16 replies to this topic

[Chip]

Though I believe there are many blaring examples of the supposition I put forward here, I will attempt to describe the roots in very general terms.

Jesus Christ probably existed and he appeared to be quite anti-establishment and humanist. The powers that be could not handle the small neighborhood meetings that were going on where Jesus' ideas were shared. In order to curtail this avenue of sharing and people empowering, the power holders claimed themselves the only true followers of Jesus Christ and dictated a set of "rules" or "conventions" that channeled that force into supporting and fomenting allegiance and servitude to the establishment. The moralistic implications of Jesus' life as example were drowned out by interpretation and spin to serve the powers that be, the top dogs of anarchy.

There has been only one Christian. Anyone who now lays claim to that name in reference to that person does so without his express consent. Christianity is a refuge of scoundrels. It is all pretense.

Many similar irrational ascriptions exist. They are driven by a protracted alienation and existentialism, anomie. There is a point where a person's world model is so far from accurate that belief manufactures apparent evidence and denys anything contrary. Sounds incredible but it is true and has been spoken of by many philosophers under the phrase "epistemological relativism." It is basically the opposite of the scientific method, rather than look to the world to select the best of what is possible, an attempt is made to force an opinion of how the world should be. It is only to be expected that this mental aberration, this psychological affliction, would be characterized by reference to the various institutionalized bastions of callousness, the so-called religions. They and many other institutions serve as the shields behind which the heartless and cruel wage their wars of domination and forced servitude.

I think there were some understandings that Jesus came to that were a bit worthy. That doesn't mean I'm a Christian, more like, Jesus was a bit Chipian. [lol]

[vortexentity]

spin to serve the powers that be, the top dogs of anarchy.

I think they were spin to serve not anarchy but the forces of the rulers and government of the time. Anarchy would be the lack of appointed or force derived governments.

Edited by vortexentity, 29 May 2005 - 04:31 PM.

[Chip]

"forces of the rulers and government of the time"

In the "law of the jungle" the 800 pound gorillas will pronounce their being anything but circumstance derived. This propaganda is laid out thick and surrounds and invades most from birth through every stage of life. People are told they are born into citizenry in a nation that cajoles and misinforms and portends that you better be patriotic or else.

"force derived governments"

Yes, not logic, not reason, but just mainly and simply force. Anarchy is supposed to be the lawless state. Due to the existence of natural law, anarchy is an impossible state of being. Still people try to believe the impossible. They seek to impose their often immediate culture derived beliefs upon others despite science, at the sake of ignoring science.

Lysander Spooner was a contract lawyer after the close of the US civil war. He stated that from the basic fundamental laws of contract viability, no nation could be considered as a legal entity. They are all gangs of crooks, deceptive and often self deceiving.

Humanity is in a state of anarchy right now, has been for all of its existence. The local result is effort to persuade that somebody or something is actually derived from law which gives them or it more rights than others. The top dogs of anarchy don't even try to believe otherwise themselves. It is insanity. Denying the evidence and proclaiming what is, working to force others to comply through force is not government.

"Don't bite the hand that feeds you" operates as a basic premise to swallowing the "we have laws and governments" decree. Humanity has one society. It is not a collection of viable and bonafide systems. These experiments do not pass muster as qualifying as true systems. There is one system and it is attempting to follow the dictates of anarchy. Believe if you will that our social experiments respect rule of law. That is a ruse, a conspiracy, an obfuscation as is Christianity. It is an abomination of reason, why humans are considered irrational. It is terminal, btw. Attempts at anarchy do not sustain.

Very, very, very difficult to see the forest for the trees. It can seem quite an ugly understanding that us humans grow in power wielding ability and yet, power is wielded so often so indiscriminantly. It can seem scarey. The truth might not be pretty but it might just be what is necessary to avoid annihilation. Paranoia is reasonable, even sane. Use it to compel to find the science we need. To allow the paranoia to be manifest in panic is part of what has led to people accepting and defending whatever by circumstance impels them to act in alliances of pretense.

