Does God get a fail in the love category?

[ThatZenoGuy]

I am honestly not getting this concept of the "CC"...

Nor do i understand its importance or functions.

[Greatest I am]

I do not think it can be said that the C C has sentience as a single entity.

I thought I'd got it…..

I always thought that an entity as I describe the C C to be would not be able to help but go insane over time and or be terribly unhappy, but it seems that I was wrong. It is not bored to tears at all.

And I'm back to confusion about what you are talking about, because you're back to describing it in terms where it DOES have its own thoughts, where it DOES have thought processes of its own.  Nalogously, you're now saying that the Internet might have gone insane, or been bored.  Nobody would think that, because we all accept that the internet is not sentient or aware.

You seem - once again - to be saying that the cosmic consciousness IS sentient in and of itself.  And once again, I'm lost.

Change (it) to (they) and you are there.

You must be a lawyer.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

I do not think it can be said that the C C has sentience as a single entity.

I thought I'd got it…..

I always thought that an entity as I describe the C C to be would not be able to help but go insane over time and or be terribly unhappy, but it seems that I was wrong. It is not bored to tears at all.

And I'm back to confusion about what you are talking about, because you're back to describing it in terms where it DOES have its own thoughts, where it DOES have thought processes of its own.  Nalogously, you're now saying that the Internet might have gone insane, or been bored.  Nobody would think that, because we all accept that the internet is not sentient or aware.

You seem - once again - to be saying that the cosmic consciousness IS sentient in and of itself.  And once again, I'm lost.

I think what is being said, is that the Collective Consciousness is non sentient.  It is sort of the group concensus of all people (and possibly all life)  Sort of like being in a room of people all talking about a subject and the collective counsciousness is the rolling concensus in the room.

Only the room is everyone, and the debate is everything that is thought about.

GIA is that close to what you are suggesting?



Now this is where I expand on it tell me if I still have it,

Since we are all psychically linked in some way to the CC, it is like the source of a moral blueprint, it may be how we know when things are wrong and even how we collectively progress.  Like when all countries around the world began working on radio at the same time, and Electric power generation at the same time.  The CC was perhaps driving the innovation subliminally.

You have it dead on friend.

I do think your last might be true but I have nothing concrete to hang it on and that is why I did not introduce the topic.

I mostly think as you do for religious reasons. I have noted that the snake for instance is used about the same way all over the world by religions who had no idea of the existence of other religions on other continents.

Either the history of the world is wrong and there was world wide travel when we think there was not or something else was going on. That information is way too far from normal for it to be a coincidence.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

[  The CC was perhaps driving the innovation subliminally.

What do you think of that type of behavior modification from a moral POV?

In our T V world, be it possible or not, the practice was condemned by most.

I have tried to picture myself in the cosmic consciousness and I think I would still see myself as a part of the human race and do not think I would have a moral problem in trying to direct it to the consensus of the cosmic consciousness.

I try to control other's thinking even now through words and do not think I would have a problem with subliminal pushes from beyond the grave latter with thoughts.

Thoughts from your moral POV please.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

it sounds a bit like the Rudy Rucker books about us all being mentally connected in a 4th dimension

I did not read that book but think that all of this happens in this dimension. I do not believe in the multi dimensional or multi-verse notions as yet. They have everything from a few to many of each and until they actually prove something I will reserve my belief.

Physics at the moment is a dogs breakfast and looks like speculative nonsense by a bunch of sci-fi writers.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

it sounds a bit like the Rudy Rucker books about us all being mentally connected in a 4th dimension

I guess, of course I am not a believer in this but I think this is what GIA has expressed.  Maybe the CC is guiding me:)???

Rucker explained it with maths instead of woo though.

edit after a quick bit of googling Rucker actually refers to Cosmic Conciousness in his blog http://www.rudyrucker.com/blog/2012/10/24/the-two-mind-modes-telepathy/
GIA are you aware of these books and blog or is this a massive conincidence?

This is new to me but I do know that there is a long history of claims going back to the 18 hundreds and further in some Eastern religions.
 
It is hard to mix then and now though. In the west we have about 4 definitions of consciousness and the East has about 8. This is from my reading and I have forgotten from where I gained it.

