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

by jst2laws 123 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  the dreamer dreaming

  expeirences are facts of perceptions... Belief Systems about them are BS.

  all Belief Systems seems to begin with certain unverifiable assumptions and then build ideal worlds from them and then try to make everything fit... the map becomes confused with the territory. the CONviNcED beLIEveRS then try to CONvince others.

  I remember an elder saying to me, well you KNOW this is THE TRUTH... and I said to him, I believe it is, I dont KNOW it is... and he looked like he was going to have a coronary. I find many who claim to KNOW what they only beLIEve.

  many times I have tried, in vain to point out that pretending FAITH is FACT and Beliefs as KNOWLEDGE is basically LYING.

  many go from one IDEAL to a NEW ideal and think they have made a break through... have they really?
• 

  Hortensia

  This discussion is a little deep for me, but here is my own experience. When a former JW friend (that is, she's a former JW and now a friend) asked me when I realized I didn't believe what the JWs teach, I realized that I never believed it. I was a people pleaser, and very focused on studying and knowing all the answers. I had a bible that was cross-referenced to a fair-thee-well, very impressive to the others in the congregation. It was ego on my part, especially as there was no praise or approval for anything else. What a critical, judgemental bunch they are! But that's an aside. I never believed any of it; I just didn't question it. I was third generation JW, so non-critical thinking was engrained in the family. It wasn't until I got out of it and starting questioning what I had been taught that I realized what a mind-control cult it is, and I started looking at scientific information with more interest. The thing that interests me now is something that my ex-JW friend first brought up - it looks as though our entire solar system is spinning into a black hole and will be either destroyed or changed into something entirely different millions of years from now. So much for living forever on the earth. Now when I think of the junk that I used to preach, I just shake my head that I didn't question it earlier.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Hort,

  That's interesting, well the universe manifest intelligence, and I'm conscious to a degree so I conclude that perhaps whatever it is that this universe is, is conscious too, but not like the biblical god of the bible, something much greater, what ever that means.
• 

  Phil

  In order to reach the ultimate it will be necessary to study all of the relavent documents still in existance that talks about the Christian religion. I for one do not have enough time left on this earth to finish such a venture. Even if I did, and were able to learn the language of writings that exist and be able to remember the details of what I learned,I would be in a totally confused state of mind that I would die with a confused look on my face. It is ironic that the one man that changed civilation as did Jesus Christ and there was not a single sentence contributed by him in the so called word of God as it appears in the Bible. If a person must choose a belief system, Christianity would be the best choice. (not the Jehovah's Witnesses).THe worst would be Islam. As was once said by a more brilliant man than I, "BELIEFS MUST BE TEMPERED WITH REASON TO OBTAIN THE TRUTH".There are enough people on this planet that "need" a Faith to believe in for their survival, a properly tempered religion is still the only way for our happiness. (most of the time)
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Phil,

  It is ironic that the one man that changed civilation as did Jesus Christ and there was not a single sentence contributed by him in the so called word of God as it appears in the Bible. If a person must choose a belief system, Christianity would be the best choice. (not the Jehovah's Witnesses).THe worst would be Islam. As was once said by a more brilliant man than I, "BELIEFS MUST BE TEMPERED WITH REASON TO OBTAIN THE TRUTH"There are enough people on this planet that "need" a Faith to believe in for their survival, a properly tempered religion is still the only way for our happiness. (most of the time).

  I noticed you said "so called word of God" good choice of words and rightly so because in only very few places does the Bible itself make that claim,, only one that i can recall right this moment where the scriptures are called the word of God.