Ever hear of the short sci-fi story that was made into a movie, "Enemy Mine"? If we want to find useful science we'll need to face the "Anomie Mine," our own cultural and circumstantially derived allegiances and alliances. We'll have to look outside of the box.

corrected spelling

Edited by Chip, 30 May 2005 - 12:48 AM.

[susmariosep]

Do something similar on Buddhism?


Is that your thesis, that Christianity has been soon after Jesus' times co-opted by powers that be to be their own tool for domination of others who are less smart and less ruthless?

In several respects I agree with you.

Are you knowledgeable about Buddhism?

Do you think that it being religion has also been co-opted by wielders of power to dominate others less smart and more credulous?

Between Buddhism and Christianity, though, I think Buddhism is the more non-sensical because it preaches extinction of the self, while Christianity promises a better life post death, for performing the works also advocated by Buddhism.

Protestants of course are smarter than Catholics for preaching salvation by faith and testimony of salvation on the fruits of faith, i.e., good works.


Susma

[Mark Hamalainen]

I think they were spin to serve not anarchy but the forces of the rulers and government of the time. Anarchy would be the lack of appointed or force derived governments.

You must excuse chip, he uses his own (perplexing) set of terminology without explaining it to anybody first. Aparently governments have never existed. He does however revert to normal terminology now and then and uses the word 'government' to refer to something that exists, which can be confusing.

Here's another confusing example:

Due to the existence of natural law, anarchy is an impossible state of being.

Humanity is in a state of anarchy right now, has been for all of its existence.

I like some of your ideas chip, but you need to chill out a bit.

[Chip]

Hey Susma, as far as Buddhism goes, I understand that many consider the Buddha as sort of more of a philosopher than a guru or religious leader. In that respect, I find that Buddhism is a bit more reasonable than Christianity. Harder to misinterpret a guy who gave up wealth for a somewhat humble life but then, I bet some of his students brought him food to keep him talking and his position of recognized authority in philosophical matters in his day was probably a pretty good gig. Still, there are many manifestations of Buddhism that entail churches or temples and priests and scripture. I was a bit immersed in their cacophany for a short time. In that manifestation, it seems to often serve as Christianity. After all, to consider oneself a Buddhist is again, like Christianity, using a person's name without their consent.

I know. I know, Prometheus, sounds like I'm labeling a big bunch of people as "evil." Sure there are lots of followers of religion who just plain don't know any better. I don't mean to be placing any value judgement on the people who profess this "real faith." I do think that the vehicle that is Christianity is taking people to a destination that is not in their best interests.

Okay, osiris, you caught me! I am guilty of semantic inconsistency. I don't think it is any big thing and a person could see what I am getting at despite the apparent "Anarchy is impossible" and "Anarchy exists" duplicity. I'll go suck on some ice cubes.

[Chip]

Ah yes, vitriol. Here's some more in the guise of a lil poem I wrote perhaps as much as decades ago

Jesus shit.
Came the priests
cacheing the faeces
to make a wedding cake
'tween church and state.
Christianity is
taking his name
in vain,
What shame, what shame.

[susmariosep]

Your father, step-father, died Christian?


I am curious: I read from you that in his last years you father or step-father converted to the Christian faith of the Protestant strain.

And he died Christian, that right?

Were you already anti-Christian and generally anti-religion by that time?

And you were staying with your parents in their home?

Just being curious, how did you get along with your folks at home?

Nothing offensive, but maybe impertinent, yet I think I ask a legitimate question; because we are all here trying to understand each other, and to learn from each other, however discriminatingly as should be.

Susma

[Chip]

My father was decidedly secular humanist until he was 72 years old. At that time he fell off the roof and broke both of his wrists. In the hospital he got an antibiotic resistant strain of strep. He almost died then. Under the influence of pain relievers and on and off fever, my sister and her husband, virtually holy rollers, and their pastor visited him and preached to him. He came to consider himself Christian. They got him when he was down. I did not live with my father for anything other than vacations. He and my mom split up when I was about one.

