Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

News Briefs 29-01-2008

By Jameskeon

Short and sweet today.

Quote of the Day:

A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them.

P.J. O’Rourke

Jameske
Related

21 Comments

  1. As bizarre as the DNA behavior is . . .
    Even stranger is last year’s discovery regarding space plasma.

    http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070814_plasma_life.html

    What struck me about the plasma article was that David Bohm had identified the sentient qualities of plasma on earth fifty years ago, saying, “The ability of form to be active is the most characteristic feature of mind, and we have something that is mindlike already with the electron.”

    True mystics aren’t surprised by any of these findings, yet here in the West the culture of materialism insists we’re well on our way to fully explaining reality. The mystics understand that it can never be done until we start looking within our own minds as well.

    Then the materialists say ‘okay’, and fire up the fMRI. What we have here is a failure to communicate . . .

    1. No…
      [quote]What we have here is a failure to communicate . . .[/quote]

      I think what we have here is a refusal to see the arguments of the other side.

      —–
      It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
      It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

      Red Pill Junkie

      1. Oh
        But is communication not dependent on the fact of listening and listening based on the fact of really trying to see what the other guy is saying without belief or denial?

        I don’t think people really communicate, people argue a lot though.

        1. Yep
          The very act of listening implies a true will to hear what the other person has to say. Of course in most discussions, when the other person is talking we are not paying attention, because we’re too busy thinking of our very intelligent and undisputible reply.

          —–
          It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
          It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

          Red Pill Junkie

          1. Exactly
            So, there is indeed a universal communication problem. The same holds true between the personalities of nations.

          2. Ok, then
            But how do we revert this?

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          3. And there’s the rub . . .
            [quote=red pill junkie]But how do we revert this?[/quote]

            I think all we can do is watch our own thinking and become aware of how much we do it ourselves. Listening is the key, but how often do we really listen? We mostly listen to our own evaluations of what the other is saying.

            I know I’m guilty of that, especially with dogmatic types of any affiliation. Inner chaos rules as they speak. 🙂

            The circle continues . . .

          4. I agree
            The point is not to change somebody else but to change oneself.

            If everyone did this, the problem would be fixed.

            Unfortunately, most of the time, it is the other who is expected to change. Of course, he is expected to change to conform to whatever within is supposed to be changed to start with, if we were to really listen.

          5. Changing others
            [quote=Richard]The point is not to change somebody else but to change oneself.[/quote]

            And maybe most fascinating, is if we can do this, the others appear to change as well.

            They become innocent.

          6. I agree with you Michael
            Innocent in a way and so long as an individual is trapped in a program instead of being the programmer.

            What you are saying is a very important point.

            It is only once a person has realized the extent of the manipulations to which he was subjected that he can start and appreciate the predicament that others are subjected to.

            Love is not for the forces, it is for man. But religions and mysticism has turned the table long ago in favor of the gods, at the expense of man.

            The realization of the magnitude of those manipulations will turn the table once again and this time in favor of man and against the gods.

          7. I agree with you too!
            The only thing I might disagree with you about here is casting the mystics out with the religious. The true mystics consistently bring the divine back to men, while the religious misinterpret the message and construct dogma around a message they don’t understand, effectively keeping the divine at a safe distance. It’s as tragic as the dogma expressed by the materialists, maybe more so.

            I just wrote the following to a friend in an email – “I guess that shouldn’t surprise me; every religion on earth has fallen victim to the same thing. Yogananda was right when he said, “God is simple, everything else is complex.” Very few understand him either.”

            As Vonnegut wrote, ‘so it goes’.

          8. I understand
            To me the question is the source of information, and I see the source of information that man was fed since he got cut off from his reality as being constantly the same, whether through highly spiritual channels on one hand or through lower channels bent on recuperating the not so well spiritually minded.

            So, whether disinformation comes through the mystic or through the religious, the source being the same, the receptor is always caught with a thought pattern that is perfectly adapted to what he is willing to believe.

            Even the concept of ‘divine’ is a concept that is supported by a form of disinformation, being in the withholding of the total information.

            Lets not forget that humanity was kept ignorant while being fed concepts, forms, that were in harmony with its spiritual evolution, but the spiritual evolution is not man’s reality from my point of view but rather a substitute for it as it has for only purpose the progress of soul energy but that has an end in time as all processes are the steps on the ladder to reality and reality is not on the ladder but beyond.

            And, of course, when you want to climb the ladder, you have to leave the step behind.

            So, one day, man will have to destroy everything he held sacred, less he remains prisoner of the material that had for only purpose to mold his experience in order to fortify certain energy architectures that would be necessary for the next step.

            Otherwise, we risk remaining captive of astral time, a time that created death, as if death was a natural condition for an energy that underpins the creation of what man is as a multidimensional reality that has its source in a world far removed from death.

            Man will have one choice: Spirituality or reality.

          9. this works for me….
            as a friend is explaining a theory or belief they have, I listen intently and build an image in my mind which I project to them as they speak. Their Explaination then is modified to fine tune my mental image.
            But again, one does need to listen without pre-judgeing or racing ahead to counter any contradictions of their own theory or belief.

            “Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told.”
            LRF.

          10. Knowledge
            I think the problem in all this is knowledge itself. We come up with ideas and because of everything that has been invested in it, we place the label ‘truth’ upon it. Yet, I think the only truth we’ll ever be able to speak of is the ‘truth’ that there’s more to know.
            I suspect absolute knowledge will never be known – after all what would we ‘do’ if we found it? Rather, knowledge is a contemporary opinion of how the most powerful or influential see the universe at this time.
            I think if we could really understnad that, we could build a new view of knowledge where we accept differences, but have toleration of others. Toleration WITHIN diversity.