  As far as chrisitanity making the world a better place that is a subject for much debate(especially when we look at the history of christianity), But as you also say and I totally agree, that "belief must be tempered by reason to obtain the Truth" by truth I would mean "truth" in general like, Did we evovle? or Did God make the earth in seven days? and things like that but I don't think reason alone can bring us to some type of "true religion" or truth about which religion is the "true one" like the WT uses reason to trys and prove that they are,, for there is no true religion that the God of the universe endorses and wants us to follow,,, the reason I make this claim is,, for a number of reasons,, like when you are looking for a religion that is the true one right away you lay yourself open to be decieved, by some clever person or organization that may lay claim to being the only true one, just think about this for a moment:

  If God is almighty and all wise why would he use a book that can have its meaning twisted and cause confussion in that people are haveing all kind of interpetation, and arguements as to what is the actual meaning of every verse, and that one needs to be a scholar or like you said it would be exausting to research every thing and even if we did become a scholar, the meaning is still not absolutely clear and is even debated among scholars,, WHy would God make it so difficult and put such an obsticle in our path to understand him if all he really has to do to stop the confusion is very simple and easy for Him being that it is claimed of him that he is "all powerful" and "all wise" when he could easily tell people clearly his commands, so simply and clearly, so that there are no mistakes by doing away with the ancient book form of communication and tell each of us in our own language and in each one our own minds clearly in unmistakable concepts and language we can each individually understand in which there is no doubt about meanings or any language barriors. But instead the form of communication is alway 3rd 4th or 20th hand,, and not even 2nd hand,, that is if he used an ancient book that has been recopied over and over again filling it with more errors and and subject to concils of men who decide which book get to be in God's word the bible and which one get thrown out, and making it posible for additions to sneak in different due to the fact that it was written so long ago, and was written by those who made the copies from copies, and not the original , the original copy (if there ever was an original (which is another subject for another topic) which was long gone and returned to the dust of the earth probably not many years after. This form of communication, and to my reasoning ability highly unlikely and very faulty for it makes those who trust in such a book easy pray by those who use religion to control people for thier own benifit or personal power over other, or even those who are sincere but indoctrinated to teach such and so, even though it has no basis in fact.

  That's why I find it hard to believe if God exist (which is another subject unproven by reasonsonable facts) and if he has a certain way that he wishes people to behave, in which the punishment is loss of life and salvation,, why use a book that can have errors in copying and whos meaning get more unclear the older it gets, not very loving of God to do such a thing instead of just putting commands clearly in each individuals mind that they can easily and unmistakenly understand.
• 

  Narkissos

  I do think there is a pure intelligence untainted by subjectivity, biased leanings, a person can call it "god", "consciousness" "being" "spirit", "nothingness" or any other mythic, or sybolic term.

  Frankie,

  I think you are right in pointing to the metaphorical character of all words and notions. When we stop using one word as a metaphor among others (and often, typ[ographi]ically, capitalise it, like "God") we actually cross the border between philosophy and religion, dogmatics, idolatry. (It's interesting that the late Heidegger, who was so often charged of selling a religion of Being under the name of philosophy, could write "Sein: Nichts," "Being: Nothing". There is no ultimate word because there is no ultimate metaphor, and that applies even to words the metaphorical character of which is the least apparent.)

  There may be some real continuity between all the forms of "consciousness" we perceive in the world -- from the interaction of particles with the observer, to the reflexivity of homo sapiens sapiens which depends on language, via the "sentient" character of all forms of "life," from the microbiotic to the macrobiotic. But the continuity would not erase the differences between them. Our problem is that wecannot describe them without reading some of our type of consciousness into them. Anthropomorphism, insuperable.

  My provisional understanding is that both identityand difference are involved in any kind of "consciousness". To take a trivial example, if you had always lived in a place with one distinct smell, or sound, or colour, you wouldn't realise it until you are exposed to another smell, sound, or colour (or simply the absence, or cessation, of the one perception).

  Modern rationalism tended to dismiss oneness as an illusion. Mysticism, whether traditional or postmodern, tends to dismiss difference as an illusion. The real challenge of non-dogmatic philosophy, imo, is to hold both without letting any of them escape.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Nark,

  Good points, which I basical beleive are true, but on the matter of strict Rationalism & Mysticism, I think quantum physics is leaning more towards Mysticism, not proving it to be true of course, just leaning in that direction.

