Merkabah | Page 452 | INFJ Forum
@John K
The story of the Fall could be more than myth - it could actually be the case that the first human beings really did cock things up and embedded the flaw in ultimate reality going right back to the beginning :coldsweat:

This is an intriguing statement because there is such a "disposition" without our psyches at an archetypal level and one has to wonder where it came from, besides some obvious ideas such as we are not perfect and we'll make mistakes. (Whereby myths themselves contain characters based on this as well to further muddy the waters.)
 
@John K


This is an intriguing statement because there is such a "disposition" without our psyches at an archetypal level and one has to wonder where it came from, besides some obvious ideas such as we are not perfect and we'll make mistakes. (Whereby myths themselves contain characters based on this as well to further muddy the waters.)
I can’t avoid accepting that there is an objective force of evil and that there is a deep flaw in the world caused by it. I’m not just recycling the old myths- it’s a deep rooted insight as well. The insight goes on though - the weird thing is that without this flaw we wouldn’t be human. I can’t justify or rationalise this - it’s pure perception.
 
the weird thing is that without this flaw we wouldn’t be human. I can’t justify or rationalise this - it’s pure perception.

I think I can intuitively grasp what you mean here even though not currently able to verbalize it - but yes, could conclude something very similar if different in details.
 
I think I can intuitively grasp what you mean here even though not currently able to verbalize it - but yes, could conclude something very similar if different in details.
It’s the use of words, because they scramble the meaning as well as transmitting it - but we can’t communicate without them. I can hardly ever communicate deep insights easily to anyone who hasn’t already seen them anyway. That’s why the Forum is so valuable.....

Of course I could be talking nonsense lol - it doesn’t feel like it though.
 
Well too often I feel like I'm talking nonsense and it takes very kind/special people to help me figure out if so or not - but yes, the more convoluted the insight, the more (actively interested) discussion it takes to communicate it with any degree of success.

On evil - I was thinking that to some degree a person's hurtful behavior can be explained through the injuries they have sustained which maybe have convinced them they can't do anything different or at least not anything positive to change what they are doing. To a degree this makes the behavior understandable because there is a good "cause" for it - however we then have the case of someone turning away from even trying to go this route and just "turning to the dark side" and basically getting eaten up by their own darkness as they just turn around and hurt other people ad-hoc possibly even getting pleasure from doing so... at this point I think we can talk about evil, whether through that person's choice or through some external force which "encourages" them to go in this direction. Which it is I can't say except both possibilities have occurred to me in thinking about this stuff.
 
Well too often I feel like I'm talking nonsense and it takes very kind/special people to help me figure out if so or not - but yes, the more convoluted the insight, the more (actively interested) discussion it takes to communicate it with any degree of success.

On evil - I was thinking that to some degree a person's hurtful behavior can be explained through the injuries they have sustained which maybe have convinced them they can't do anything different or at least not anything positive to change what they are doing. To a degree this makes the behavior understandable because there is a good "cause" for it - however we then have the case of someone turning away from even trying to go this route and just "turning to the dark side" and basically getting eaten up by their own darkness as they just turn around and hurt other people ad-hoc possibly even getting pleasure from doing so... at this point I think we can talk about evil, whether through that person's choice or through some external force which "encourages" them to go in this direction. Which it is I can't say except both possibilities have occurred to me in thinking about this stuff.

It seems to me that evil is like an opposite pole to good, analogous to positive and negative electric charge. Trouble is, we confuse blameworthiness with the force evil generates. Just because someone is dominated by the evil force it doesn’t mean they are evil themselves necessarily - they may just be unfortunate.

I conceive of evil as a passive condition like cold though. There is only an absence of heat, not a real dichotomy.
 
Interesting way of putting it, and I admit I haven't thought of it as passive before - though it takes quite a bit to get someone or something to get attached to the description in the first place.

Definitely have thought about the unfortunate side - this is now Chiron territory as far as its view of things - initially that things are broken and unfair, later that they just are because of the nature of the universe and life - perhaps not an exact analog but here the "evil" is generated through one's beliefs and perspective and is thus a mode of perception.
 
Great article. It has always seemed obvious to me that consciousness exists because it's nature is implicit in the fundamental structure of the universe - it's not something bolted on as an afterthought.