You could say he died Christian but I think that is too condescending to a force that facilitates people sacrificing and deadening their own spirit for some idol that serves the powers that be. I could believe I was Napoleon but that wouldn't make it so. There are those who think that belief creates truth. Their entropy decreases our options to pursue immortality. I think such out-of-touch thinking life, might even be able to play a major role in the destruction of whole biospheres. Does intelligent life survive its own information explosion? Not if it gains in both power and liberty without the unfettered foresight and respect for individual living systems as well as life in general that would require regulation to maximize freedom. Not the regulation that current society lamely attempts to legislate and enforce. I mean regulation as in the governing systems of machines, checks and balances of a particular statistical nature and physical make-up that does not allow any one endeavor to curtail the freedoms of other endeavors.

This place is small and we are all here in it together. We are all humans. We have common needs, wants, desires and common undesirable conditions. When we ascribe to some sectarian thought, be it Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, whatever, we are giving over our privileges and responsibilities as humans to something we claim cannot be completely known as true, for some, adhered to because of some double-speak interpretation of the word "faith." You can have a faith that truth and knowledge can work wonders or you can use the word to mean acceptance without evidence. It is only natural that those who accept concepts without proof are the cannon fodder of the armchair warrior who is manipulated and manipulating in accordance to some apparent mighty spiritual afilliation. It's just all "pie in the sky," "promise them anything" modus operandi of the alienated egomaniac. Ego instead of self, something that can be seen as unconnected and inconsequential as well as devious and disgruntled. People lose touch with the value of their own lives and of life in general.

Lots of different ways to color one's world view. Words and especially proper names, are symbols for things and processes. Get too wrapped up in the symbology and the information explosion will blow us right out of existence.

[susmariosep]

Learning from the wise.


My father was decidedly secular humanist until he was 72 years old. At that time he fell off the roof and broke both of his wrists. In the hospital he got an antibiotic resistant strain of strep. He almost died then. Under the influence of pain relievers and on and off fever, my sister and her husband, virtually holy rollers, and their pastor visited him and preached to him. He came to consider himself Christian. They got him when he was down. I did not live with my father for anything other than vacations. He and my mom split up when I was about one.

You could say he died Christian but I think that is too condescending to a force that facilitates people sacrificing and deadening their own spirit for some idol that serves the powers that be.

You had a sister with a husband who both are holy rollers, who converted your biological father when he was effectively in his last days.

Honestly, I myself would be disposed to be a good Christian at that point in time, because then it would be really a good bargain; because it is all a matter of accepting fervently the faith, or as they put it, the Fundamentalist Christians, "Accept Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior"; and presto, SAVED! What a break! You are not going to spend the rest of your many years to come living the Christian code and making yourself a testimony of Ten Commandments living and church worship.

No, I don't think your father did not know or was not in his lucid mind when he did convert to the Christian faith, or accepted Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior. That's the beauty of death bed conversion, if you have the time and chance to enact the conversion, no installments to pay with the years to come.


Hey Susma, as far as Buddhism goes... I was a bit immersed in their cacophany for a short time. In that manifestation, it seems to often serve as Christianity. After all, to consider oneself a Buddhist is again, like Christianity, using a person's name without their consent.

I also read from you that you possess an exceptionally high IQ. I am one person who appreciate high IQ, no matter that the politically correct posture should be not to give it importance. But It is here to stay, whatever 'good' people would want to imagine otherwise, that IQ does not count for much in life and for successful endeavors.


So, as to the matter of your at one time, how many years or months only, or maybe just weeks? you were infatuated with Buddhism -- that word too unworthy of your logical and evidence-based mind?

Looking back, wasn't your enthusiasm with Buddhism similar to that of guys I know who converted to Catholicism and are thrilled to serve at Mass, acting like altar boys but are no longer nimble kids but burly men.

I for one can't see any philosophical merits in Buddhism, what with its doctrine about extinction of the self, that being the destiny of so much good works and meditation.

