The Present Age Passing Away

[luecy7]

No, I am asserting that there is one particular style of thought to which words like "objective" and "scientific" apply. I said a couple posts back that I am not denying that "subjective" ways of thinking are valueless; but they are different, and AndrewX simply does not even know what the words "objective" and "scientific" MEAN.

I have really never heard of 'objective' or 'scientific' being referred to as a 'style of thought'. How crazy is that. In my experience the lab, the experiment, the interaction with the world, is very much required to be an objective scientist. To be an objective scientist requires sensory and motor skills: interaction with the world in one form or another.

NO NO NO. One person has a different SUBJECTIVE viewpoint than another; "objective" means the opposite.

Ah, so it is troubling to you that different people have different objective viewpoints. It troubles you that some get to objectively experience hitting a golf ball on the moon, and some do not. It is troubling to you that some have experienced what it is like being on a cross, and some have not. Interesting.

An astronaut may or may not be a "scientist"; the earliest astronauts were more in the nature of athletes, highly trained physically but not necessarily well schooled.

Oh, right: so to you the 'right stuff' was just that 'physical stuff'. Could a monkey have performed the job? Here again you claim that schooling makes a scientist. I assert that a pre-school child can be an objective scientist, bobx. Do you disagree with that?

 

[citizenzen]

One person has a different SUBJECTIVE viewpoint than another; "objective" means the opposite.

This is the key point.

If the OP, Victor, wanted to claim that he'd had visions and contact with God, there isn't anyway I could prove him wrong. If Andrew wanted to claim he'd been in contact with aliens or Q1 wanted to claim his faith in his son was fulfilled, that's totally cool. Those are subjective moments. Unprovable and unfalsifiable.

But these same people then took these subjective experiences and tried to spin them into objective facts. That's where people like bobX or myself asked for proof or had evidence that refuted their claims.

It's really just a matter of keeping things in proper perspective. Personal and subjective experiences don't require proof, but claims of objective fact do. It's too bad we can't all remember that simple guideline.

 

[taijasi]

citizenzen, you live in no man's land. Sorry, I can't help you there. We can talk turkey, since that's all you know ... and speak of green trees and blue sky. But then you'll give the guy sitting next to you hell for his perceptions, which he can't actually prove to you, just as you can't prove yours to HIM.

Prove to ME, for example, that the "sky is blue."

Blue? Bull****. I see it as green. Not YOUR green, of course. I see it totally differently.

Have you tested my eyes lately? Then HOW THE F do YOU know that what I'm ACTUALLY looking at doesn't vibrate to the green vibrations of light, relative to what most people see, yet due to some aberration or defect within MY eyes?

Aha.

Now, in such a case, you can say the defect is with MY eyes, MY perceptions, and thus MY conclusions about what is green and what is blue.

But I'll tell you here and now, the problem is with YOU.

That's because you haven't experienced what I've experienced. If you had, you wouldn't be arguing my point.

It will occur to you at some point [God knows when] ... that there are MORE MEANS than your five physical senses - which CAN be faulty and ARE faulty - to become receptive to input regarding the world we live in.

Further, as one develops one's interior awareness, one gets closer and closer to certain awareness, still quite fallible and subject to error at first, but gradually becoming less so through time, development and practice ...

... such that eventually, TRUE KNOWLEDGE [which has many other descriptions and terms, depending on the tradition, context, etc.] becomes operational. Our innermost faculties of Consiousness are NOT subject to error, once they are perfected, or perfectly unfolded within our being.

So, while I won't claim the latter condition, I'll happily state that I've verified FOR MYSELF what you will need to spend the time, discipline, patience, etc. in order to duplicate for YOURSELF ... and if you or bob x doesn't FEEL like it, because you have better things to do, then so be it.

RANT FINISHED, and yeah dude, I totally `won.' [Ok, not quite finished.]

There was do dispute, you see. There is no point to argue.
You will only find yourself going around in circles, chasing your own tail, if you disagree. That's because the first awareness, if I might call it that, is truly RINGLIKE. If you want to join me in that, THEN and only then can we move forward. Or sideways. Or diagonally. Or whatever. Rings become spirals, spirals become progressive, 4th dimensional awareness [and beyond] are suddenly quite sensible and accessible ... and right angles existing within Angels [sic] as well as right angles to cubes are pretty much de facto.

Dude, either get with it, or ~ as I'm happy to do ~ get off the soapbox. I'm not going to sit here chasing my tail, because I KNOW what an ourobouros is. I'm NOT so stuck in the brain, and in "no, you must PROVE this crap to me," yadda yadda ... that I can't size up the situation, decide when my welcome is [there went the mat!] ... and duck out.

If you ever feel like moving PAST the ground you're standing on, however, and need someone to help you alight ... after all, when you're falling forward, not sure where or how to land, trust me ~ I do understand ... just look me up, as I think you'll find I talk about **** that you blokes just can't quite yet grasp. Are you ready for it, but just too afraid to go there?

Or are you just plain stuck where you are?

I do not knock science. Do not misquote or misrespresent what I've said. I just emphasize, if you're crossing the U.S. as a hitchhiker East to West, try to keep moving in a Westerly direction, rather than getting stuck in Kentucky, or throwing in the towel at the Mississippi. I'm over here in Californ I A, and I'm wondering why you blokes in Tennessee are so upset that I got here first. Easy, guys, you'll arrive in due time.

But you've GOT TO hitch that ride.

Don't look at ME. I ain't comin' to get ya. NO WAY

Good luck!

P.S. ~ yeah it's a lotta miles, but You might as well JUMP; go ahead and JUMP.

Shall I spell it out? sure ... ALL that observation and brain awareness, but NO conclusions. heap big smoke ...

You need to be bold[er]. You need to theorize. You need to WILLING to see beyond what you can always PROVE to the next guy. Because he will always want you to PROVE something for him, which in fact HE is unwilling to accept until and unless he arrives at that understanding for himself.

Again, I won't knock peer-reviewed Science. I do understand. But that's not the end-all, be-all ... and you're on the wrong thread and forum if you all want to be sticks in the mud and rail on and on and on about empirical data & observation, and argue with those who already KNOW you're in error. But hey, good luck!

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

here's a post i made from another forum, i hope you will pardon me the copypasta. it is addressed to a particular sort of discussion and audience and though aspects of it are clearly not applicable please disregard those bits and focus on the relevant aspect, namely what evidence is.

first, let us clearly make a distinction between the terms "proof" and "evidence" for though it may seem to be a semantic quibble it really is not.

proofs are parts of formal systems such as mathematics and logic though, sadly, in the vernacular proof has also come to mean evidence. it is evidence which compels a being to a certain point of view and this is true for all beings, even Christians.

the discussion of evidence seems on its face to be rather straight forward and in our normal lives requires no particular thought, that which evidences is evidence and, in our context, the experience of conversion or of the Holy Spirit, being Born Again, feeling Grace and such *IS* evidence.

let me repeat that in case you skipped it: a Christians' experience concerning the Holy Spirit, with Grace, with being Born Again and so forth *IS* evidence.

it is evidence of a particular sort, called "subjective evidence". this is the same sort of evidence that we use when we taste a fruit or drink water or any other endeavor upon which our physical senses are effected, it is only when we, ourselves, taste a Durian do we know what a Durian tastes like. no matter how many people tells what a Durian tastes like we will never know it for ourselves until our first taste.

it is the most familiar form of evidence with which we operate and thus in the vernacular the term evidence has become synonymous with "subjective evidence" which is sufficient for most instances. subjective evidence is evidence which we have privileged access to.

we are all to a greater or lesser degree aware of another kind of evidence; intersubjective evidence and it is to this that we now turn our attention.

as i mentioned previously, the discussion of evidence seems straight forward but that was only in relation to subjective evidence. the addition of intersubjective evidence changes the view into something not quite as straight as was originally presumed.

what *is* intersubjective evidence?

a parsing of the term can help give you an inkling of the concept under consideration; inter- between, subjective-subjects though this would be a bit misleading. the facts (intersubjective) of the matter is that the idea of what constitutes evidence and how humans acquire such has been discussed for hundreds, if not thousands of years and thus it is no easy thing to consider.. even though subjective evidence is!

a link for the more studiously inclined:
Evidence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

specifically to our discussion is located in the essay here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ev...ubIntEviNeuArb

i'll say in advance that the discussion therein is rather technical and it presumes the reader is conversant in several different philosophical systems though each is explained therein.

i'll dispense with the technical verbiage at this point in the discussion to facilitate as much input as possible <that is the minutia of the discussion to be discussed as it arises>.

this quote, chosen by the author, express the idea of intersubjectivity seems a good opening to this part of the discussion:

What is creditable … is not the mere belief in this or that, but the having arrived at it by a process which, had the evidence been different, would have carried one with equal readiness to a contrary belief.

—Blanshard, Reason and Belief

here's the key bit:

It is natural to suppose that the concept of evidence is intimately related to the cognitive ..... objectivity. According to this line of thought, individuals and institutions are objective to the extent that they allow their views about what is the case or what ought to be done to be guided by the evidence, as opposed to (say) the typically distorting influences of ideological dogma, prejudice in favor of one's kin, or texts whose claim to authority is exhausted by their being venerated by tradition. To the extent that individuals and institutions are objective in this sense, we should expect their views to increasingly converge over time: as shared evidence accumulates, consensus tends to emerge with respect to formerly disputed questions. Objective inquiry is evidence-driven inquiry, which makes for intersubjective agreement among inquirers.

i've indicated the pertinent bit in regards to this discussion. the reliance upon the Bible, in this conversation, as evidence does not constitute intersubjective evidence and it is for this reason that the use of the Bible as evidence is rejected by non-Christians and atheists. nor does the use of Christian theology in its ideological dogmatic sense qualify.

intersubjective evidence is evidence which is derived through a process which, had the evidence been different, would lead one as readily to a different conclusion. it is grounded in the idea of Objectivity, though this is not a discussion on that particular philosophical tradition <read essay> and is used in a particular manner; as the final arbiter in competing theories.

there is a wealth of information on this subject in the essay and it is well worth everyones time to read it, imo, and i do a disservice to the author in my summation of his points.

speaking plainly....[T]he most serious difficulty lay in the privacy of the objects to which the elementary statements were supposed to refer.… Because of such difficulties, Neurath, and subsequently Carnap, rejected the whole conception of elementary statements. They argued that if elementary statements were to serve as the basis for the intersubjective statements of science, they must themselves be intersubjective. They must refer, not to private incommunicable experiences, but to public physical events.

so this information gets added to the mix and we have two sorts of evidence and hence a great deal of circular discussion.

subjective evidence: consists of incommunicable private experiences with which we have privileged access.

intersubjective evidence: consists of public physical events which are observed by multiple observes to whom the accumulation of further evidence strengthens the convergence of their views with said evidence collected through the method of scientific objectivity ala Karl Popper.

both sides in this discussion use the term evidence though it is meant in the two different manners mentioned previously. when the atheist or non-Christian claims that the Christians experience isn't evidence, even though such is precisely that for the Christian, it is due to the nature of the evidence which is being asked for.

we are never asking for proof except when such term is being used in the vernacular to mean intersubjective evidence.

to the extent that i'm mangled the ideas of more expansive minds than mine, i offer my regrets... i do the best with what is available.

i can only hope that understanding the difference between these two forms of evidence can lead to less argumentative discussions and fewer derisive posts.

metta,

~v

 

[luecy7]

This is the key point.

If the OP, Victor, wanted to claim that he'd had visions and contact with God, there isn't anyway I could prove him wrong. If Andrew wanted to claim he'd been in contact with aliens or Q1 wanted to claim his faith in his son was fulfilled, that's totally cool. Those are subjective moments. Unprovable and unfalsifiable.

From your vantage point they are unprovable and unfalsifiable. There may be another vantage point that could shed light on those things that are hidden, even lost. Have you not considered that different people have different vantage points? As you pointed out, when the date comes and goes, then you will have proof. It seems there is a way for you to potentially prove Victor wrong. Therein by your own reasoning, Victor has not presented a subjective moment, but a highly objective one.

But these same people then took these subjective experiences and tried to spin them into objective facts. That's where people like bobX or myself asked for proof or had evidence that refuted their claims.

Perhaps, or perhaps some objective facts are being spun into subjective experiences. Even if they were totally manufactured experiences, there is still an objective fact in it... it is just not a fact to you.

It's really just a matter of keeping things in proper perspective. Personal and subjective experiences don't require proof, but claims of objective fact do. It's too bad we can't all remember that simple guideline.

Your method is to say that someone else's experience is subjective until they have presented it to you and proven it to you, as if that were even possible. That is being an armchair scientist, not an objective one. You in effect claim that NASA's experience is subjective until they have presented it to you and proven it to you, but that is not required for NASA themselves to be objective scientists.

 

[citizenzen]

From your vantage point they are unprovable and unfalsifiable. There may be another vantage point that could shed light on those things that are hidden, even lost. Have you not considered that different people have different vantage points?

Yes. And I said those subjective viewpoints are totally cool.

As you pointed out, when the date comes and goes, then you will have proof. It seems there is a way for you to potentially prove Victor wrong. Therein by your own reasoning, Victor has not presented a subjective moment, but a highly objective one.

Yes. Exactly. And because of the predictive nature of planetary orbits it's possible for me to be very sure (though not 100% sure) that Victor is wrong even before that day arrives. However, if for some unexpected reason these orbits all do align in a perfect row on December 21, 2012, I'll be the first person to offer my apologies for being wrong.

Perhaps, or perhaps some objective facts are being spun into subjective experiences. Even if they were totally manufactured experiences, there is still an objective fact in it... it is just not a fact to you.

Like Andrew's green sky perhaps?

Your method is to say that someone else's experience is subjective until they have presented it to you and proven it to you, as if that were even possible.

My "method" is that when a person presents an experience as fact and expects to convince others as to the validity to that fact, then (in my case) they must present evidence.

Victor said the planets will align. I checked reputable sources that said they would not.

Andrew said we are in orbit around Aclyone, a star 400 light years away. It is a highly, highly unlikely claim, yet Andrew has offered no proof for this claim. Why should I believe him?

Quahom1 questioned the my describing faith as "unprovable" with a very subjective story about his son's wrestling success. But what did his story prove as objective truth?

The line that is crossed here is not simply a person's subjective experience. Everybody has those all the time. These three people all ventured out of the subjective world and tried to sell me on the idea that these were objective facts.

Once that line has been crossed, is there a reason I shouldn't ask for evidence?

 

[luecy7]

Yes. And I said those subjective viewpoints are totally cool.

Your assertion that they were not objective viewpoints is silly. Just because they were not from your objective viewpoint, does not mean they were not objective. The astronaut that walked on the moon was not there to obtain a more subjective viewpoint.

Yes. Exactly. And because of the predictive nature of planetary orbits it's possible for me to be very sure (though not 100% sure) that Victor is wrong even before that day arrives. However, if for some unexpected reason these orbits all do align in a perfect row on December 21, 2012, I'll be the first person to offer my apologies for being wrong.

I believe you were wrong, trying to use a NASA website to show an alignment that has nothing to do with the asserted 26,000 year cycle.

My "method" is that when a person presents an experience as fact and expects to convince others as to the validity to that fact, then (in my case) they must present evidence.

Who said anyone was trying to convince you of anything? There is no evidence that I can present that can convince you of anything, or that should convince you of anything. I believe you need to experience life for yourself, rather than relying on a NASA website to tell you the way it is.

Victor said the planets will align. I checked reputable sources that said they would not.

Perhaps it is your own reputation you should be concerned with, rather than NASA, God, Victor, or Q.

Why should I believe him?

Does it really matter to you? If it is 400 light years away, and if it is going to reach out and touch you, then it had to do it 400 years ago... no sense worrying about it now.

But what did his story prove as objective truth?

Your belief in 'proof' by verbage is disheartening. Where did you come to believe it? This website? I don't know of any respectable scientist, or objective scientist, that would go on with your belief that a 'proof' can be had by mere verbage. There is no objective truth that can be handed over to you as if it were a proof. You will have to perform the calculation, obtain the experience, repeat the measurement, if you want to prove anything for yourself. I don't find it interesting that you claim there is a 'subjective truth' that cannot be handed over to you as a proof. I see a fallacy in that you claim there is an 'objective truth' that can. In your own words, you have to go out an prove it for yourself.

The line that is crossed here is not a person's subjective experience. Everybody has those all the time. You don't have to prove to me that today you went to the ice cream shop, had a vanilla cone and loved it.

There is nothing subjective in tasting something and pronouncing that it tastes like vanilla. If you want proof, then you will have to try it for yourself. If you own a mass spectrometer and gas chromatograph, then use it. If the person says they like it, then it might take an MRI or GSR to determine whether or not they are lying to you. If you don't have those tools, I guess you will have to work with what you do have.

 

[citizenzen]

our belief in 'proof' by verbage is disheartening.

I give up.

I will retire from IO and leave you to wallow in subjectivity with others to your hearts content.

Andrew can call everybody idiots and you can 'ooh' and 'aah' over planetary alignments, auras and aliens to your hearts content.

Me, I'll try to find a forum where rational people, abide.

Peace.

Out.

 

[luecy7]

I give up.

I will retire from IO and leave you to wallow in subjectivity with others to your hearts content.

Andrew can call everybody idiots and you can 'ooh' and 'aah' over planetary alignments, auras and aliens to your hearts content.

Me, I'll try to find a forum where rational people, abide.

Peace.

Out.

Sorry you are disappointed and have judged that I am irrational. Perhaps the more productive forum to share subject-object differences will be with the more familial, interactive, and less anonymous one.

 

[Saltmeister]

What scientific theory or hypothesis was put to the test by your son fulfilling your hopes?

Perhaps you could formulate one now and think of some ways to experiment and measure results which would support or counter your theory.

If you'd like to claim that faith is fact, then let's put it to the test.

I think you missed the point Quahom was making.

Science was inappropriate for predicting the future potential of his son. His son is a unique entity. Every human being is different and his son's success in life could not be determined by any theory. His future potential could only be known by allowing his life to take its natural course, rather than extrapolating based on other people's lives.

No universal theory could predict his son's future success because that depended on environmental factors and also on a changing measure of success. Any prediction made now may not be valid in 20 years time.

The environmental conditions of our time are unique. The world will never be the same ever again. There is no time like the present.

 

[Saltmeister]

Victor said the planets will align. I checked reputable sources that said they would not.

From what I remember while reading the pages and pages of discussion, it wasn't actually Victor that introduced the idea of the planets aligning and I remember someone saying it wasn't actually essential to Victor's position. I would agree with that. I don't think this is Victor's point at all.

Victor's point is that at the end of 2012, something will happen that will catch the whole world by surprise.

 

[taijasi]

My frustration comes, not from the fact that you cannot [whoever `you' happens to be] prove, or disprove, something like a 26K yr greater Zodiac. This is a cycle in which I believe ... yet I would argue that in time, it will be as well known as the lesser zodiac which is familiar to us all.

Yet notice how differently each of us regards the objective zodiac, which none of us questions as existing. One person says it is of profound importance [me] ... and will argue that EVEN THOUGH other cultures may have interpreted it differently, even going so far as to allow for more signs, fewer signs, or even the same signs under different names, it is still an objective zodiac ... and that this means something. Here, of cousre, I have my OWN interpretation of what this means, and I may have no issues whatsoever explaining why those cultures which ascribed more or fewer signs did in fact share a similiar interpretation to those which have been familiar with a 12-sign zodiac all along.

So the next person comes along, says, so what if there are 12 signs, and goes on to state that the movement of planetary bodies through the heavens is MEANINGLESS in & of itself ... and that "astrology is BUNK." This will be a bob x and a citizenzen, if I am not mistaken. That's because their interpretation is limited by a prioris, assumptions left & right, and does not reach beyond what modern, empirical science - using telescopes and mathematics - is able to tell them.

Either one may willing to investigate the various claims of the ancients, yet I notice that any time anything is out of agreement with what modern scientists are saying, the AUTOMATIC assumption [and here I question their assumptions] is that modern science is right ... and the misinformed `primitives' just had things all confused and muddled. They were, after all, doing the best they could with incomplete data ... and they ascribed all sorts of mystical & supernatural meanings to everyday, ordinary events. Such as eclipses, which is a favorite event for folks like this to bring out and discuss.

Ohhhh, the scary eclipse, which of course frightened those [even to this day] who are ignorant of scientific explanations ... and yeah, I accept this point, insofar as it goes. The modern knowledge regarding planetary orbits, and regular orbits of satellites [such as our natural satellite, the moon], is seen to trump the superstitious beliefs of the ancients ... so yeah, sure, I'll concede that.

But guess what? Those of us who believe in things contradictory to some of these a prioris, such that we do accept the influence of the planetary bodies upon our lives, within our consciousness and, to an extent, upon our destinies ... we have come full circle [which means that not all the ancients were dumb, ignorant savages to begin with!], and we know things that modern science simply CANNOT yet accept, because the means for discovery have yet to be developed or accepted by the masses.

So we know that a solar eclipse, while not likely to bring the end of the world, is nevertheless a negative influence, just as every new moon is, for the simple reason that the Sun's energy is impeded ... or temporarily occluded, obstructed. Is LIGHT, even upon the physical plane, one of the energies that is blocked? Clearly. How about heat? Yep. And thus, when what even the ancients knew of as NECESSARY influences, or energies, upon which we depend for our Life and sustenance, are seen to be temporarily shut off, is it any wonder that many - even of the reasoning among them - feared for their lives, their well being, and that of the world?

Dear God, I wonder sometimes why such foolishness is perpetuated. There is such skepticism among folks that Truth has much less than half a chance, and while modern science has done all it probably can to bring along those who are ready or capable, and to shore up our collective understanding of things ranging from eclipses to mitosis, the behavior of quarks to plate techtonics ... the bottom line is, some folks will simply not get on board, and that is because there are too many impediments to their understanding.

For example, I do not advocate Spiritualism, as practiced in the 19th Century ... but I certainly believe in it. To do any different, for me, would be absurdity. Any sane, rational individual who investigates the facts, and who approaches the subject without a bias, will be required, on the simple face of the amount of amassed evidence ... to do likewise. It may take some time, there may be quite a bit that must be set aside in order for him or her to finally say, "Ah, I see what you mean." But I stand by that.

At the same time, I am not a SPIRITIST, or a believer that tables are ensouled by individual entities, no matter how much table-rapping may be observed, by a group of people, to go on. Trees? Sure, these may be ensouled by devas, yet it is a mistaken understanding that every blade of grass has an individual grass spirit tending to its evolution and progression.

Will many a modern scientist dismiss plenty of this out of hand [back to the a prioris and mistaken assumptions]? Sure. But the method of science is to stick with the five sense, AT PRESENT, because that is all that most of us have at our disposal. Trees cannot be directly experienced by most folks as ensouled ... any more than PEOPLE can. Yet any sensible person of even moderate religious or spiritual inclination probably believes in a spirit or soul, even while opinions may differ as to how these behave or relate to us .... either in the human, or the vegetable kingdom.

I appreciate what some have done here in the just the past few hours; I appreciate the efforts to try and bring a shared understanding and to show that we probably agree far more than may appear when it comes to science and the scientific method ... even that some matters fall under the category of Faith. There is no reason for folks to run off upset, although I don't think I have anything more to say on this thread. I believe in the 26K yr cycle yet I have no way to prove it; and I don't care whether modern science has gotten around to accepting Alcyone, or the Pleiades, as the central system around which our system orbits. Take it or leave it. Saggitarius A, or B, whichever, is the center of our Galaxy; but this is another matter [the same, but on a much, much larger turn of the ... oh yeah, it's a SPIRAL armed Galaxy ].

The fact that most of us [including myself] do not possess the EXTREMELY high level of clairvoyance necessary to prove, even for ourself, certain facts or assertions .... means that if we study them at all, then sure, we must do so at certain points based either on faith, or belief. Yet what I maintain, is that when all the other facts fit, it becomes quite reasonable, if not necessary to do this; and while there are times when refrain from speculation is perhaps more prudent, there are other cases when certain assertions are actually quite valid, even required, if we are to proceed any further.

Since 1900, then, we may have entered Aquarius, with other significant events occurring around 1925 (and years before & after), in 1942, as well as 1975 and 2000. The year 2025, as well as years before & after, should be of profound significance. As for the winter solstice of 2012, I wouldn't be surprised if we experience events of great importance - both positive and negative [from our limited points of view], and therefore validate certain claims & predictions. But how much do these have to do with the Mayan prophecies, and why are people so daft that they cannot see correlations here, generally speaking, with a 26K yr precessional cycle in which Pisces proceeds into Aquarius, on the reversed wheel, as this occurs?

Some of us will be dead and gone, even before 2025, others quite possibly by next year. Big deal. Nobody cares. Or, to speak more technically, it won't change the fact that certain things just happen because on a much, much greater - aha! - turn of the spiral, this is the way our universe [from Cosmos to Galaxy to Solar System to lesser system] is built. And that kind of pattern[ing] reflects, even into the least microcosmic reflections of which we're aware, rather fractal-like. Thus we have the DNA helix, and for those who have studied it, we have the atom of occult science [look up Babbit's atom] ... wherein the Macro is evidenced on the micro scale.

I have nothing more to say. Thanks again for doing an awesome job of helping to steer this discussion back to sanity and normalcy, those who have contributed and done so. I was definitely perturbed the last time I posted ... and should have avoided chiming in. Perhaps 1 in 4 posts that I type up ever make it to this site. This one, since it is early and since I am more coherent than I was for the last one, is a better candidate.

But if the discussion here is better off while focused on the modern scientific method, what constitutes empirical evidence and such ... then by all means, carry on. I freely acknowledge that my own personal conclusions rely upon a great deal [of experience, reading, study, meditation, etc.] which CANNOT be reproduced by keeping strictly to modern scientific methods ... and would never suggest that all one need do in order to see things my way [which is 1 in 7 billion] is to consult an almanac, or google something on the Internet, or read a certain book.

We each bring to a discussion, or to an encounter, the bias of our past experiences ... the assumptions and conclusions that we've come to based on whatever we've been through. There's nothing wrong with this, per se, but we need to do a better job, imho, of admitting this, stating this, and not getting put off if other folks don't share them [our biases and sets of a prioris]. To do otherwise is unreasonable, and perhaps a bit disingenuous. In that, I apologize if I expect others to see my point of view ... without taking the time to explain why I believe what I believe.

Since I'm not really prepared to recount 20+ years [let alone other lifetimes] worth of experiences, nor do I find it possible to summarize it all succinctly enough at present ... let's just agree to disagree on certain points, and get on with whatever the disucssion has evolved into. I thought the OP had to do with prophecies and visions, the possibility of significant, earth-changing events. Wow, I thought those were going on already ... or was I not paying attention?

Cheers ... ~andrew

 

[Vajradhara]

umm...

how does the moon stop the sun's light reaching the earth exactly?

 

[Quahom1]

umm...

how does the moon stop the sun's light reaching the earth exactly?

It can't...even when it blocks the sun, it can't stop the sun from shining on the Earth. The sun simply continues to shine, past the moon. It don't care.

 

[Vajradhara]

It can't...even when it blocks the sun, it can't stop the sun from shining on the Earth. The sun simply continues to shine, past the moon. It don't care.

it was one of the interesting things that Andrew said so i'm pretty sure that i'd like to hear his explanation of it as i've a feeling that he's speaking of something other than solar radiation or sunlight shining as it were.

 

[Quahom1]

it was one of the interesting things that Andrew said so i'm pretty sure that i'd like to hear his explanation of it as i've a feeling that he's speaking of something other than solar radiation or sunlight shining as it were.

Then I digress ...

 

[taijasi]

Yes, I'm referring (too lazy to look back to my earlier post right now) to the Spiritual light (also light on the plane of mind, which has a higher and a lower aspect) ... which, like the visible spectrum, is certainly also constantly emanating from the Sun, as well as reaching our planet. It is during the time of the Full Moon, when the influence of this nefarious orb [offensive and deleterious in an occult sense] is at its minimum, that we are able to make contact with the Soul (and Teacher, or Guru) most readily.

So, during the New Moon, spiritual influence is by no means totally blocked or impeded, but Divine Energies can be said to be at an ebb.

All of this, of course, is thoroughly scientific. Any farmer could have told you this many thousands of years ago, if from a more practical level. Any farmer's almanac contains such information, useful for planting and harvesting ... just as any tide table can tell you that the moon's influence determines when's a good time for fishing, swimming, etc.

Further, any nurse or police officer knows what happens at the time of the Full Moon [the influence of the influx of energies is way too much for many people's astral-emotional bodies to handle, hence the spate in crimes and craziness at this time of the month] ... but then, the fairer sex, when her menstrual cycle isn't artificially regulated, is also well aware of the lunar influence.

There is no `moon magic' when it comes to Occultism. White Magic makes use of the times when negative influences are OUT of the picture, maximizing positive action when the Divine Flow is at its greatest ... and `behind' (that is to say, supporting) the Work. Thus has it ever been.

For the esotericist, neither earth nor her natural satellite, none of the other planetary bodies or their satellites, nor our own Star or His accompanying Neighbors (Brother Constellations) ... are lifeless, inert bodies. They stand, well before us in an ever-advancing steady MARCH, as our Elders upon the Path ... and the axiom `As Above, So Below' is ever kept in mind.

This helps to make sense of Christ's reference to [Himself] as the Star of the Morning, in Revelation ... which will then further correlate with the relation of the Son to the Father [and Christ's statement about how to approach the latter, via the former] and may also help us to be a little less confused when we recall that `Lucifer' most properly refers to the Bright Luminary[ies] and givers of LIGHT (the Holy Spirit, or Higher Understanding, simply enough) to our planet ... in both an INNER sense, as well as - to a certain extent - an exoteric and outward.

Venus does indeed appear as the Evening Star, and the Morning Star. And Lucifer, to the Esotericist, becomes identical - if anything - with St. George, or St. Michael, the ArchAngel who defeats the Adversary.

Light, through all of this, is never the enemy ... but don't expect the Church to explain the mystery - or the `evolution' - by which it becomes such. The Dharma, under whatever name it may be known, taught in the West as well as the East ... must occasionally decline before it can again be uplifted.

Perhaps the following excerpt, from a Theosophical Glossary, may shed additional Light:

Apap or Apep (Egyptian) Apophis (Greek): The serpent of evil, generally denoting matter in its lower reaches of differentiation from spirit; the slayer of every soul too loosely linked to its immortal spirit. Typhon, having slain Osiris, incarnates in Apap and seeks to kill Horus (the personal ego), but is slain by Horus through the power of Horus' father Osiris, the buddhic principle. It is also the serpent which is slain by the sun god Ra. The combat is another aspect of the myth of the battle between Horus and Set, these deities representing cosmic and physical light and cosmic and physical darkness respectively. "Apap is called 'the devourer of the Souls,' and truly, since Apap symbolizes the animal body, as matter left soulless and to itself. Osiris, being, like all the other Solar gods, a type of the Higher Ego (Christos), Horus (his son) is the lower Manas or the personal Ego. On many a monument one can see Horus, helped by a number of dog-headed gods armed with crosses and spears, killing Apap" (TG 26).

The same general story is found in St. George and the Dragon, Michael and Satan, etc. Apap, the serpent of evil, is slain by Aker, Set's serpent, showing the twofold meaning of the serpent symbol. Cosmologically this means the bringing into order of the confused and turbulent principles in chaos; in the human being it refers to the trials of initiation; in astronomy, to eclipses.​

Not meaning to overstate the obvious; but during a solar eclipse, the moon does actually occlude light from the sun ... on the physical plane.

Also, for clarity's sake, many esotericists regard the moon much differently than modern scientists do. We believe it to predate the origin of the earth by many millions [billions] of years. Only when evolution had reached the close of a prior cycle on the moon did the formation of the earth slowly begin ... during which gradual process much of the substance of that planet was siphoned off to form our current globe. This is why, what we see out there still orbiting us is literally a lifeless, rotting corpse.

Oh well, so much for nice romantic thoughts; it's still quite pretty when we observe light *reflecting* [key word] off the moon. I sure wouldn't recommend any kind of a colony there, though. *shudder*

Probably a little more than folks might have wanted ...

 

[Vajradhara]

Yes, I'm referring (too lazy to look back to my earlier post right now) to the Spiritual light (also light on the plane of mind, which has a higher and a lower aspect) ... which, like the visible spectrum, is certainly also constantly emanating from the Sun, as well as reaching our planet.

are you AndrewX? if not them i'm pretty sure that i'm still interested in hearing him explain his own thoughts.

 

[taijasi]

are you AndrewX? if not them i'm pretty sure that i'm still interested in hearing him explain his own thoughts.

yes, sorry, should have clarified that ... i'm both [not a person with MPD, i just use both screen names and forget to sign as Andrew sometimes when I post as taijasi]

So, the short version is: The moon interferes with Soul/Spiritual rapport.

From the Lucis Trust web site, here is a link to a short section on Full Moon meditations ... from a longer article: Lucis - The Science of Meditation

And here's a piece on meditations at the New Moon: Lucis - Meditation at the New Moon

Hope that helps ...

 

[Vajradhara]

yes, sorry, should have clarified that ... i'm both [not a person with MPD, i just use both screen names and forget to sign as Andrew sometimes when I post as taijasi]

So, the short version is: The moon interferes with Soul/Spiritual rapport.

From the Lucis Trust web site, here is a link to a short section on Full Moon meditations ... from a longer article: Lucis - The Science of Meditation

And here's a piece on meditations at the New Moon: Lucis - Meditation at the New Moon

Hope that helps ...

thank you for the clarification (i'd ok about the MPD anyways) about the names.

thank you for the links. i did not care for his misuse of the term "science" in the manner which he did though i thought he explained his point of view well enough.

on a personal note my own tradition of spiritual alchemy tends to hold the moon and it's phases in quite high regard and even goes so far as to suggest that the natural phases of the moon are complementary to one of internal alchemical processes.