There is a rather disturbing possibility that arises from the idea that the history and full nature of the universe was indeterminate until human awareness existed to crystalise it out. The story of the Fall could be more than myth - it could actually be the case that the first human beings really did cock things up and embedded the flaw in ultimate reality going right back to the beginning :coldsweat:

@John K


This is an intriguing statement because there is such a "disposition" without our psyches at an archetypal level and one has to wonder where it came from, besides some obvious ideas such as we are not perfect and we'll make mistakes. (Whereby myths themselves contain characters based on this as well to further muddy the waters.)

I can’t avoid accepting that there is an objective force of evil and that there is a deep flaw in the world caused by it. I’m not just recycling the old myths- it’s a deep rooted insight as well. The insight goes on though - the weird thing is that without this flaw we wouldn’t be human. I can’t justify or rationalise this - it’s pure perception.

I think I can intuitively grasp what you mean here even though not currently able to verbalize it - but yes, could conclude something very similar if different in details.

It’s the use of words, because they scramble the meaning as well as transmitting it - but we can’t communicate without them. I can hardly ever communicate deep insights easily to anyone who hasn’t already seen them anyway. That’s why the Forum is so valuable.....

Of course I could be talking nonsense lol - it doesn’t feel like it though.

Well too often I feel like I'm talking nonsense and it takes very kind/special people to help me figure out if so or not - but yes, the more convoluted the insight, the more (actively interested) discussion it takes to communicate it with any degree of success.

On evil - I was thinking that to some degree a person's hurtful behavior can be explained through the injuries they have sustained which maybe have convinced them they can't do anything different or at least not anything positive to change what they are doing. To a degree this makes the behavior understandable because there is a good "cause" for it - however we then have the case of someone turning away from even trying to go this route and just "turning to the dark side" and basically getting eaten up by their own darkness as they just turn around and hurt other people ad-hoc possibly even getting pleasure from doing so... at this point I think we can talk about evil, whether through that person's choice or through some external force which "encourages" them to go in this direction. Which it is I can't say except both possibilities have occurred to me in thinking about this stuff.

It seems to me that evil is like an opposite pole to good, analogous to positive and negative electric charge. Trouble is, we confuse blameworthiness with the force evil generates. Just because someone is dominated by the evil force it doesn’t mean they are evil themselves necessarily - they may just be unfortunate.

I conceive of evil as a passive condition like cold though. There is only an absence of heat, not a real dichotomy.

Interesting way of putting it, and I admit I haven't thought of it as passive before - though it takes quite a bit to get someone or something to get attached to the description in the first place.

Definitely have thought about the unfortunate side - this is now Chiron territory as far as its view of things - initially that things are broken and unfair, later that they just are because of the nature of the universe and life - perhaps not an exact analog but here the "evil" is generated through one's beliefs and perspective and is thus a mode of perception.


John, you are saying that self-awareness or consciousness itself solidified reality?
And if so, was that a mistake or flaw?
As a victim of this reality you Sir are a victim blamer!
LMAO
JK

I see both of your points I think.
Does evil intrinsically exist or is it created by human ideas of morality and what is programmed into our psyche as survival instincts?
Thanks for keeping the thread going while I was out!
:<3white:
 
Last edited:
The case against reality
f776ececae8543d6456d166e3eab1ee3-bpthumb.png

Neuroscience News
2 days ago


reality-optical-illusion-neurosciencneews.jpg

Although this image is stationary and flat, our brains may not perceive it that way.
Don Hoffman, UCI professor of cognitive sciences, applies that theory to how we see, think, feel and interact with the world around us in his new book, The Case Against Reality.
“I’m interested in understanding human conscious experiences and am building a computer model to develop a mathematical theory actually explains them,” he says.
“If we are successful, then we’ll be able to more fully understand reality, the truth.”


Summary: A new theory argues consciousness creates neural activity, and humans have evolved to see what is needed for survival.
Perception, it is argued, is a user interface which may not necessarily be real.


Source: UC Irvine

Perception is not objective reality.
Case in point: The above image is stationary and flat…just try telling your brain that.