You also put in many hours of daily meditation, expecting to see light, and arrive at the sense or experience or passage into Nirvana. Didn't your masters or more senior Buddhist enthusiasts tell, with convenience, that the Nirvana that can be experienced is not the genuine Nirvana.

I have always wanted to ask people with high IQ to answer me questons which I have answers for, but fear to be not as intelligent ones as would be arrived at by high IQ people.

Please, use you high IQ and think about Buddhism as you can remember its core teachings, then tell me isn't it a lot of 'nonsense'. Of course the masses of Buddhists are not into Nirvana, but into all kinds of goodies from Buddha and Buddhist saints -- just like every simple person with a religion.


Susma

[susmariosep]

A reaction from a High IQ Buddhist. 1


So far Chip has not reacted to my last post here, above. I am disappointed.

But a new member here, Viceroy, has sent me two private messages in reaction to the post above. I am with his permission reproducing our correspondence here, in three posts, starting with the present one. And I will start a new thread in the Free Speech section on the topic "High IQ and Buddhism".

My I.Q. has been measured many times since age 7. At the age of 47 I can say honestly that you will not be disappointed with my cerebral capacity or computational accuity. On some scales I can't properly be measured. On others I stand in the 200 range. As a living, being, doing, Buddhist (as opposed to a practising one) I have the experience of the TRUTH and do not live in the grasping desire to believe anything. This did not come easily. To understand Buddhism I think it necessary first to precisely get a grip on definitions and terminology. To translate from the original Sanskrit to our English and European cognition requires considerable re-wiring of the edit process of thought and mental tendencies.

First of all it is my opinion that Buddhism is not a religion but rather the ultimate philosophy. Buddhism is pure TRUTH based upon YOGA exercise. That would include physical, mental, emotional and spiritual exercise and rigorous training.

To learn the mechanics of the MIND is foundational to the introspective process so as not to engage in intellectual masturbation. This is accomplished through several avenues available such as Kriya Yoga, Dianetics, Landmark Forum Technology, Vajrayana Tantras, etc.

As the evolution of consciousness is a cosmic process enduring millions of years, the microcosm of the individual ego  is initially overwhelmed by the enormity of the TRUTH revelation as unfolding dimensions of thought transcend to higher strata of being and obtain the opportunity to engage with those savants which have led the race of mortals into the pathways of IMMORTALITY.

Such a man was the Prince Siddhartha Gautama. He was not the first on this planet to be recognized by the title Buddha which means the Enlightened One. He was previously embodied as Sumeda and recognized by the Great Buddha Dipamkara who prophesied his becoming enlightened several hundred years before he was Siddhartha.

On the Vultures Peak in his sermon titled Vajrachedeka, Siddhartha gave a prophesy of one to come 1200 hundred years later who would be even greater in accomplishment. This was to be the "Lotus Born" Padmasambhava who founded Tibetan Buddhism 1300 years ago.

If you would truly study the mind then study Nagarjuna.

If you want physical immortality then search for the "man who never dies and who knows everything."
These are the words of Voltaire in describing the Count Ste. Germaine who was a friend of King Louis the 15th and seen all over Europe for more than 120 years by all the Royal Families. He was always appearing to be 40 years of age.

There is so much more to philosophy than the limitations of our friend Socrates.

If I can be of any help in your search then drop me a line.

I AM another yourself. The TRUTH of BEING IS THE DIAMOND SHINING MIND OF GOD BLAZING THROUGH UNOBSTRUCTED MY MORTAL ERROR.

And the little boy watching Michaelangelo carving the rock into his Immortal David exclaimed in total surprise, "How did you know he was in there?"

--------------------
Viceroy
spg@safe-mail.net

Go to next post for my reply.

Susma

[susmariosep]

A reaction from a High IQ Buddhist. 2


Here is my reply to Viceroy's letter to me, above.

You write good English.


Thanks, Viceroy, for your private message.

Have you considered starting a thread in philosophy or religion or in the free speech section with your letter to me as the first initiating post?

