure intent and allow it into one’s experience. One can see that Pure Intent is valuable.
It’s much easier to identify Pure Intent and allow it into one’s experience more and more after one has or remembers a significant PCE.
1 Like
Okay - let’s say I remember a significant PCE. How do I capitalize on that to allow pure intent into my experience more?
Hi @adam_b,
I should have made my statement clearer. I am not talking about your current experience but where you were starting from. As this seems to be where a lot of others are starting their journey from.
Your description makes it clear from the position you were starting at. That spirituality at some point was valid to you (or is still is or is diminishing or is in transition).
That for you this method and pure intent proved to you an alternative that the universe can have a non spiritual aspect and that pure intent also had other good qualities.
In contrast to me say, the universe was always non spiritual, nothing had to prove this to me. My view of the universe was already in alignment with what I then gleaned from a PCE and pure intent, there was no clash or contradiction to resolve. I had some weird partial soul beliefs which clearly tied into wanting an aspect of myself to be infinite and eternal which i eradicated before exposure to AF. Instead, I had fallen into the trap of be a great writer or scientist or programmer and that will make me live forever, I found an alternative method to make myself eternal. The other descriptors for pure intent were in alignment.
Seeing the differences in our starting points made me realise that I didn’t truly understand the harder challenge others are coming from when introduced to AF if the nature of this spiritual aspect is so pervasive and concrete to people.
Some of the subjects you mentioned in your first post made me realise other subjects I don’t understand adequately in spirituality. Mainly from my own aggressive rejection of it.
That’s great
Yes, that is what I meant. Useful is a better word than valid, as in strategically useful.
1 Like
Can you please describe your PCE so I know what we’re working with?
omw out and want to remember to describe later. though i’m not sure why lack of description would preclude elaboration.
in short the flavor of it was, “perfect.”
I think you hit the nail on the head here, no matter how good something is at maximizing or upgrading the system, in the end it is the entire system of self that is fundamentally broken and silly and standing in the way of already-perfection that must be done away with.
1 Like
Hi Adam C!
I was entertaining myself by reading some older posts and the last line of your post stuck out to me;
Is this how you really felt/ acted towards spirituality?
Because if so, would it be accurate to say you blame spirituality for the “ills of mankind”?
I ask because the AFT, whilst generally sounding similar to “proven science” on some things, isn’t necessarily aligned with science.
There is a whole heap of faith invested in “science” and it may surprise you to find that faith in yourself, if “aggressive rejection of it [spirituality]” is a thing.
Aggressive rejection would point to something one is seeking to defend. In this case a belief in science. Which is just as effective in motivating and justifying aggression as any of the spiritual beliefs.
Richard is clear the the cause of the "ills of mankind " is the blind nature instinctual package and the ‘self’ formed therein.
Obviously, I am not up to date with your progress and where you are at right now, but I thought perhaps it would be useful to mention.
I remember a very interesting moment talking to Richard about science. We talked quite a while about the topic. He was clear that it’s just as likely that the machines being designed to detect various theoretical forces etc, are detecting them precisely because the machine is designed to give that result. The electron tunneling microscopes were the specific machine in this case.
I was taken aback! I probably should have discussed my objections then, but internally I was; “hold on! That’s a billion dollar machine! Surely it can’t be wrong!”
Well, the point wasn’t him saying the science was wrong, but rather blindly believing that a group of feeling beings wouldn’t be capable of such deceit.
People lie all the time. Governments, organisations, etc. Science is heavily funded by vested interests in the status quo, indeed every single person in the scientific community (assuming none are actually free) have a vested interest in the status quo; to wit, the continued reign of the human condition over the minds and bodies of human beings.
Belief is one of the main support structures for the reign.
1 Like
Not all of the ills of mankind, I saw that atheistic societies (like Soviet Russia, China) had the same cruelty and problems, hence I was aware of the human condition and the problem of group identities before exposure to AF. My dad too had realised blind nature was the problem and had taught me this. I thought that western atheism something different and more progressive, much of my early internet chat rooms clashes in the late 90s and early 2000s was clashing with Americans who saw atheism as linked to communism, which isn’t a mindset among westerm european atheists I have met.
I too had realised experientally what my dad said that it was our blind nature that was the problem, though I saw a solution through the love of creativity, increased learning and awareness.
