Out of Mythic into Rational consciousness, the EX-JW Journey

by jst2laws 123 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  jst2laws

  Hello Jeff,

  there were caveat-comments that perhaps some of it 'we weren't ready for yet'. That statement proved to be true - but now I could read any of those materials with much clearer vision than at the time. I had begun to break the filter - but was 'blinded by the light' [wasn't that a song?] for a time.

  Yes, that is a good example. Shortly after I tested the WT literature rationally for logical integrity I did the same with the Bible. One of the first books in this part of my journey was Rescuing the Bible form Fundamentalist by Rev Sprong. I WAS NOT READY for it. I was offended and put it away. but after learning more and growing more, I picked it up 8 months later and it made perfect sense. This is a process that occurs only if one is willing to challenge their belief system and open mindedly consider difference. And even then it must come in steps or stages that we can handle.

  Good to see you Jeff. We will have to talk some time.

  Steve
• 

  sf

  Jehovah's Witnesses present a closed system. Within the four grey walls of that system everything works just dandy. That is why the illusion-makers in Brooklyn demand in no uncertain terms we do not stray outside of it. For, if you set one toe outside of that artificial enviornment it is the dissonant reproof of reality which falsifies the claims made and refutes the system altogether.

  Nice.

  sKally
• 

  jst2laws

  Narcissos and Terry,

  By this definition (which may be debated, admittedly, I use it conventionally), the WT doctrine strikes me as highly (not perfectly) rational. An answer to each question, optimal imaginary consistency, avoidance of paradoxes, mysteries and formal contradictions, ubiquitous either-or and tertium non datur formulae. Rational, but wrong. I have not forsaken this kind of rationality since. I have entered fresh data for it to process, and I welcome more. But from this experience (which is a part of the data) I also learnt that a reasonably working rationality can yield wrong results, depending on the available (or chosen) input. More importantly perhaps, I learnt that not everything, and especially not what I most enjoy, can be backed up rationally. So I accept being only partly rational, iow, being also consciously irrational.

  If I may put these thoughts back into the context of what I originally referred to as levels of consciousness: The differences in the mythic level (or color as some prefer) of consciousness and the rational level of consciousness do not exclude rationality from the former nor myth from the later. It is the level, state or color of our way of looking at things. What was not rational about our WT experience is not that the arguments of the WT were totally irrational, but that we set aside rationality in choosing what data to include and who to trust for accurate information. Believing the GB spoke for God was a myth. Those in the mythical level WANT to believe God speaks to them and will trust the message without question. When we begin to question the message we are at least becoming more rational about the source of truth. We, at least some of us, irrationally swallowed a lot of concepts without even testing them for rationality. When we finally did test them we had to dispel a myth from our belief system, that the WT was God's spokesman. But people in the mythic level in any religion must eventually question the same regarding their belief system and the source of truth whether it is the Torah, Koran or Dianetics. STeve
• 

  jst2laws

  Terry

  You are confusing language with the reality.

  Perhaps, but on a deeper level we all tend to confuse the energy (waves) that our mind interprets to be auditory and visual as the reality. We see things, we hear things and this makes up our reality. The key there is "makes up". What we see and what we hear are not comprised of sound or by things out there that we think we see. Over one hundred years ago we thought there was solid 'stuff' inside the atom. THERE IS NOTHING SOLID ANYWHERE. We simply perceive (interpret) it to be solid. It IS our experience that it is solid and that makes it real to us. That is good enough for most people. But isn't it fun to dig deeper to see what things are made of only to find the components do not remotely resemble what they make up. It makes it all the more awesome to me. LT

  I smile at this fact every time I see discussions such as we have on this thread. Whether an individual is a rationalist, materialist, believer, evolutionist, etc., etc.; we all bring our biases to the table to discuss.

  Yeah, but add to the list monistic idealist. At least it fits the findings of QM. Auldsoul Thanks for the hugs, man. But no more blowing kisses, OK? Steve
• 

  Terry

  Thats why I said at the end of my post. "One would think though that since our eyes are built or designed very similar and colors emit different wavelengths that these wavelengths would be interpreted similarly by a similarly designed eye."

  Do we agree?

  Tor

  I wouldn't agree with the use of the word designed.
• 

  Terry

  Perhaps, but on a deeper level we all tend to confuse the energy (waves) that our mind interprets to be auditory and visual as the reality. We see things, we hear things and this makes up our reality. The key there is "makes up". What we see and what we hear are not comprised of sound or by things out there that we think we see. Over one hundred years ago we thought there was solid 'stuff' inside the atom. THERE IS NOTHING SOLID ANYWHERE. We simply perceive (interpret) it to be solid. It IS our experience that it is solid and that makes it real to us. That is good enough for most people. But isn't it fun to dig deeper to see what things are made of only to find the components do not remotely resemble what they make up. It makes it all the more awesome to me.

  You've inadvertantly (I'm sure) done great violence to reality by stating the above.

  It is downright silly to say "THERE IS NOTHING SOLID ANYWHERE." Just silly!

  If you pick up a "not solid" hammer and hit yourself smartly on your "not solid" head, what do you suppose will happen?

  You see, you have fallen victim to the mysticism of "explanation". Defying common sense is not an explanation at all. Language must have context to contain meaning. And not just meaning! To contain meaningful meaning. (No, that isn't redundant.)

  Language is a tool. It must have practicality or it becomes shadowpuppetry which is exactly what you are inadvertantly espousing.

  Think about what you are saying on a practical level I know you know better.
• 

  Terry

  What is so often discounted or denigrated is that another person who has all the same apparatus and viewing the same objective reality (i.e. a colour) might accurately perceive something different for them.

  Subjectivity is the only thing people ever argue over. You cannot argue a fact. Something either IS or IS NOT.

  Recognizing that what one is arguing is subjective takes a real talent!

  The idea that people don't see their subjectivity as just that (personal viewpoint, opinion, conjecture, etc.) and nothing more is what saddens me.

  We keep each other sharp here.

  When people start agreeing with me I figure my brain has gone lame!
• 

  Terry

  Jehovah's Witnesses present a closed system. Within the four grey walls of that system everything works just dandy. That is why the illusion-makers in Brooklyn demand in no uncertain terms we do not stray outside of it. For, if you set one toe outside of that artificial enviornment it is the dissonant reproof of reality which falsifies the claims made and refutes the system altogether.

  Nice.

  sKally

  Gee, sometimes I even impress myself!
• 

  TopHat

  Edumacation is a wanderfill thinh
• 

  LittleToe

  Terry:

  Recognizing that what one is arguing is subjective takes a real talent!

  Like when something seems so "effing obvious" (sicSix) to us we have difficulty understanding why others can't see the wood for the trees

  You cannot argue a fact. Something either IS or IS NOT.

  I wonder. Would you not agree that we often limit our comprehension to our five senses? My five senses don't tell me that a certain colour of light is a specific wavelength, but by studying it I can learn that. Take a simple rainbow, and the way the colours are laid out. My senses can't explain why its laid out that way, but using other instruments an explanation is forthcoming.

  Six:Sometimes the obvious needs pointing out, else it gets lost in the diatribe.

  Regarding what I'm talking about in relation to QP, I refer back to my last statement to Terry. We have only just begun exploring the microcosmic world and the instruments we have seem to indicate that our observations affect Quantum-level particles. It could well be that its our instruments that are at fault, and causing this disturbance. Alternatively it could be that our mind affects it somehow. In between these poles of opinion are innumerable possibilities. At this juncture in history which one will we "believe"? Which one will the next generation of physicists build upon?

  AS:
  Couldn't agree more, bro. I just wish I had more time for this kinda stuff