Otherwise, may I start a new thread with your private message to me as an essential part of the initiating post from me.

Best regards,

Susma

PS I forgot to tell you that I normally inform people not to write private messages to me, just communicate with me in the public boards; if necessary, start a new thread in the free speech board which is guaranteed by the powers in ImmInst Org to be immune to tampering or deletion or relocation by them. But I fear that they are going to eventually change the rules which they have established earlier from an enthusiasm for free thought and free speech and free communication and free publication, all in public.

See next post for Viceroy's answer to the above reply from me.


Susma

[susmariosep]

A reaction from a High IQ Buddhist. 3


Here is Viceroy's reply to my answer to him, above.

(Addressing Chip: Please put in your presence to attend to this thread of yours here. I am eager to hear from you on your reactions to my post about your high IQ and your erstwhile enthusiasm with Buddhism.)

My dear friend Susmariosep,

You may do as you wish with the data provided. I doubt that I will spend any time in the forums. I arrived here by DIVINE STUMBLING. Of the 27,000 web pages I visited last month a very few have yielded golden fruit. Perhaps your desire to KNOW has radiated strongly enough to reach me through such a cosmic (non-accident) co-incidence that we find ourselves in contact on the physical plane. This is a point of contact which may expand by volition to become relationship potential aiming for experiential autodidactic KNOWING. As I work a 60 hour week I become more selective in my filtering of which energies are worthy of engaging my attention. For the next few weeks you may if so inclined make replies to me and we shall see what unfolds as the ongoing drama of INTENTION creates its KARMIC attributes, synnergies, vibrations and potential symphonies. For effctive time management it is easier for me to receive your replies at one of my "safe-mail" addresses.

As always I AM at your service for the benefit of all.

I hope Chip will return to this thread and give us his reactions to my interest in his high IQ coupled with his embrace of Buddhism.


Susma

[Chip]

"I hope Chip will return to this thread and give us his reactions to my interest in his high IQ coupled with his embrace of Buddhism."

As far as I can tell, I've answered your salient question in other threads. This is an online public forum. I hold the opinion that such is inherently dysfunctional but still its participation is voluntary. If you repeat yourself and belabor stuff that does not make sense, I am liable to just be disgusted and not participate. Part of it is a language barrier, I understand. Who said I embrace Buddhism? Did you understand that from something I said?

I'll stoop and repeat that I find that Mahayanaism, if I spell it correctly, is more philosophy than institution. But the problem is that much of Buddhism as it is expressed is no more than just another anarchy cloak, a condoning and acceptance of loss of self-determination.

I like science. I like this idea that truth is beyond any words, especially somebody's name dragged through the eons. Just from a simple data and information deployment assesment, a lot of time between a person's proclamations and it's description via their name, the more room for interpretation, right where you'd expect the pseudo-moralist to cloak their anti-life campaign, just another easy refuge of scondrels.

Right now secretive, conniving mass serial murderers are in control of the chief offices of the United States government, the most powerful military force on the planet. Though many impeachable offenses have been commited, we are powerless to remove them from office. I wonder if we will get to choose our future or if it will be rammed down our throats.

We need to get real, man, very very real.

[susmariosep]

a bit immersed


Hey Susma, as far as Buddhism goes... I was a bit immersed in their cacophany for a short time. In that manifestation, it seems to often serve as Christianity. After all, to consider oneself a Buddhist is again, like Christianity, using a person's name without their consent. -- Chip

No intention to be impertinent, but just to find out whether the meaning of being immersed as you said of yourself indicates that you were once into Buddhism and took up Buddhist meditation to arrive at enlightenment.

If your interest was purely philosophical curiosity, then please disregard this request for information on how you came to the decision to leave Buddhism.

I have myself postgraduated from Catholicism and like to know how others have also gone over and out of a religious system.

Susma

[Chip]

Never really got into it. It was basically philosophical curiousity. I may have tried a meditation or two, "Oh money, I need me some."