Spiritual is the new supernatural

370 posts / 0 new
Last post

Comments

mattnapa
mattnapa's picture
 I have to say I thought

 I have to say I thought Reed9 was very well mannered in our discussions and I am surprised he has become an offender. Can I ask if the offending remarks are visible here somwewhere?

polycarp2
Poor Richard wrote: Isn't

Poor Richard wrote:

Isn't spiritual just the new supernatural? How is spirituality not magical thinking?

poly replies:  Again...lyou're inking it with religion. In psychology, it's merely a dis-association from automatic thinking processes. One no longer identifies the " I " with a set of opinions, beliefs and interpretations built upon childhood interpretations...which are often false. That sets a new world view in motion. A new sense of self arises....an observer of thought processes rather than an automatic actor upon them.

Magic has nothing to do with it.  It's a subjective experience that can't be quantified. Only observable changes in iinternal outlooks can be analyzed....IF they are made known. .in word or deed.

Nothing to do with magic. Nothing to do with the supernatural. Nothing to do with religion.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

 

bonnie
Quote:DNA is essentially just

Quote:
DNA is essentially just information.  At some point that information needs to be used to build the proteins which make up the old body, and that process is, in a nutshell, gene expression.

Well, sort of...

One of the things I find fascinating about the role of gene expression in the human experience is - the effects of long term "chronic" external stimuli on neurophysiological development.

To simplify - repetitious conditioning changes the hard wiring of brain. What a brain is repetitiously exposed to is most likely what a brain becomes hard wired to "believe" as truth -- magical or non-magical.

 

 

 

bonnie
Anyway... ...talking about

Anyway... ...talking about sociocultural conditioning:

I still don't understand the following:http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/0,28757,1999143,00.html

Edison was not all that and a bag of chips. In fact he was nothing more than a "businessman" who was willing to screw a TRUE scientist for a profit.

Personally, I have no regard for Edison. I think he was a son of a "biscuit" piece of turd who by rights should have been kicked to a curb.

In my not so humble opinion Edison represents our current concept of capitalism...  ...AKA - take what you can and capitalize from it.

Anyway... ...Edison could not see past his research of AC current. It was NOT Edison who developed the AC/DC current concept. It was Nikola Tesla. Edison "f8cked" Tesla out of Tesla's research and capitalized on it.

Yet - even today we are "educated/conditioned" to believe Edison is the father of the AC/DC current - which is NOT true.

Anyway... ...if you find the time - research Nikola Tesla. It may help you realize what you learn is "school" may not always be the truth.

 

mattnapa
mattnapa's picture
 Well if the moderators will

 Well if the moderators will not answer my question here, I guess I will try elsewhere.

meljomur
meljomur's picture
matt, reed9 was a previous

matt,

reed9 was a previous member who has been banned numerous times.  You may have not had a problem with his conversation on this topic.  However he was starting to stir up trouble elsewhere, and we are trying to curtail these posters from completely derailing this MB (which is their intent).

Hope this explanation helps.

reed999
I apologize for posting this

I apologize for posting this publicly with a throw away account.  According to the forum rules, I should email a the forum moderator to appeal any decision, but I haven't been able to find any way to do so.  I did send an email to webmaster@thomhartmann.com, but no response yet.

If someone could kindly direct me on how to contact someone, I would be most appreciative.

I don't know who you think I am, Mel, but please rest assured that I have never been banned before, nor is my intent to derail the MB.  I first joined in April and I am a paid subscriber to the show (and my ability to download podcasts has been curtailed due to the ban).  I've have always considered myself a progressive, in fact I work for a progressive public interest group.  Though obviously, I hold a difference of opinion on some issues.  I would be more than happy to work with the community if my posts seem inappropriate.  Admittedly, my interactions with Kerry have been less than cordial, and I'm perfectly willing to not interact with him in the future.

meljomur
meljomur's picture
Nice try, but you know what I

Nice try, but you know what I am talking about. 

 

Kerry
Kerry's picture
reed999 wrote: Admittedly, my

reed999 wrote:

Admittedly, my interactions with Kerry have been less than cordial, and I'm perfectly willing to not interact with him in the future.

Well, if you think that I'm the problem, reed999, I'm here to tell you categorically that 'I' had nothing to do with you being banned.  While I do know that that is within the purview of the forum hosts, 'I' have never operated that way on any forum that I have ever been on.  I will however call it as I see it if the situation calls for it.

The one time that I left a forum (worldcrossing) was on a discussion about 911 where many of the members of the forum--including one from San Francisco that I had personally met--started 'answering' by accusing my capacity as a physician because of my position on how unlikely two airplane impacts could cause three buildings to totally implode like have never happened before.  While I think I am able to hold my own with any one person's allegations against me (that I might think are uncalled for--such as in your instance, reed999), I was not able to get around several of them doing it at once as their only way to 'respond' to me.  'The pack' got to me--and I left. 

However, despite any and all objections that I may hold with any person that  I discuss anything with (up to and including any personal slurs as to my character), I generally try to get across the points in my argument despite it--as well as banter a little back if the situation hits me as such....so, don't blame me for anything that caused a ban on you, reed999, I had nothing to do with it and never have on any person ever banned any where...if you recall, DRC warned us both (in fact, I think he may have even chastized me more--but that may just be me--he never answered my question to him set up by Poor Richard that I was here just to be a troll--something that I don't really think I even have the time for)...so, don't claim unjust exclusions about you on my account, reed999....but, if 'not talking to me' suits you, that's fine. 

But, like KevinConner (who put me on 'ignore'),  I'll see it as you not having any constructive argument regarding my point, not 'how bad I am'....you do understand that, don't you, reed999?    

Good day....

 

mattnapa
mattnapa's picture
 Mel- to me the question is

 Mel- to me the question is not only about Reed, but also how transparent this process is. I am sure it is a touchy issue, but I think the question deserves an answer. I assume the post is not 344.

BadLiberal
BadLiberal's picture
mattnapa wrote:  Mel- to me

mattnapa wrote:

 Mel- to me the question is not only about Reed, but also how transparent this process is. I am sure it is a touchy issue, but I think the question deserves an answer. I assume the post is not 344.

I second that. Without more information it feels like he must have violated super-double-secret rule 7X. Something pretty bad anyway, considering some of the stuff I've seen from members that are still posting today.

meljomur
meljomur's picture
mattnapa wrote:  Mel- to me

mattnapa wrote:

 Mel- to me the question is not only about Reed, but also how transparent this process is. I am sure it is a touchy issue, but I think the question deserves an answer. I assume the post is not 344.

matt, I will take this discussion to Open Thread. 

polycarp2
Bonnie wrote: To simplify

Bonnie wrote: To simplify - repetitious conditioning changes the hard wiring of brain. What a brain is repetitiously exposed to is most likely what a brain becomes hard wired to "believe" as truth -- magical or non-magical.

-----

Actually, the brain functions in that manner with everything. Opinions, beliefs, etc. stem from that.

"Be master of mind rather than mastered by mind. - Zen saying,.

That, of course, is the purpose of psychology, isn't it?

One masters the mind by becoming dis-associated with it's beliefs, opinions, fallacies. It becomes a tool rather than a dictator. There is a tremendous amount of freedom in doing that. It's often referred to as spiritual psychology for lack of a better term. It has nothing to do with religion or the supernatural.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

bonnie
Well, my conscious is clean.

Well, my conscious is clean. I know I had nothing to do with Reed9 or Reed99 or Reed 999 being banded.

Frankly, I could give a mother trucker who he/she/it is or what he/she/it posted in the past or on other threads. A thread is a thread is a thread. In the grand scope of fabric of the universe a thread is well... ....just a thread.

Anyway....

I know there are whack-jobs who lack any sort of integrity and use the world wide web to conveniently create "sign-ons" to hide their real identity. BTW - my name really is Bonnie for anyone who cares. And I openly admit I am unvarnished, abrasive, rude and some times even crude - yet as far as I know I have not been banned to date. 

OK... ...getting back to threads - Reed, (number whatever), may have posted questionable posts on other threads. But, as far as I've read, he/she/it has never posted anything inappropriate or questionable on this thread.

I guess what I am asking is -- Is there anyway to ban someone from a thread without banning them from the entire forum?

meljomur
meljomur's picture
No Bonnie, there is not.

No Bonnie, there is not.

polycarp2
"The true value of a human

"The true value of a human being can be found in the degree to which he has attained liberation from the self."

Albert Einstein

Kerry
Kerry's picture
polycarp2 wrote: One masters

polycarp2 wrote:

One masters the mind by becoming dis-associated with it's beliefs, opinions, fallacies. It becomes a tool rather than a dictator. There is a tremendous amount of freedom in doing that. It's often referred to as spiritual psychology for lack of a better term. It has nothing to do with religion or the supernatural.

Yes, thinking about 'how we think' is a predicament that the 'materialist consciousness' people will have a problem with--like I tried to tell reed(number whatever), 'explaining consciousness through consciousness' has a tautological irrationality to it--but, that doesn't mean it doesn't have any meaning.   The meaning, however, I don't think will have a 'material component' defining it....reed (number whatever) appears to have a different opinion on this but, if so, as I tried to say before, I believe that reed (number whatever) needs to start by 'materially defining' his/her/its own consciousness.....and, if you don't have 'consciousness explaining consciousness', what else do you have to 'explain it'?  Institutions with 'statistical analyses'? 

bonnie
Quote:One masters the mind by

Quote:
One masters the mind by becoming dis-associated with it's beliefs, opinions, fallacies. It becomes a tool rather than a dictator. There is a tremendous amount of freedom in doing that. It's often referred to as spiritual psychology for lack of a better term. It has nothing to do with religion or the supernatural.

I disagree Multi-Koi...  ...er, um, Polycarp.

Based on my own personal experience I did not "master" my mind or accomplish all the things I've accomplished, (in very unconventional ways, I might add), by dis-associating with my mind's beliefs, opinions and fallacies.

At least in my case - it was NEVER about dis-associating with my self. It was more about never really associating with the group... ...and all the socio-cultural "group think" conditioning that goes with it.

Here's a cliff notes self disclosure: I was the youngest of 6 kids. My mom was emotionally spent and physically exhausted by the time it was my turn for social and academic/institutional conditioning. I was pretty much left to my own experiences, choices and devices.

And like Frost's Road Not Taken -- that has made ALL the difference. 

 

polycarp2
Bonnie wrote: "At least in my

Bonnie wrote: "At least in my case - it was NEVER about dis-associating with my self

poly replies: It isn't so much dis-associating with the self...as creating a new sense of  self beyond beliefs, opinions, ideologies. A dis-association from identifing "self" with that sort of thing.. There is a tremendous amount of freedom in doing that. There is always what we refer to as " I ". 

"Get rid of the self and act from Self." - zen saying.

That's what spiritual psychology, "Self-Actualization", etc. is concerned about.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

.