Also, I felt spirituality and belief akin to imagination, people were just imagining an idea like a God and then feeling good about it. To me, they didn’t realise the imaginative capability that was making them feel good. To me faith was unconscious imagination.
I had already realised this too. Me and my friend who introduced me to AF had this idea that is seemed some people would get so invested in a hypothesis they would ignore any evidence that contradicted it. Also, that people wanted to say what the universe was rather than learn from the universe. I always seemed really good at discerning belief from fact, model from reality. I didn’t need the universe to be a particular way. If I learned new information, I could drop a theory, idea or knowledge I thought was true or a fact with the more up to date info. There was nothing invested for me. I noticed people around me family, friends and others struggled to do this. My group of friends from high school which included the friend who introduced me to AF had a similar mindset to me, the first people I met like that and we formed a very strong and open friendship. Many ex friends or girlfriends would think me a hypocrite but couldn’t understand an idea being changed or rejected, for belief based/religious based people couldn’t drop ideas so freely it seems, their beliefs were more concrete and harder to change.
I did a Physics degree so I got to see for myself the faith based mentality in science, but scientists are humans most brought up in religions or belief based societies so I was never surprised to find them still having a belief type thought mentality in science too. I haven’t met so many people raised with the same level of freedom I was given.
No, science is a process to discern facts based on models and hypotheses. There is no need to defend a fact, I saw that scientists would want to defend their hypotheses or models though but I saw through that too. If something was valid the evidence would show and be repeatable so there is no need to defend. Where things can’t be tested like Big Bang theory, I always had a problem with it. As I could see untestable model/hypothesis being pushed as fact.
For me, spirituality rejected those facts we had ascertained about this world and people. That animate matter arose from inanimate matter. That energy and matter are interchangeable and in constant flux, there is no special permanent, eternal and infinite type of energy or matter to be a soul.
But even before I fully rejected my soul belief, I had rejected normal spirituality and religion because I saw it as unconscious imagination and couldn’t see how that could save or help humanity other than wrap them in a deluded security blanket, God loves me, God protects me, I am infinite, I am eternal…etc etc. To me it was self delusion and rejection of this universe, which annoyed me. Whereas my imagination was aware and a celebration of what was possible in this universe, not seeking to contradict it or delude myself.
Of course there were still blind spots, beliefs and delusions within me which I discovered since being onboard with AF. Which was fascinating to realise, despite thinking I was so aware and had such good insight in to myself.
I have seen such data, results, papers and now some of the people I went to uni work on such things. Even for them, there are discoveries they weren’t quite expecting or new questions opening up from certain experiments which seems to show that there is some honesty in the process, learning from the universe rather than telling the universe what it should be. These projects have a lot of scientists from different countries and data is peer reviewed further from scientists from other countries too like India, China etc. It would be a lot for all the different belief sets to come to agreement on data all in a false belief method. Where there are questions or challenges then somebody will bring it up, as it gives them a chance to make a name for themselves too. But even without deception, honest mistakes are still possible too. Scientists and the scientific method is not free from error, error is a natural part of physics. Hence, the whole 5 sigma paradigm in having sufficiently low error as to be valid. See link,
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/five-sigmawhats-that/
Yes, scientists can be wrong. Hence the need for something to be demonstrable and repeatable. A problem for science as it gets more niche or expensive is having people with sufficient knowledge and funds to also repeat and test. I know people who have worked on particle accelerators, some of my uni colleague’s went on to CERN. But the data and processes are shared with universities and other instutions across the world. There is transparency.
Yes, there has been a lot of evidence of corruption in science in the last 20 years, from false unicorn companies (Theranos again lol) to scientists lying for big corporations and governments. Again, the problem of big corporations to stifle or control science through their legal processes deters people from challenging these companies, all of which hurts the validity of the scientific process for lay people.
Exactly, and science and scientists are full of beliefs, it is difficult for the uninitiated to make heads or tails of science, hence I am not surprised by the growth of anti-science and misinformation.
But power and money can control and hinder the flow of knowledge and understanding, is also troublesome. For if AF ever became more than an obscurity it too would face attacks and challenges from those seeking to maintain the status quo of their power and influence.
3 Likes
I learnt a lot reading that @son_of_bob
Also a lot more about your journey so far, which is great for rounding out my imaginary Adam!
