Why we're here

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... D4cGSxLNwM

This is only part 3

I'm beginning to think us aspies will ascend.

How much angel dust do you have to smoke to make this guy sound like he is making sense?

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.

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.

I wish to thank my predecessors in this thread for presenting sufficient caution. I remain happily possessed of ten minutes with which to do something else.

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.

If we weren't here we'd only be some other place making a mess.

How did you stumble upon this, OP?

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:

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.