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

by jst2laws 123 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • stillajwexelder

    May I recommend reading "Just Six Numbers" by Martin Rees

  • hillary_step


    May I recommend reading "Just Six Numbers" by Martin Rees

    Why? HS

  • frankiespeakin


    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.

    It was the color red I use but unimportant. But I think you missed something in the use of my color illustration, perhaps it is my writting style or lack of, I would like to clarify useing your illustration. While both drivers will be in agreement that the light is green(assuming both are not color blind) and use it as a signal to go, but it in no way is this proof that the visual sensation experienced in the 2 seperate minds is the same, it may well be, but since color does not really exist concretely in light and is only a mind interpetation. Light comes in a big spectrum of frequency, and only a very small portion of it has the mind assigned visible interpetation to, we are essentially blind to the rest, we only know of them through instruments we have made.We can't even imagine how the world would appear to us if we were able to see the whole spectrum of lightwave frequency, and the type of colors or visual sensations the mind would have to some how invent to make a picture in our imagination. I think if you think about these thing for a while you start see how our view of the world is not that accurate, and the mind effort to correlate the data from the 5 senses, to which it makes a picture in our imagination, which is not really accurated in its entirety. So as with the color red, and so much of or world view I think it correct to say it is "illusion" being that it come from mind interpetation.

    The use of that illustration was to show we only know what is comonly considered to be out there, from the mind which we consider to be inside us, and these are more or less taken for granted to be true. But since the world is perceive from the mind, and commonly held mind interpatations, can we with absolute certainty trust the mind to give us a accurate, picture of what is out there? We only know the world from the minds recreation of it in our imagination (thus the term illusion seems correct), which is subject to many factors of distortion, such as concepts that may be inherited(DNA), or from cultural conditioning, add to that the limited capacity to process recieved information in what we call the conscious part, which is vastly smaller than the processing that goes on in the sub or unconscious part unnoticed unless we gain more preception of what we could call the subtle.

  • frankiespeakin


    I think that is the first time I got a double post or is it quadruple any way i hit the jackpot, and my palm is ichy, maybe I'm going to get some money

  • frankiespeakin
  • frankiespeakin
  • Outaservice

    If you drive a 'Mini-Cooper' you notice every other Mini on the road. If you are a plasterer, you walk into a room with your 'head up' looking at the ceilings etc., and if you are in the glass business you notice the windows in every building you enter. Others might not even notice things you notice, because they are noticing and looking at other things. So, while we all may see the same things, we are not all 'aware' of the same things. I think this carries over into 'spiritual' things to, such as our view of God, what he is doing or not doing, and awareness of such things as Watchtower teachings and leadings.

    Related to awareness are things that happen to us such as 'paradign shifts' in our beliefs and 'epiphanys' of what we become aware of.

    Good to see you back Steve.


  • Narkissos

    Colours are a great example of how language fragments, splits up, a continuous reality to make its bits available as (symbolic, imaginary, technical) building materials. There is no border between "yellow," "green" and "blue" but the arbitrary separation, naming and recognising is all that which the symbolic, imaginary, or technical play requires (as in traffic lights).

    Mysticism, as art, is sitting on the shore of language, facing the waves of the unnamed.

  • kid-A

    "Colours are a great example of how language fragments, splits up, a continuous reality to make its bits available as (symbolic, imaginary, technical) building materials. There is no border between "yellow," "green" and "blue"

    More an example of how the brain's visual system fragments the visible wavelength spectrum. Colours are independently perceived categorically by separate and distinct subpopulations of cone cells in the retina. To the human brain, colour is not a continuous reality, but pre-existing fragments, language is simply following the logic of nervous system. There is a very real, physical border between yellow, green and blue at the level of single cells and in the visual cortex arriving from the lateral geniculate nucleus. Language has simpy evolved accordingly to the perceptual categories of the brain, in this sense colour categories are neither symbolic nor imaginary. The borders are real and determined by physiological reality.

    Normalised absorption spectra of human cone (S,M,L) and rod (R) cells

  • LittleToe

    Describe "jade blue". Is it nearer turquoise or powder blue?

Share this