I am not getting into those definitions but I will check your link.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

I am honestly not getting this concept of the "CC"...

Nor do i understand its importance or functions.

Perhaps because I did not say it was important or say what function it had.

FMPOV, it's function is the same as all of us here.

What you do here is what we all do all the time. We try to learn. That is the function of a mind. As to us being important to the universe. Not in the least except for whatever new thought we might contribute to the whole.

As to the concept of the cosmic consciousness, we have used analogies that I guess you are not getting.

Try this. Picture yourself being dumped into a room with millions all talking at the same time. and you being able to focus on whatever the topic is and also able to direct the topic.

That was basically what happened to me and it is up to me to try to express that to those who have not had that experience.

It is like trying to explain the taste of salt to someone who has never tasted salt. Hard as heel.

Regards
DL

[stuffin]

That is just the French in me.

Regards
DL

I see it not as your Frenchness, but as a preacher who blew into town manufacturing new God Concept. You tell us we should accept your telecommunication with this Collective Entity as the real deal. This new God Concept parallels the old in so many ways, like why just you and maybe a few others. Or, it appears to be a super natural event just like the old God Concept. In any event, I see nothing new to your claim, except you bypass the holy books and their stories.

You say this Collective Entity influences us through some kind of subliminal connection and helps us to form moral standards. Does every conscience get an equal vote or do the stronger among us have more influence over this reasoning non sentient entity?  Like would a Teabagger have a stronger influence over this thing then like say a Downs individual?

[Greatest I am]

That is just the French in me.

Regards
DL

I see it not as your Frenchness, but as a preacher who blew into town manufacturing new God Concept. You tell us we should accept your telecommunication with this Collective Entity as the real deal. This new God Concept parallels the old in so many ways, like why just you and maybe a few others. Or, it appears to be a super natural event just like the old God Concept. In any event, I see nothing new to your claim, except you bypass the holy books and their stories.

You say this Collective Entity influences us through some kind of subliminal connection and helps us form moral standards. Does every conscience get and equal vote or do the stronger among us have more influence over this reasoning non sentient entity?  Like would a Teabagger have a stronger influence over this thing then like say a Downs individual?

I did not say that it does anything subliminal.
I speculated on that issue only.

The influence there, ----- I would speculate, ------ is the same as here on earth.

The one with the best argument will get the kudos be he a Teabagger or the most liberal mind.

I try not to check the label one puts on himself and try to analyse what is said and go by that analysis to decide if I agree or not. In some things I land on the right and in others I go left. Being liberal it is generally to that side that I lean but not always.

Regards
DL

[Anfauglir]

I do not think it can be said that the C C has sentience as a single entity.

I thought I'd got it…..

I always thought that an entity as I describe the C C to be would not be able to help but go insane over time and or be terribly unhappy, but it seems that I was wrong. It is not bored to tears at all.

And I'm back to confusion about what you are talking about, because you're back to describing it in terms where it DOES have its own thoughts, where it DOES have thought processes of its own.  Nalogously, you're now saying that the Internet might have gone insane, or been bored.  Nobody would think that, because we all accept that the internet is not sentient or aware.

You seem - once again - to be saying that the cosmic consciousness IS sentient in and of itself.  And once again, I'm lost.

Change (it) to (they) and you are there.

You must be a lawyer.

And you must be a politician. 

What does the "they" refer to?  To the individual consciousnesses (including my own) that make up the "cosmic consciousness"? 

It that's the case, then what does your (amended) sentence "I always thought that (the consciousnesses within) the C C would not be able to help but go insane over time and or be terribly unhappy, but it seems that I was wrong. (They are) not bored to tears at all."  Why would you think I would be bored, or unhappy - especially since I had no idea that I was a part of any group-mind untl you came along to let me know.

Can you clarify please - with relation to the two sentences of yours I quoted - which "its" should be changed to "theys" - and what those sentences then actually mean?

[nogodsforme]

The woo is strong in this one, young Skywalker.

[Greatest I am]

I do not think it can be said that the C C has sentience as a single entity.

I thought I'd got it…..

I always thought that an entity as I describe the C C to be would not be able to help but go insane over time and or be terribly unhappy, but it seems that I was wrong. It is not bored to tears at all.