            ‘Love thy neighbour?’

            Who said that?!

            No, the key is …

            …

            I’m fanatical about moderation

            Anthony North

          11. the problem with tolerance
            I think we could all agree that more tolerance around divergent ways to see the world would bring a more peaceful society.

            But at the same time, don’t we all believe there can come a time when you feel the need of “making a stand” against an idea you know (or at least are personally convinced) is not only wrong, but inherently pernicious?

            And it is not only about someone openly saying “2+2=5”. How about if you hear someone saying “The Holocaust never happened”, or “We never went to the Moon”?

            How about “Women don’t have the same rights as men”? For a modern western mind this is absurd and offensive, and yet there are still social groups where they still follow such dogmas.

            At this I immediately recognize that this “righteous” impulse to stand against such ideas is a complete emotional impulse; one that has deep evolutionary roots in our psyche (the same roots that makes most of us feel revolt to the idea of pederasty or incest). And subsequently, we should examine if there is such a thing as an “inherently pernicious idea”, a concept that is so infectious and polluting that the mere act of entertaining it briefly corrupts oneself. We may think this is ridiculuos, and yet in Europe it is a crime punishible by prison to deny the historicy of the Holocaust -and most of us would see nothing wrong with that.

            So how do we do it? How do we mantain tolerance without falling into an irremediable “relativism” where any outlandish idea has as much merit as any other? How do we keep our minds truly open to what other people have to say, while at the same time keeping some sort of functioning social structure?

            I suppose one way to achieve it would be if people were to REALLY review their belief systems; to really understand WHY they believe what they believe. If a go to a catholic and ask him or her why using a condom is wrong, the answer “because the Church says so” it’s not just good enough -at least for me.

            The same of course would apply to any other topic, including science. Most people know that according to Einstein we can’t travel faster than the speed of light; but most of us do not go farther than keeping that bit of info in our heads. At that moment that bit of info becomes an axiom, and after that… a dogma.

            And wars are always fought over discrepancies in dogmas.
            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          12. Toleration
            Hi Red,
            I think one way is to look at the possibility of there being two types of knowledge. These are ‘local’ (not an all-encompassing word, as you’ll see) and ‘universal’.
            Take religion. Most religious forms are found in the local culture of their founders. It is intrinsically related to environment and people, and in this way it becomes fundamental. Yet, if you study all religions, you can find, under the cultural symbolism, universal similarities.
            This is most pronounced in myth, where Jung and Campbell identified specific archetypes. Hence, a religion can speak on two levels – it can show identity, meaning and belonging at the local level; and an incredible unity at the wider, universal level. Unfortunately, fragmentation means we only view a particular religion in terms of the local. But if we could place into our knowledge the ‘holism’ of the wider meaning, it holds within itself the possibility of unity.
            This is what I mean by toleration WITHIN diversity. We can still feel identity, etc, because part of the religion is specific, but also toleration in the way the ‘under religion’ binds us all.
            I think a similar system could be placed in politics, if the idea was given intellectual credentials. It should already exist in science, seeing it can never offer absolute proof. Indeed, in the main it does except for the existence of Grailers like us. Still, we can’t have everything.

            …

            Reality, like time, is relative to the observer

            Anthony North

          13. Part Two
            One point I missed. Don’t forget, maybe 99% of the human race already accepts, or would accept, this – or not care one way or the other. Most people just want to get on with their lives. It is only a tiny minority who stir the pot.

            …

            I’m fanatical about moderation

            Anthony North

          14. “Women don’t have the same rights as men”
            Unfortunately Red, if you go to some countries, you can argue ’till your’re red in the face 😉 but no matter how much you arguem, woman in that country do not have the same rights as men.

            A right, absolutely speaking, is something that no one can take away from you.

            On this planet, where progress has been seated on top of domination at all levels of experience, and still is, there are no rights but privileges. Rights are taken by those who have the means to dominate.

            So, the only one way to apply such a concept that women have the same rights, you must go in and impose the concept.

            Because it is not intrinsic to human psychology.

            I understand what you are saying though.

            Tolerance can be dangerous past a certain threshold. Nonetheless, the culture that claims superiority remains blind to its own flaws, because it lives its own attributions in a field of comparison rather than in a field of evolution. Otherwise, everyone would agree to such things, civilization would evolve according to the evolution of individuals, instead of progressing based on the law of the fittest, which is a law of astral animality.

            What is fundamental universally speaking is freedom. But in our western societies, we have recuperated this as a concept for self-justification as we are kept prisoners of a system that replaces our freedom with a framework destined to keep the system alive.

            These systems confront each others because they also are ideologies. So, it is the law of the fittest ideology that prevails, rarely is it anything else than the imposition of a favored set of understanding that more often than not should remain in the realm of things personal. But by forcing an ideology over the head of somebody else, we force them into our own experience so that we, ourselves, do not have to change, therefore so that we do not have to evolve.

            This planet is truly fucked up.

          15. Stop This Nonsense!
            RPJunkie, that entire post was inherently pernicious.

            ————————————–
            My apologies go out to all who were just offended by this hostile, confrontational and completely unreasonable post.

          16. LOL!
            So sorry Anon. Luckily it will not provoke a permanent damage due to exposure 🙂

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

  2. Car Zap
    I hate to be the party pooper on the car zap story. I’ve worked around a hospital in UK for 20 years. Since we moved to our new site in 1991, the pager/bleep system has done this to cars in a similar radius. The car recovery peeps just love us!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal