Forum Post: does occupy wall street need to die for a real revolution to begin???
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 28, 2011, 7:55 p.m. EST by quantumystic
(1710)
from Memphis, TN
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
too many conformists keeping the movement from being completely transformative by denying the spiritual center. we need a transformative belief system based on science and mysticism to be brought into reality and front and center in the movement at the heart of the movement.
that's funny.
It was suggested, once upon a time, that perhaps I should start my own religion. Yeah-ya. It was, you know, just one of those things that were in the air . . .
So, you know, you can be a Dog of Zen
You can't be ZenDog, but, you know.
And come the full moon, I'll be happy to teach you how to bark . . .
lol
Your training will begin
No, but they do need to take their heads out of their asses and realize that they need to engage politically so we can sweep the scum out of DC. OWS has the attention of the entire nation, why not make the most of that opportunity instead of insisting that they will not engage with the current political system. How are things going to change? General assemblies on every corner will take this movement 100 years to get to their goal. OWS has to appeal to what the average US citizen understands about our political process and government workings, then create a plan, put forward candidates that will foward the OWS agenda and people will vote for them.
the average american is too disengaged and desensitized to know his head from his own ass.
So let me get this straight, in order for you to be convinced that the movement is good and transformative we should apply "scientific-mysticism"? I also would like to know who are these conformists you speak of and on what basis they are conforming? And how the death of the movement has anything to do with your post? Does this mean all our members should be religious? I am all for accepting religion, but forcing people or a movement to put forth a quasi religion sounds a little odd to me.
no in order to succeed we need a spiritual center quantum mysticism will provide that center. well a conformist would be anyone not embracing the need for radical change. those that wish to repair a system that never worked to begin with. does the conformist ows movement need to die and another movement that embraces these principles formed to achieve transformative success???? no you don't have to be religious to seek truth and transformation. why does it seem odd? people structure many if not most behavioral patterns off of their belief system. i am simply suggesting taking what we know about science and mysticism and correlating and reconciling the information in a fashion to make the transformative experience readily available to anyone wishing to have a transformative experience and giving people a context under which they can under go these experiences. these experiences have the ability to radically alter and accelerate human progress and development. the old you must be an atheist or religious model is outdated and grossly incorrect. religions truths have been manipulated and stripped by man twisted with out right lies making most religious text corrupt. much the same way atheism refuses to acknowledge basic aspects and principles of humanness. but now we have access to a knowledge that was previously unavailable to all estoteric information hidden from the masses. for example the gospel of thomas and other hidden gospels, the kabbalah and other ancient jewish texts, esoteric far eastern texts, dharmic texts, ancient shamanic traditions. seem to reveal information about and give information on how to access the universe on a quantum level and the true nature of reality, the cosmos, and even "God". when you take the new science emerging in the fields of theoretical physics, neuroscience, and psychology and use it to help understand these teachings and perhaps a deeper and better understanding of how to affect these teachings in real life well you are dealing with quite powerful transformative forces the most powerful ones in existance.
There is no death of the movement, more than anything it's growing rapidity, anyone who says the movement is dying is spreading propaganda like this tool..
really then why is the activity on this sight down to next to nothing??? why has even alternative medias coverage fallen off the face of the earth??? why has their been no reoccupation in nyc or other major cities??? and don't tell me we are waiting till spring because there is no evidence to back up that theory. yes ows appears to be in it's dying days.... if something reemerges in the spring it will not be OWS it will be the visionaries that make up the organizations that got this thing initially started, starting a revolution. and i am not talking about adbusters i am talking about the radical fringe groups that are the true heart of the movement.
I don't think this movement is dieing, but I do think it is evolving and broadening it's foundation. It certainly is affecting many many people on a conscious level as is evident in many public conversations and as a result on an unconscious level as well. People affected on an unconscious level will psychically spread the message of OWS. Read Carl Jung, "Man and his Symbols".
jung=genius
Do a google news search dip shit, stop being a tool agent man
and what would i be google searching for another arrogant do nothing protester with no ideas no vision except for the same old conformist bullshit? fake as fuck open minded liberals (really they are no more static in their beliefs than a baptist preacher) are ten times worse than the know everything but my head from my ass libertarians??? pathetic. but you will be kissing the true revolutionaries asses this spring.
"The events above noted gave unmistakable evidence of the unity of American sentiment against British oppression; but something more must be done to bring about united action. There must be some central authority to which all the colonies could turn for guidance. This political union came about in the formation of a Continental Congress. This Congress was the result of a spontaneous and almost simultaneous movement throughout the country. From New York came the first call."
Are you quite sure you're not mentally ill?
pretty sure.
OWS is dying a slow painful death. I will admit that they did have a few good ideas. What is did though is lack leadership and from what I have heard of the movement with the (social unrest, drugs, rapes, murders, destruction of private & public property,) who would want to be a part of this???
it is dying but not because of the laughable reasons you listed.... it is dying because too many people want to conform to a dying societies values.
No, there is a reason I don't go to church
this is not church. this is scientific based mysticism.
Scientific based mysticism?
Science and faith have places where they're compatible, certain interpretations of Genesis and some teachings about the Soul/mind-body problem pop up right off the top of my head.
But science is, if it's done right, entirely empirical. Mysticism is Rational. These are two polar opposites of a continuum. What you're saying is basically saying the same as "What we need is a black based white color," or "What we need is a North based South pole."
no you obviously only have an elementary understanding of that which you are talking. 1st of all empirical science always involves an observer, by the very nature of the observer, they effect the outcome of the experiments. soooo science by it's very nature demonstrates the mystical. what i am saying is we need yin and yang. our rational mind and our spiritual essence. anything else is backwards and uncivilized.
I am a scientist. A young psychologist, but a scientist none the less. I also happen to be a seminary student, having training, work experience, and gaining more training in the areas of faith-based work and philosophies both Empirical and Rational. You could say that I have an elementary understanding, but you'd have to demonstrate it first. I'll definitely bite the bullet if you can - I'm all for that sort of thing.
The presence of an observer does not always alter the outcome of the experiment. How many scientific fields are there that deal with things that aren't organisms, and therefore don't change their reaction depending on the presence or absence of an observer? The presence of an observer changes the way organisms act, and not even all of the time. If the organism doesn't realize that they are being observed, then they don't change. A tree doesn't know that there is some one watching it, so it only changes when the experiment is run on it. Experiments, done properly, yield controlled, observable, and quantifiable results. When the observer has been present for quite some time, the organisms that do change their results eventually become habituated and then revert back to their natural behavior. thinking, and Rationalism.
And even by using your Yin and Yang metaphor, you only solidify the fact that the two cannot ever be the same thing - they can only compliment each other. You're dealing with a dialectic for which there is no synthesis.
you may in fact be a scientist and theologian however. what about the uncertainty principle as a whole and more specifically the Heisenberg uncertainty principle what about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics) why don't you be honest and admit you didn't have a well thought out argument. i am not even trying. now your assertion that a tree is not aware lets take that and examine it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ntv4ZMvUSWI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNhFLhUZN0E and actually yin and yang is a pretty good metaphor in that The yin and yang symbolizes the duality in nature and all things, it also is used to describe how polar opposites or seemingly contrary forces are interconnected and interdependent in the natural world, and how they give rise to each other in turn. i am simply pointing out the duality that i perceived between science and mysticism and while you are right at this time there is not a unified philosophy that perfectly encapsulates the static nature of an new emerging archetype involving the mystical and the scientific to suggest that this is not possible is being a little naive as truth seeking polymathic individuals are independently, spontaneously, and extemporaneously creating a new belief system all over the westernized world. when theoretical physics, neuroscience, biology, and even psychology are in correlation and concordance with ancient esoteric wisdom and traditions from around the globe we are entering into a very strange time indeed!!!
Let's start with the easy one. As for your plant with consciousness video, things can "communicate" and react to stimuli without consciousness as we know it. For instance, cells communicate with other cells. They are not conscious; they communicate through chemical means. Plants react to a HUGE number of stimuli, including water and sun. Those are physical and chemical reactions in the plant's cells; they are not mental reactions. It is pretty debatable as to whether or not a worm is conscious, but one worm some how knows when another worm wants to mate with it. There's some kind of communication there.
Trees do not have brains. Not even everything that does have a brain is strictly conscious, like a human or a dog seems to be conscious. Trees aren't conscious and have no mind, because the mind is a thing that some kinds of brains do. Suggesting that plants have consciousness only hurts the assertion that you understand science.
I am aware of the Heisenberg Principle. A fellow student of mine cited it as proof against the big Bang and Evolution. By the way, it is not the observer principle. The Heisenberg Principle has to do with accuracy in measuring, not with the way measuring alters the state of things like the observer effect. I will admit, however, that I wasn't thinking of it when I posted. There's a reason for that; the overwhelming majority of sciences that you use every day aren't thinking of it either.
When you're car is broken down on the side of the road, you aren't thinking of the Heisenberg Principle when you use your cellphone any more than the scientists who developed the technology were. My wife has been sick for three days. We just got back from a visit to the doctor and pharmacist; Heisenberg and his principle stayed at home. When you talk about finding a cure for cancer, you're not thinking about the Heisenberg Principle any more than those doctors, pharmacists, and biologists are. The science that developed the technology for this computer didn't take into account the Heisenberg Principle of Uncertainty, and it works just fine.
Science made predictions before the 20's, when Heisenberg published his principle. It made predictions after it was published. So, I'll honestly admit that I wasn't thinking about the Heisenberg Principle or the Observer Effect when I made my post if you'll admit that you're not going to care about either of them when you are in the hospital and need the medical care that takes no account of it.
The fact of it is, none of the sciences are suddenly starting to come into correlation and concordance with ancient esoteric wisdom and traditions from around the globe; they were all developed from ancient esoteric wisdom and traditions from around the globe. Of course there's a lot of similarity that is, and has always, been there. That's kind of like looking at the first automobile, and comparing it to a modern dump-truck, and deciding that they could and should eventually be synthesized, or the challenges of auto-mechanics will never be overcome.
but i never maid claims of plants having brains i said they were aware. i am aware the heisenberg principle and the observer effect are not the same that is why i listed both. and yet the heisenberg principle and the observer effect are both elephants in the room of your thinly veiled argument. your implied comparison is no good either if any thing a better comparison would be original analog recordings represent ancient esoteric wisdom and traditions and modern science is represented by modern blu-ray remastering technology. what we are doing is using science to remaster in crystal clear blu-ray audio what once was almost unlistenable noise we have remastered it in hi fidelity.
Being aware requires a brain. That's where I was going with that, which is why I said the bit about the mind being a thing that some brains do.
Sorry I misread your bit about the Heisenberg principle and the Observer Effect. On a second reading, you didn't list the Heisenberg Principle as a kind of Observer Effect. My mistake. ^_^
What I was getting at is that the Heisenberg Principle has no bearing on science as we know it, except for scientists studying the Heisenberg Principle. The Observer Effect is controlled for where need be (psychology), and has little effect where it needn't be.
But that's all beside the point. The point is, those effects are objectively observable, meaning they don't fall into the realm of mysticism, neither do they demonstrate anything mystic. In fact, having that knowledge de-mystifies things about the universe.
Your example makes my point better than mine does, but it still makes my point. One was developed using technologies and ideas from the other. They didn't suddenly find that they align one day.
It all comes down to this: Science is objectively observable and quantifiable. Mysticism is not objectively observable or quantifiable. If it were, it wouldn't be mysticism; it'd be a different kind of science. What you're asking for is an objectively observable and quantifiable stuff which is not objectively observable and not objectively quantifiable. Which is impossible.
no awareness rises from consciousness and it is not clear that it is only manifest in the brain and requires a cns.
I wonder if you have a different operant definition of Consciousness than I do...
As I understand consciousness, and as every major psychologist I've read on understands it, Consciousness deals strictly in terms of cognition. And there's been no observable cognition in things without brains, or even in all things that do have brains.
To quote Skinner, "The mind is what the brain does." In context, he was probably talking about human minds and brains, so I modified it to say "the mind is what some brains do" to include other animals like we were.
skinner's assertion is incorrect. consciousness is not well understood.
And this, my friends, is what Ma and Pa America read when they pop in to see what all this OWS fuss is about.
great they should be down with actualized transformation.