In his new book, The Case Against Reality, UCI cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman applies this concept to the whole of human consciousness – how we see, think, feel and interact with the world around us.
And he thinks we’ve been looking at it all wrong.


“I’m interested in understanding human conscious experiences and their relationship to the activity of our bodies and brains as we interact within our environment – and that includes the technical challenge of building computer models that mimic it, which is why I’m working on creating a model that explains consciousness,” he says.

Current scientific approaches assume there to be a pattern of neural activity that makes us experience things like the taste of a nut or the appearance of the color red.

But, says Hoffman, there are no formal theories that explain this.
“As a scientist, I propose a theory and then try to prove the theory wrong, to test its validity,” he says.

“Because there is no mathematical theory explaining the pattern of neural activity that creates consciousness, it may mean we are making a false assumption.”

He argues instead that consciousness creates neural activity – that humans have evolved to see what’s needed for survival.
Perceptions, he says, are a user interface, but not necessarily reality.

A vision scientist, Hoffman’s work has caught the attention of those in the scientific and spiritual communities for its attempt to understand qualities that make the human experience, well, human.

In 1998, he published Visual Intelligence, which introduced 35 rules governing the perception of line, color, form, depth, and motion.
The book explains how people process two-dimensional images to create a 3-D environment – or how individuals use vision to construct the world around them.

The concept, which comes from evolutionary psychology, is that humans have adapted in certain ways over time to survive and thrive.

He lectures on the topic in his undergraduate psychology courses, and he gave a TED talk in 2015 on the idea that people may be perceiving the world as they need it to be, rather than as it really is.

As of July 2019, it had more than 2.7 million views.
He’s frequently cited in and interviewed by the media and he appeared on “Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman” in an episode titled “Can We Handle the Truth?”

His work was the topic of a live-streamed New York Academy of Sciences event in February, and in August, he’ll take center stage again in the Big Apple – this time at the Rubin Museum of Art– with spiritual guru Deepak Chopra at a signing event for Hoffman’s newest book.

“The field of vision science is really powerful,” he says. “The notion that we are constructing our own realities ties into so many different areas. These ideas can be used in many ways – including in marketing and advertising to change the way people experience a product.”

He’s put principle into practice for major names in fashion by redesigning clothing gradients to showcase more shapely rears, thighs, and busts.
He’s applied the same ideas to marketing using mathematical analyses to determine the best color, lighting, structure, and composition of targeted advertising.

Here, he dives deeply into the topic of consciousness, its roots in evolution, and his plan for trying to explain through science the very things that make us all human.

About this neuroscience research article
Source:
UC Irvine
Media Contacts:
Heather Ashbach – UC Irvine
Image Source:
The image is adapted from the UC Irvine news release.
 
306183_10150615956220759_1750688787_n.jpg


426223_10150599355365759_42306592_n.jpg


13669755_10154503526574674_5493340621194877546_n.jpg


13681041_10154503912964674_1605002240361729400_n.jpg


13754535_10154537756189674_2219480492753341765_n.jpg


14354907_1223708321013548_3281730374761941540_n.jpg


14358814_1223611301023250_5511132947448586669_n.jpg


67013419_3358686087490841_6641578259341377536_n.jpg


67117449_2514275408623493_6816214240936853504_n.jpg


67134787_2580075528691740_4558883239518797824_n.jpg
 
John, you are saying that self-awareness or consciousness itself solidified reality?
And if so, was that a mistake or flaw?
As a victim of this reality you Sir are a victim blamer!
LMAO
JK

LMFAO No! Or at least Maybe ....

I was just following up on the article you posted which said

Wheeler suggested that reality is created by observers and that: “no phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.”
He coined the term “Participatory Anthropic Principle” (PAP) from the Greek “anthropos”, or human.

He went further to suggest that “we are participants in bringing into being not only the near and here, but the far away and long ago.”

So there we were in the distant past, just about human, but still trailing our knuckles a bit. The threshhold is crossed though, and the universe anxiously waits as the first truly conscious beings decide its fate back to the beginning and forward to the end. And Adam said "I don't give a fuck about all that cosmic bollocks .... I want a beer and a woman, and some nice skulls to hang on the wall" and so it was written and so it shall be for all of time.
 
Last edited: