The Enlightenment Is Over

Okay - this is good.

For example when the new age types tell me that it's all due to vibrations and how there must be lots of other dimensions, I often ask which vibrations and "Where are these other dimensions?". As a technician I would get those answers, but if they can't say then I assume it's a guess and that these do not in fact exist.

Many people give flaky statements of this kind (and women seem prone to this kind of thing). As a qualified technician I look for facts and often I don't see them. I think that this is perhaps what you are looking at or referring to. So perhaps the line that you have quoted here appears to be flaky to you, in the way that many women come up with similar flaky stuff?

In this case it's an abstract that is perhaps too abstract. The argument comes from religious research, but I do so much that I can't think which particular source this is from. If the God is a hive mind it gains strength from bringing people together and linking their brains (typically in sleep). The presence of a God implies linking those brains but at the same time it brings those people together into a group. So the God needs a group to exist and the group needs to continue to exist and so must be a mixture of males and females. So from the point of view of the God (in statements it has made in religious texts) if you support him you will become popular! This implies that the 'linker' currently thought to be some form of slow music in the range of 60bpm may not just link minds together to form a hive but may also result in males and females becoming more attractive to each other (like alcohol perhaps). And from that you get my flaky abstract statement that sounds like something a woman would say.

To not be abstract (as above) requires more text. The woman would say "You know what I mean.", the man would say "Why not say what you mean?" but the problem is the volume of text and the argument that follows.

Now if I write in my usual data compressed format, where every word and phrase can be extracted and expanded upon for hours and hours, I'm then accused of being a Liberal with slick writing skills, pushing some kind of lie. Science has technical writing but that's not good either. Teachers are told to use language that matches the mindset of their students, but having seen a Electrical Engineer trying to describe an Oscilloscope using footballing terms - I'm not impressed with this approach.

It is what it is - but if I was a female I would be giving this information to the feminists as it seems more suitable for them than us. Perhaps you are female (and I'm just slow)?

"Many would never think of Judaism as being a Shamanistic religion."
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Magic-Ordinary-Recovering-Shamanic-Judaism/dp/1556434448

My arguments may be correct!

The basis of that statement is one thing, another is the point of view. It fits much better with a woman's point of view than with a man's point of view. The simplest explanation is that women seek a relationship with "a God" as a replacement for relationship with a husband.

ShaunS wrote

It is what it is - but if I was a female I would be giving this information to the feminists as it seems more suitable for them than us.

Let's see if I understand right. You participate in New Age movements or other movements which exist primarily to appeal to modern women. You read their stuff and you post here to "educate" members of this forum.

My previous reply was deleted. An overview is perhaps required instead.

bl0 appears to be Polish, so perhaps there is some cultural or language barrier here that is causing some misinterpretations.

The general procedure that I follow is to gather data. If the data is in error then the errors are corrected. As a courtesy the corrections are posted. My concern is to gather only correct data. I have no concern about whether my corrections are accepted or not and in any case the reader will have both versions to choose from and can choose which ever they want. In some cases the subject matter has to be explored at greater depth to get the correct answers and as in this case considerable data may be posted. If this leads to valuable ideas and theories that can be tested then there is value for me to pursue the logic to a point where physical testing can pin down any realities that may be present.

In the matter of whether I am female or not: I look at my dick and I know that I am male. The error presented can be immediately corrected. The reader can choose their preferred answer but the data I log is the corrected data. bl0 presents a range of error prone data and there is a tendency to correct this data. Where this data refers to myself this can be done instantly but the procedure of posting the correction although a habit of mine is clearly wasted in this case. bl0 is not providing additional data nor contradicting existing data, and is off topic. Arguing these points is worthless and there is no need to do so.

It does not in principle matter what I think and in practice like most people I think as I choose (whether good or bad). In general (as above) I am simply gathering data which is being corrected if found to be in  error. The corrections are posted so that if other people are also gathering data that they may have access to the corrections. They can educate themselves with or without my support as they choose. Some people can even disagree WITH THE DATA PROVIDED. Provided that this is on topic.

THE FORUM:
Covers, the idea of forming a breakaway culture. Considers whether a religion is required to produce a good culture and the nature of such a religion. Considers the error prone feminists and their strange behaviour. Looks at ways of resolving the issue of poor relationships caused by the poor culture.

THE THREAD:
Covers, a vague idea about the enlightenment and it's history using examples of data. Considers this in a cultural setting that includes science and religion in a way that impinges on the forum general topics.

This discussion has been worthwhile but is perhaps a little beyond the average person. The data obtained has been useful and fits together very well. I hope to have gained much from this topic and time will tell. It is sad that I have gained so much but others have gained so little. People in general can only get a certain amount of understanding from their own abilities to think and where this is limited they will gain less and see less. It is not for me to prompt them. As previously the concern is simply to correct the data.  

    I have your deleted post in my email. I think your post does not break any rules of a supposedly free speech forum (even the part about Google index is harmless I think) so I will quote it in full, with my reply below.

ShaunS wrote

I do appreciate Occam's Razor and indeed simple answers are most likely to be true but it's often quite difficult to determine which argument is simpler.

Women would expect a Goddess not a God. They would reject the idea that God is masculine, as a male idea. I guess you're thinking of Nuns here.

The danger that I see is that while the left and right hemispheres of the brain are responsible for masculine or feminine thinking in respect of how they are wired (front to back for males, laterally for females) the issue of drums and drumming which formerly was feminine but is currently deemed to be masculine is probably neutral due to the impact being on the brain stem (1Hz (60bpm), 2Hz(120bpm), 3Hz(180bpm)). As the religious technology being suggested is hitting the area of the brain producing these Delta waves it is probably equally as accessible to males as females. But if males reject and females do not then it's a win for the feminists and a welcome for the Matriarchy. Now when the males say "We thought it was new age crud." it will be too late you will have lost.

So if your simple answer is that it appeals to women not men and... if it's accurate then the feminists will win. Is that what you want?

Librarians typically come up with the argument "What book did you read that in?" likewise the right wing in general has a habit of recommending books. While women accuse me of being creative? It is possible for people with brains to think for themselves, it is not necessary to obtain all of your information from books, but at the same time there is the idea that you're supposed to understand what you read. Many scientific discoveries are a product of making connections.

So the ideas that you suggest look like speculation to me, just as my ideas must look like speculation to you. As you know I have suggested that I reject new age movements can you say why you now think the opposite to what I have said?

That is the final point really. When a person says that they like 'white' the simplest answer is to assume that they do. To interpret this as meaning that they like 'black' is very odd - isn't it? Is it raining outside? No it isn't - so you better take an umbrella.

So to clarify. What it is - is what it is. It isn't the opposite of what I say. It seems unlikely that the members of this forum will ever be educated by me and clearly the focus is on the subject of the thread and so the aim is to try to stay on topic. Why are you off topic? This forum is read by more people than just the members and will eventually be searchable by Google after they index it, so there is a bigger audience. You could perhaps criticise me for posting here rather than elsewhere but the general research revolves around Elliot Rodger as suggested (and if it's suggested then it must be true as that is the simplest answer).

If I had to write the exact opposite of what I think in order to convey what I think, I would have great difficulty doing that. Everything I wrote would have to be a lie. It would take me a day to work out the conversions. My concern is that the information is available and accurate. I have no interest in whether you accept or reject. Finally I follow a rule that requires me to put my money where my mouth is and verify my beliefs through practical experimentation and verification, which is on going. The practical results will be mine and will not be shared.

*PS: As the religious technology suggested is neutral I have no real interest in who wins and will support either side. So if the feminists do win - hard cheese. Let's hope that they do not.

    To clarify, I no longer think you are probably female (not since your 4th or 5th post from the last).
    Communication requires some shared basis. Since your views and my views are so different, there can hardly be any effective communication.
    I disagree that drums are better than church organs, I have a preference for keyboard instruments (I used to take piano lessons). I disagree that "money is the root of all evil", I think money is an improvement over barter trade. I don't accept existence of a collectivist "hive mind" nor would I want to be part of it.

ShaunS wrote

Women would expect a Goddess not a God. They would reject the idea that God is masculine, as a male idea.

    You used the pronoun "it" not "he" to refer to your hive mind god.

ShaunS wrote

But if males reject and females do not then it's a win for the feminists and a welcome for the Matriarchy.

    I think the matrilineal revolution is already on the path to succeeding, whether or not they use your religious ideas.

ShaunS wrote

As you know I have suggested that I reject new age movements can you say why you now think the opposite to what I have said?

    I didn't know whether or not you rejected New Age movements until you said it here. I said "New Age movements or other movements which..." Elsewhere you mention Shamanism. I don't know what movements you took influence from.

ShaunS wrote

clearly the focus is on the subject of the thread and so the aim is to try to stay on topic. Why are you off topic?

    Each of my replies is in the context of the post it is replying to. This forum has an option of a threaded view. If someone does not want to read this subthread, he can switch to the threaded view and skip this subthread.

ShaunS wrote

bl0 presents a range of error prone data

    This data is just my thoughts and comments on your posts. Where it comes from misunderstandings, it's fine that you correct these misunderstandings.

ShaunS wrote

bl0 appears to be Polish

    Perhaps this is the reason why you repeatedly use condescending language in your replies.

ShaunS wrote

perhaps there is some cultural or language barrier here that is causing some misinterpretations.

    When I say "it's hard for me to believe how anyone other than a woman could..." or similar, it is affected by cultural differences.

Hi bl0,

Please be assured that my previous post was deleted by me! The standard was poor and I myself was off topic. The problem is that I am not the topic and neither are you. I'm not sure why I became the topic but in responding, you then became the topic, and the post became invalid - thus I deleted it. Also I wasn't aware that these replies get sent to email addresses as I don't receive these myself.

To clarify, I could be a small green alien on the planet pluto, but if I was it would not be relevant to the topic and therefore would not be significant. Unless of course all green aliens on the planet pluto are liars and you seemed to be drifting in that direction. It's off topic.

It's not a problem if you disagree. It's helpful though to find contradictory data for example: In shamanism cursory glance seems to indicate that the tempo of the drumming increases as the shaman reaches a deeper depth of trance, however in the science of brain waves the deeper state would be produced by a lower tempo and in this case the Delta waves of the brain stem would be a lowering of the frequency of the brain waves. Reversing the process would involve increasing the tempo. Thus science and it's understanding of brain waves seems to contradict shamanistic practices. Perhaps it's hypnotic drumming? Such data then requires further investigation to determine the truth (currently unknown) and therein lies the value.

In this case the historical context suggests that the Hebrews in Egypt did not have church organs but they did seem to have a powerful God, in contrast the huge cathedral with it's huge church organ does not seem to have the powerful God (or even the more powerful God) that should be expected for the greater cost and expense (thus the evilness of money as a form of vanity) that has been poured into the effort to achieve one.

It has been suggested that in general hive minds that can exist would tend towards concealment and the ideal candidate would not believe that such was possible. In a practical setting the audience would be influenced despite their awareness or belief (or lack of belief). Lack of intellect would be a positive advantage as more brain capacity would be available for the hive. In the case of the Hebrews it's clear that they viewed their God as being external but clearly they were chosen for a reason, and the suggestion is that they were powering their God (just as the AA batteries were chosen for my calculator because that's what it uses). You would not know if you were a small part of a hive mind, and you would be a greater part of it while you were asleep at night. It would not be a conscious connection. Some degree of contact may be achieved but from what little I have seen there are big differences in the type of content and the actual speed of flow (which is too high).

It's tempting for me to think that the human brain is faulty and that consciousness is the error. The reverse could be the case and consciousness may instead be a kind of clean room in an effort to avoid the chaos that seems to be present in the rest of the brain.

Women would expect a Goddess not a God. They too would reject a hive mind (as a concept). I may call it 'it' but they would still want a Goddess and at this rate they'll get it as well due to the ambiguities in translation and the oddities of the origin of the religion. Yes, you're right about the feminists. They (just as we would in their shoes) have termed their struggle to be a revolution and are well on the road to success, but in my study I found that they were moving towards shamanism and the apparently female origin of drumming and may well discover or embrace these ideas. Miriam who was a Hebrew prophetess in Egypt is apparently popular with Jewish feminists and was a user of the Tabret. So you have a kind of arms race to develop some kind of power, which if real could be won by their side.

As for new age movements it is here that your nationality misses some of the subtleties of the language. My rejection was implied but you missed it (never mind). The condescending language is not due to you being Polish and if these are repeatedly used then probably the tone exists prior to your replies. I am condescending, but how to do this in writing and how not to do this in writing is beyond me? I am also egotistical but again that will not be changing anytime soon. There is no peer pressure (what ever that is). I have no interest in what people think of me whether good or bad. Likewise I have a general hatred for the population which is a natural byproduct of the poor world in which I live. Rest assured that I am not anonymous, I am not in hiding,  I have no need to give false information or to use a false email address. I am quite happy for people to know that it is I who is stomping on them despite being left wing.

Okay but most of the above is off topic so I must now try to bring the discussion back onto the topic by asking you a few questions:

Do you think that promiscuous females have a lower level of oxytocin or a higher level of oxytocin?

If you are unable to answer the above question do you believe that this is because 'The Enlightenment Is Over' and this lack of enlightenment is why you can't answer the question correctly?

Do you think that you would become more enlightened if you immediately decided to become... Jewish???

Are Jewish people more enlightened than non Jewish people?

Finally Occam's Razor. On the question of God. What do you think is the simplest answer, and obviously this is where the difficulty comes in.

Is it simpler to say that God doesn't exist?
Or is it simpler to say that God does exist as an independent entity?
Or is it simpler to say that God may exist in the form of a hive mind?

To the typical reader the shorter sentence will be the simpler one, but saying that God doesn't exist would not be simple as there would be a big issue with the volume of data. For me the association between the God and the Chosen People points to the hive mind as the easiest explanation that accounts for most of what has been claimed. Hearing a voice in the night calling your name when there is no one there - that's the brain is it not?

The problem is one of fake religion versus genuine religion. Religion is not a regime, the God determines the culture through power and gestalt, and this is not understood and never has been.

ShaunS wrote

Do you think that promiscuous females have a lower level of oxytocin or a higher level of oxytocin?

I don't know. This subject is unknown to me.

ShaunS wrote

If you are unable to answer the above question do you believe that this is because 'The Enlightenment Is Over' and this lack of enlightenment is why you can't answer the question correctly?

I don't know what data is available as I haven't tried to search for it. A sign of enlightenment in the West being over may be the growing importance of not challenging some current established beliefs, under what is called political correctness.

ShaunS wrote

Do you think that you would become more enlightened if you immediately decided to become... Jewish???

No, if we use the term enlightenment consistently to mean the same thing, as in the subject line of this thread, then the answer is no. If we include other meanings of the word enlightenment, I would say possibly yes.

ShaunS wrote

Are Jewish people more enlightened than non Jewish people?

It depends. Who you mean by Jewish (traditional Jews, Westernized Jews, assimilated people of Jewish origin), how you understand being enlightened, the answer may vary.

ShaunS wrote

Finally Occam's Razor. On the question of God. What do you think is the simplest answer, and obviously this is where the difficulty comes in.

Is it simpler to say that God doesn't exist?
Or is it simpler to say that God does exist as an independent entity?
Or is it simpler to say that God may exist in the form of a hive mind?

To the typical reader the shorter sentence will be the simpler one, but saying that God doesn't exist would not be simple as there would be a big issue with the volume of data. For me the association between the God and the Chosen People points to the hive mind as the easiest explanation that accounts for most of what has been claimed.

Something to think about: What is the purpose of belief in God? What is the reason to choose one belief over another? I don't think the reason to choose one belief over another is that it has higher probability of being objectively true. I think the reason to choose one belief over another is that there is some purpose in doing this. For example it offers hope in otherwise hopeless situation, or some recognize it as a good foundation for society. Secondly, you seem to confuse making a personal opinion as to which option is the most likely to be true, with determining the truth. I believe statements about God cannot have their truth determined.

bl0 wrote

Something to think about: What is the purpose of belief in God? What is the reason to choose one belief over another? I don't think the reason to choose one belief over another is that it has higher probability of being objectively true. I think the reason to choose one belief over another is that there is some purpose in doing this. For example it offers hope in otherwise hopeless situation, or some recognize it as a good foundation for society. Secondly, you seem to confuse making a personal opinion as to which option is the most likely to be true, with determining the truth. I believe statements about God cannot have their truth determined.

All of this is based on the Western concept of truth which originated with Plato.  The concept of truth in the Old Testament is entirely different.  This concept rejects the idea of objective truth.  Truth is simply a way of looking at things that works over time.  And based on this concept of truth, God is true because the god of the Old Testament does work over time in that following this god makes society work.  Note that the Old Testament never defines God but in fact does the opposite and explicitly rejects definition because such a definition serves no purpose for its concept of truth.

For more, see:

http://www.coalpha.org/The-Philosophy-of-Hebrew-Scripture-book-tp7575185.html

Actually this does not contradict what I said: that objective truth is not a good reason to choose one belief over another. If we accept the notion of objective truth, then determining it in this case is impossible. If we reject entirely the notion of objective truth, then determining it is irrelevant. The rest of my quoted message still stands. However, I do not unconditionally reject the existence of objective truth, just as I do not unconditionally reject the existence of supernatural God.

Hi guys,

Some good answers here. Firstly I seem to recall (not personally of course) that Jehovah would tell people to do things and then punish them if they didn't. My personal position is with the functionality, that is, if it works or if it responds by doing something useful, or at least if it appears to (and keeps doing so), then it is functional and useful. Secondly yes you're right bl0 there is often a reason to choose one belief over another and the reason why is the aptness of the choice. For example 'Santa Muerte' Our Lady of the Holy Death, in Mexico is very appropriate for those people. A composite God of sorts somewhat on par with VooDoo given the structure of the universe.

Santa Muerte was looked at carefully, it may have some power but the religion is very basic. I also studied VooDoo for some time and that also has some power. The winner here is the God associated with those early Hebrews as I see more evidence. My view is that if a God does exist then it would be a Scientific fact that would eventually be proven, but science would tend to find a rational explanation and then claim that it was a misunderstood facility of the brain, and ultimately my view is that it will always be the brain or a number of brains.

So I expect an objective scientific truth to prove absolutely the issue of God. As that is likely to be associated with the brain, these other beliefs will just be variations of the same thing. I reject the view that such proof cannot be achieved. The supernatural is simply the undiscovered.