It was cool to read as it sparked even more thought into my own relationship with science and beliefs.
I honestly don’t think Actualism will ever be main stream. It’s far to iconoclastic no matter how it is packaged.
Although I do think as more people become free in the scientific fields, there will be an organic influence. If anything can radically change whether actualism has an exponential growth curve, it would be a breakthrough in the science. Something completely indisputable, repeatable.
@claudiu Let’s run ads some targeting scientists!!
Heck, a pill would be nice. Like the movie Limitless.
Yes, it seems people have such varying interactions with science and beliefs.
Yes, I too wondered this. But as mentioned in one of the other posts I too had wondered what happens when some influencer or famous person finds out about it and pushes it. I can see more misinterpretations and issues like the Affers happening again. I mean look at all the different denominations of Christianity, from the early days like Gnosticism to all the offshoot churches around the world (esp the States lol). I would say increased footfall will see increased offshoots and misunderstandings.
I love that movie, I was obsessed with that idea. Funnily enough I had started to write a similar short story but in mine it was a type of electrical brain stimulation rather than a drug but it was that some concept, the ability for us to be changed chemically/electrically as well. It is crazy how different a pill can make you feel/perceive.
I was thinking recently about why despite being an atheist I still wanted to believe in a soul. My dad used to say, “You squash an ant their dead, gone, there is no ant heaven. It will be the same for me when I die and you too.” I never really took it in, that my dad had rejected the idea of a soul. Maybe because he never explicitly articulated that he didn’t believe in a soul just hinted or eluded to that.
I found what he said funny and hilarious even as a kid, but I still wanted to believe I would live on. So much of my old writing and little notes or diary entries were like that, I shall live on with my buddies and my love free of my fleshy prison. I think hating me body so much made me want to be a soul too, or an idea, rather than this actual thing that I am.
I think properly understanding that animate matter arose from inanimate matter posed the first major…major dent in that belief.
2 Likes
How “inanimate” is it really?
And besides that, isn’t it simpler to suppose that life is also eternal?
Another property of the universe.
I mean biological life is as “old” as everything else. Eternal.
Panspermia as proposed by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe in the book “Our Place in the Cosmos” puts forth a convincing argument and evidence for this.
Which has the implication that the ‘self’ has been around forever, and will be around forever. Just not in the way ‘selves’ imagine it.
I was thinking this a few days ago, that the feeling of being eternal isn’t bullshit at all. It’s just not what we think it is. The ‘I’ am ‘humanity’, is equally ‘I’ am every ‘self’ ever.
The problem then isn’t that there is no eternal ‘self’, but rather why the heck we would choose to suffer eternally?
Richard had the view when talking about something related that “why can’t humans be the only ones?”
Again, I took it that he meant why speculate about life elsewhere, when one’s own life needs improvement.
Besides, the how life exists is not as relevant as what am I going to do with mine?
Based on the definition of inanimate meaning not to be alive, and that complex definition of what counts for life, I know that can be a tricky definition too.
Vitality, the essential condition of being alive; the state of existence characterized by such functions as metabolism, growth, reproduction, adaptation, and response to stimuli .
One then would not say oxygen or Carbon is alive neither an amino acid like leucine or DNA is not alive.
No, the matter and energy of the universe is eternal, but the universe could exist without any other alive organisms. Even if there was nobody to observe it lol, did the tree fall down in the woods if nobody saw it lol.
The elements that make it up are as old as anything else, but the combinations of matter that exist on this planet aren’t as old as everything else.
Yes, I am aware of the theory. However, these are the building blocks of life and not life itself. Hence, it is more accurate to say that the building blocks of life are as old as everything else but biological life on Earth is not.
The building blocks for allowing selves to come to potential exist, rather than selves are around for ever. Of course, I am sure there are selves in other corners of the universe in evolved life forms, considering the sheer magnitude of possible planets lol. But it took a long time for such selves to come into existence on Earth. Whatever combinations of matter and energy are possible in this universe thus come to fruition.
Doomed to be reconfigured.
Suffering…seems so hard to see that it is a choice when in its vice like grip. So easy to believe we are doomed in an eternal loop of misery.
Yes, I seemed happier pondering big unanswerable abstract questions rather than simple down to earth questions about how best to live my life. It has taken me a long time to think about this in a more optimal way.