And I'm back to confusion about what you are talking about, because you're back to describing it in terms where it DOES have its own thoughts, where it DOES have thought processes of its own.  Nalogously, you're now saying that the Internet might have gone insane, or been bored.  Nobody would think that, because we all accept that the internet is not sentient or aware.

You seem - once again - to be saying that the cosmic consciousness IS sentient in and of itself.  And once again, I'm lost.

Change (it) to (they) and you are there.

You must be a lawyer.

And you must be a politician. 

What does the "they" refer to?  To the individual consciousnesses (including my own) that make up the "cosmic consciousness"? 

The (they) are the permanent residents there. All were here before they died. That statement did not include you as you are here.

It that's the case, then what does your (amended) sentence "I always thought that (the consciousnesses within) the C C would not be able to help but go insane over time and or be terribly unhappy, but it seems that I was wrong. (They are) not bored to tears at all."  Why would you think I would be bored, or unhappy - especially since I had no idea that I was a part of any group-mind untl you came along to let me know.

Again, I never included you in that group mind.

Let me explain that I was assuming that any individual consciousness that would live for hundreds if not thousands of years would seek death badly and would likely go insane if it could. That view comes from my visiting the very old in homes where they are basically warehouse and awaiting death. I have been there in the morning where more than one person complained about not dying in their sleep and having to continue living.

Can you clarify please - with relation to the two sentences of yours I quoted - which "its" should be changed to "theys" - and what those sentences then actually mean?

I hope I have cleared that up.

Regards
DL



MOD: Fixed quotes (again)

[Greatest I am]

The woo is strong in this one, young Skywalker.

Nothing supernatural unless you want to call this scientist and his work and findings woo as well.



If that is to be the extent of your input then you might like to know that where I have lived and what my attitude to such as you are.



Regards
DL

[Anfauglir]

I hope I have cleared that up.

To a point.  Although it baffles me why you would post:

 

I always thought that an entity as I describe the C C to be would not be able to help but go insane over time and or be terribly unhappy, but it seems that I was wrong. It is not bored to tears at all.

When you meant:

The (they) are the permanent residents there. All were here before they died.

You originally posted referring to "an entity".  Singular.  You referred to it as "it" - again, singular.  Yet you are now saying that was a complete mispost.  This is where I struggle with you, GIA - where, sorry to say, I see you as no different from the god-botherers who slip and slide and shift the goalposts. 

When you first spoke of the "cosmic consciousness", you were referring to it as a single entity, and (at least) implying sentience to it.  Over the course of many posts we were finally at a stage where you'd agreed the cosmic con. had no sentience in and of itself.

And then….in the next post, you are back to referring to "it" as "an entity", back to making it a singular thing that could think and feel.  A cynic might feel that you are once again trying to imbue your pet theory with sentience and will again, in hopes that it might get missed.

So yeah - sorry to be so "lawyerish", but it reminds me of the same sleight of hand that Christians deal when they talk about "faith", where they try to jump from a singularity at the start of the universe to a deity with sentience and will.

I'm sure I'm wrong.  I'm sure that wasn't your intent at all.  But it would make me a whole lot MORE certain if these accidental lapses where you go back to (apparently) describing the cosmic con. as having thoughts and feelings of its own didn't keep happening.

[Greatest I am]

Never have I referred to it as a deity.

You are trying to make me make it a God and I will not because that is not it's description.

Regards
DL

[epidemic]

That is just the French in me.

Regards
DL

I see it not as your Frenchness, but as a preacher who blew into town manufacturing new God Concept. You tell us we should accept your telecommunication with this Collective Entity as the real deal. This new God Concept parallels the old in so many ways, like why just you and maybe a few others. Or, it appears to be a super natural event just like the old God Concept. In any event, I see nothing new to your claim, except you bypass the holy books and their stories.

You say this Collective Entity influences us through some kind of subliminal connection and helps us to form moral standards. Does every conscience get an equal vote or do the stronger among us have more influence over this reasoning non sentient entity?  Like would a Teabagger have a stronger influence over this thing then like say a Downs individual?