  I tend to beleive that we can't see or know everything, we can't even trust our eye to tell us the truth, things that appear solid at one scale of perception (the scale our senses work at) and at another scale like the molecular size scale are shown to be more or less just empty space and nothing even touches anything as it is all what we have learn and classify as electromagnetic force fields that just give the appearence of touching and solid. I often wonder what if there are scales smaller still? Does it go on for infinity in the smaller and smaller direction,, with each smaller scale being the reason for the way things appear and behave in the bigger scale. And it that is the case we could be in the middle scale of perception with bigger and bigger scales of perception going on for infinity in the larger direction. For all we know what we perceive as Galaxies could be part of a living cell that make up a life form to big for us see with our telescopes, or that infinite universes are inside every atom. We have no concrete way of knowing or proving it true or false, and so while I beleive Msyticism may have some merits, I also know, no can be dogmatic unless he wants to stand on faith in his biased beleif.
• 

  Snoozy

  Hi Steve...

  Well..I don't have any thoughts yet. But I just got my brother the book "Power of Myth" by Joseph Campbell. Has anyone seen or read this yet?

  I also got him the DVD "The Power of Myth". It is an interview between him and Bill Moyer.( It's boring at his work so he brings his portable DVD player and watches DVD's.).

  It deals with Mythology and comparitive religion.Joseph Campbell is a scholar of Mythology and folklure.

  I almost wish I got the DVD for me also. Maybe when he's done with it he can mail it back for me to watch.

  I've always believed there was something to mythology.

  Snoozy in MO.
• 

  JamesThomas

  Hey there, Steve. Always nice to see you here.

  When I was a JW, it was not so much a state of unconsciousness, as that I was so heavily identified with beliefs as who and what I was, I only allowed in those things which supported and sustained "me".

  May I suggest that there is no real evolution or arising to higher consciousness, so much as removing or seeing through, what blinds us; which amounts to everything we believe "self" and universe to be.

  Remove what is false, and Truth -- remains.

  j
• 

  hillary_step

  Narkissos,

  I think you are right in pointing to the metaphorical character of all words and notions. When we stop using one word as a metaphor among others (and often, typ[ographi]ically, capitalise it, like "God") we actually cross the border between philosophy and religion, dogmatics, idolatry.

  Yes, but this surely is how we quantify a common experience, be it tangible or intagible? Communication, from textual manuals to the most abstract poetry works, because those being communicated with have a common experience of the meaning of these words. The argument about what might be my 'green', may not be your 'green' is philosophically interesting but is answered by the accelerator pedal at the traffic lights.

  For example, my issue here is with the differences between science, philosophy, mysticism and religion and how these are managing to interweave themselves, perhaps unfairly, into the accepted discipline of 'quantum physics'. A commonality of definition of these viewpoints exists that is understood by all, and while each of these may cross boundaries at certain points, the commonality of definition still stands. Sometimes dealing in words is like dancing on razor wire, it is true, that is why unless I am creatively writing, I live in a monochrome world.

  Quantum Physics at its most embryonic deals with the scientific measurement of atomic and sub-atomic particles. As at some stage, perhaps because of our inability at this juncture to contemplate scientifically that infinity may be contained in the enormity of space as well as the enormity of the sub-atomic, we need to rely on the positations of philosophy. As both science and philosphy do not need to transfer human emotions in dealing with such a subject, they seem to me to be the only sensible way of dealing with such. When mysticism and religion begin to imbue the unknowable with human characterstics as both Steve and Frankie strongly hint at in their descriptions of their notions of where quantum physics lead us, I believe that at this juncture the whole concept of quantum physics becomes compromised and begins to leak.

  My comments are not criticisms of Steve or Frankie, as I would really like to understand where this transference from science and philosophy to the mystic and 'religious' leads us.

  Kindest regards as ever - HS