I am not sure I see any parallels between his description and a god like the judeo god.  It is a non sentient collective concensus that we all are connected to without our knowing and some of us are able to tap it more consciously.  Some people are able to put in a google search into the collective consciousness.  others get spammed by it.

Again I don't buy it for a second, but this is what GIA is kinda expressing.




As for the question of do certain individuals have more say so in the CC,  I don't know but I would say generally speaking it is a democracy or even something akin to the internet.  you can see all points of view and if you searched a topic you could go with the general concensus or you could pick and choose with your own biases what to listen to.

[median]

I am not sure I see any parallels between his description and a god like the judeo god.  It is a non sentient collective concensus that we all are connected to without our knowing and some of us are able to tap it more consciously. 

If we are connected "without knowing it" then he can't claim to know it. The description sounds similar to Spinoza.

[Greatest I am]

That is just the French in me.

Regards
DL

I see it not as your Frenchness, but as a preacher who blew into town manufacturing new God Concept. You tell us we should accept your telecommunication with this Collective Entity as the real deal. This new God Concept parallels the old in so many ways, like why just you and maybe a few others. Or, it appears to be a super natural event just like the old God Concept. In any event, I see nothing new to your claim, except you bypass the holy books and their stories.

You say this Collective Entity influences us through some kind of subliminal connection and helps us to form moral standards. Does every conscience get an equal vote or do the stronger among us have more influence over this reasoning non sentient entity?  Like would a Teabagger have a stronger influence over this thing then like say a Downs individual?

I am not sure I see any parallels between his description and a god like the judeo god.  It is a non sentient collective concensus that we all are connected to without our knowing and some of us are able to tap it more consciously.  Some people are able to put in a google search into the collective consciousness.  others get spammed by it.

Again I don't buy it for a second, but this is what GIA is kinda expressing.




As for the question of do certain individuals have more say so in the CC,  I don't know but I would say generally speaking it is a democracy or even something akin to the internet.  you can see all points of view and if you searched a topic you could go with the general concensus or you could pick and choose with your own biases what to listen to.

You have it about right except for your last. The various biases are known to all but the selection because of seeing all available biases and their motivation to the big picture are ignored as the reality of the consensus view is proven. In fact I do not know if a misguided bias is even possible under the conditions there.

One could  I guess, try to slide in another view to stimulate discussion but because even the motives are known to all, all would see the tactic and motive. The point of the group is to find the truth of things and not to pamper one's own ego. If we do that in there, everybody knows it.

Honesty, in that sense, is forced on all because it is apparent to all.

Imagine if politicians in a debate were all hooked up to lie detectors where all could view the honesty. That is the basic situation there in spades.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

I am not sure I see any parallels between his description and a god like the judeo god.  It is a non sentient collective concensus that we all are connected to without our knowing and some of us are able to tap it more consciously. 

If we are connected "without knowing it" then he can't claim to know it. The description sounds similar to Spinoza.

If we are connected subconsciously to any degree, which I doubt, then we would be some kind of make work project for it. It has no use for information that it already has so to give it to us would be counter productive. It wants new and fresh food to feast on, so to speak, and not just what it already knows.

This above is not fact but speculation on my part.

Regards
DL

[median]

If we are connected subconsciously to any degree, which I doubt, then we would be some kind of make work project for it. It has no use for information that it already has so to give it to us would be counter productive. It wants new and fresh food to feast on, so to speak, and not just what it already knows.

This above is not fact but speculation on my part.

Regards
DL

I appreciate the admission that the above is speculation. Yet, I do not know what your "it" is b/c you have not yet defined what "it" is that you mean when you are using that term.

[Greatest I am]

If we are connected subconsciously to any degree, which I doubt, then we would be some kind of make work project for it. It has no use for information that it already has so to give it to us would be counter productive. It wants new and fresh food to feast on, so to speak, and not just what it already knows.

This above is not fact but speculation on my part.

Regards
DL

I appreciate the admission that the above is speculation. Yet, I do not know what your "it" is b/c you have not yet defined what "it" is that you mean when you are using that term.

I have tried a number of times already but let me try again with an analogy.

It, the cosmic consciousness, acts like a mainframe computer without software. We entered it and basically became it's software. We individually continue to move our consciousness into it after we die without losing out ego or sense of self. It is a fully open and transparent life for each of us. No secrets held back by any entity or what some call our souls.

I just recently viewed the clip above and it is possible that the cosmic consciousness is located in our magnetic field. I think it is too early for us to know for sure as we do not know all the facts about telepathy nor the cosmic consciousness that I believe in.

Regards
DL

[Anfauglir]

Never have I referred to it as a deity.

You are trying to make me make it a God and I will not because that is not it's description.

Not MY words, GIA.  Yours.

 

I always thought that an entity as I describe the C C to be would not be able to help but go insane over time and or be terribly unhappy, but it seems that I was wrong. It is not bored to tears at all.

Note the use of the singular there, the personal.  Why would anyone describe a database like that?  Same as your earlier posts, where you said:

It (the CC) is definitely sentient and aware.

It is capable of thought.

Now, I appreciate that in later posts, as we discussed what you were saying, you did indeed move away from any concept of the cosmic con. as an independant and intelligent lifeform capable of decision and action.  And - as I said - I thought we were on the same page.  It's why when you posted this:

 

I always thought that an entity as I describe the C C to be would not be able to help but go insane over time and or be terribly unhappy, but it seems that I was wrong. It is not bored to tears at all.

...I got so confused, because it went back on everything we'd (seemingly) agreed.  I thank you for the clarification of what you meant (though I just cannot understand how you could come to type such a thing in the first place), I'm content we've agreement that your definition of the cosmic is nothing in and of itself - it is a vessel, a container, a database if you like.

So...how do I access it?

[Greatest I am]

Telepathically.

How exactly?

I don't know.

If the sages and shaman are right, all you need do is seek it out but from MPOV, it has to be a strong desire and determination.

Religions have tied apotheosis to opening the single eye or third eye. I like this guys way of thinking and think it may be worth looking into but it is all up to you.



I agree with him that it is difficult for a mind to go into a thoughtless state and that is likely why I have not been able to do it again.

He speaks of that in this clip.



Regards
DL

[Anfauglir]

Can't see the videos where I am but I'll try to view them at home - thanks.

I agree with him that it is difficult for a mind to go into a thoughtless state.....

Meh.  I do that at least eight times a day at work..... 

[median]

Yes, God gets an EPIC F- in the "love" category - or should I say, the asshat credulous bafoons who wrote the Old and New Testaments get an F- (as the God they were all trying to portray is clearly fiction).

[Greatest I am]

Yes, God gets an EPIC F- in the "love" category - or should I say, the asshat credulous bafoons who wrote the Old and New Testaments get an F- (as the God they were all trying to portray is clearly fiction).

You see 20/20.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Can't see the videos where I am but I'll try to view them at home - thanks.

I agree with him that it is difficult for a mind to go into a thoughtless state.....

Meh.  I do that at least eight times a day at work.....

That is sleep, not meditation and I bet you have dreams that would make us blush so that is hardly a place of no thought you dirty thing you.

If we can get some telepathy going I will show you mine if you show me yours.
Dreams that is. I would not want to shame you Stubs. 

Regards
DL

[epidemic]

Yes, God gets an EPIC F- in the "love" category - or should I say, the asshat credulous bafoons who wrote the Old and New Testaments get an F- (as the God they were all trying to portray is clearly fiction).

Wrong with a Big Fat "W".  They get a total Pass!!!  they were and are able to make people believe centuries after writing this stuff.  They Get a A+ rather than a fail for being bronze age bafoons able to still win convert modern humans in the information age, based on their words.

[Greatest I am]

Yes, God gets an EPIC F- in the "love" category - or should I say, the asshat credulous bafoons who wrote the Old and New Testaments get an F- (as the God they were all trying to portray is clearly fiction).

Wrong with a Big Fat "W".  They get a total Pass!!!  they were and are able to make people believe centuries after writing this stuff.  They Get a A+ rather than a fail for being bronze age bafoons able to still win convert modern humans in the information age, based on their words.

I kind of agree because I see them as quite educated and skilled at weaving an excellent con for it's day.

I am not sure why it is still working today though. I thought that our baser tribal natures were no longer in play but it seems that we have not raised our civilization or individual characters that high yet in the case of theists.

Regards
DL