Message Received From The Source

  • Thread starter John_Titor
  • Start date
John_Titor
This is one of my first messages I received and I consider this one

the most energetic and touching. It is like some kind of script that

was taken from a hollywood movie.

------------------------------ Message Received -----------------------------

What is God ?


God is what you are. It is what you think to be now days the
integration of all the things you know. This is my way to say you
live it throughout of your experience like many things in life. You
are not alone you think you are but the quest for it coming soon to
end. I offer you to be my guest I offer you to know the quest. You
can't define "God" but you can define me because this is what I am
known to be - The true self of all beings .


------------------------------ Message Received -----------------------------
 
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
2,164
2
Originally posted by John_Titor
LW Sleeth,

I do not go into any trance, I do not meditate , I do not auto write

none of this. I do not think that you can solve science only with

solid facts that are based only on equations. If you are asking for

facts then you just need to open your eyes and look around you. What

you think of "REALITY" is far from what you perceive it to be.

Infact, we all live in illusion made by our creator to experience, to

grow.
I don't necessarily disagree with anything you said. But you are not following the rules of reason and that, I assert, is the very foundation of philosophy.

I also don't dispute there are other ways to know reality besides through reason, I am only saying philosophy is the art and science of reason.

The idea is, when you are within a particular discipline, in this case philosophy, then you play by the rules of that game. You are not giving proper respect to game we are playing in philosophy; instead you bring in your own game, like quite a few who post here, and saying, "let's play MY game."

That's why I suggested, if you want to free associate, the philosophy area is not the place to do it. I say, this is the place to get down, make your case, prove your point, cite evidence, fight it out -- true, with an open mind and sincere heart -- but nonetheless, do it with reason.

(Zantra seems to disagree)
 
Last edited:
732
2
Originally posted by LW Sleeth

(Zantra seems to disagree)
Oh sure, drag me back into this! lol.

Weather it belongs here or not is not for me to judge.
 
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
2,164
2
Originally posted by Zantra
Oh sure, drag me back into this! lol.

Weather it belongs here or not is not for me to judge.
LOL . . .chickensh*t!

Hey, we make this place. The nice thing about PF is there is a spirit of tolerance. I like that because mentors (most anyway) allow things to be thrashed out, and then make decisions from what's been reasoned. So when you stand up for your point of view, and are honest and sincere, you just might provide insights on how to manage things here
 
732
2
HAHAHA.


OK well he can stay as long as he doesn't start prophesizing about the future:wink:
 
russ_watters
Mentor
19,017
5,168
Originally posted by Zero
I'm going to suggest some things:
a) an English composition class
b) less drugs
c) more drugs(doctor prescribed)
Now would he try those in order or all at once? I'd recommend a and b to start and failing b, c.

Quick question: How exactly do you "recieve" these "messages," John?
 
1,476
0
Originally posted by John_Titor
Infact, we all live in illusion made by our creator to experience, to grow.
At least I can understand this much and I know that it is true. All that he writes is not nonsense even if it makes no sense to me.
 
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
2,164
2
I thought I should give examples of my point. In your last post to me you said several things which have good potential for philosophical discussion. For example,

Originally posted by John_Titor
I do not think that you can solve science only with solid facts that are based only on equations.
You could make your case here by providing us with examples of how science needs more than facts and math. I've argued something similar in the past by citing Godel, one of the greatest mathematicians and logicians ever, who believed one "intuits" truth first, and then makes sense of them with facts and math.

Originally posted by John_Titor
What you think of "REALITY" is far from what you perceive it to be.
I am not sure what that means, but discussions about the nature of reality and our perception of it are powerful philosophical issues. Particularly here, a great many feel the senses are the only reliable avenue of experience. Are there others? Well, if there are you have to, again, make your case.

Originally posted by John_Titor
In fact, we all live in illusion made by our creator to experience, to grow.
So you say, but why should I accept that statement, and even if I did, why should I accept it from you? I don't know if you are for real, or some crackpot on peyote or as Zero suspects, a bipolar patient who's forgotten to take his meds.

The only way we have to evaluate what you say is by how well you support it with reason and evidence. Instead you just give us "messages" which to you may seem profound, but to me at least are ideas I have seen many times in mystical literature and by new age enthusiasts.

So this is why I say your approach doesn't really work in a philosophy forum. But that's just one man's opinion.
 
Last edited:
Zero
My major problem with this sort of thing is that it is based on a series of unfounded assumptions with no support. Here are a few of them.

1) There is more to see beyond what senses and logic can observe.
2) Somehow, certain people can see them.
3) The techniques used, even though they resemble brainwashing and hypnosis, really aren't, as long as you see the 'right' things.
 
1,476
0
Originally posted by Zero
My major problem with this sort of thing is that it is based on a series of unfounded assumptions with no support. Here are a few of them.

1) There is more to see beyond what senses and logic can observe.
2) Somehow, certain people can see them.
3) The techniques used, even though they resemble brainwashing and hypnosis, really aren't, as long as you see the 'right' things.
1) One has only to imagine or look with our minds to see. There is
more to reality than what the senses can detect. Even your
science has proven that.

2) Anyone and everyone can see it, them, other realities, whatever.
Vertually everyone who has meditated, reached an altered state of
consciousness, reports very similar experiences. It is either
real or it is a common psychosis or it it something our brains
are hard wired to do. I don't know. I can only tell you what my
experiences are and that they are very similar to others.

3) It is no secret nor anything special. It is only being quiet
and listening and allowing the mind to do what it will.
 
Zero
Originally posted by Royce
1) One has only to imagine or look with our minds to see. There is
more to reality than what the senses can detect. Even your
science has proven that.

2) Anyone and everyone can see it, them, other realities, whatever.
Vertually everyone who has meditated, reached an altered state of
consciousness, reports very similar experiences. It is either
real or it is a common psychosis or it it something our brains
are hard wired to do. I don't know. I can only tell you what my
experiences are and that they are very similar to others.

3) It is no secret nor anything special. It is only being quiet
and listening and allowing the mind to do what it will.
All bunk, bubba!

Seriously, though, restating your unfounded ideas doesn't make them true.
 
hypnagogue
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,221
2
Originally posted by Zero
All bunk, bubba!

Seriously, though, restating your unfounded ideas doesn't make them true.
Royce made no metaphysical claims in this post. He simply stated a set of ideas that are entirely consistent with scientific ideology. Where's the bunk, bubba?
 
3,754
2
Originally posted by Zantra
HAHAHA.


OK well he can stay as long as he doesn't start prophesizing about the future:wink:

Well, TENYEARS is still prophesying here. I think the Mentors are doing a good enough job though, so I try not to complain about what I believe are misplacements too often.
 
3,754
2
Originally posted by Royce
1) One has only to imagine or look with our minds to see. There is
more to reality than what the senses can detect. Even your
science has proven that.
Alright then, I ask you: Why does a normal child understand while a child with no senses does not?

2) Anyone and everyone can see it, them, other realities, whatever.
Vertually everyone who has meditated, reached an altered state of
consciousness, reports very similar experiences. It is either
real or it is a common psychosis or it it something our brains
are hard wired to do. I don't know. I can only tell you what my
experiences are and that they are very similar to others.
Sure, but (and I hate to agree with Zero on this point but...) this could just as easily be induced by drugs anyway, since it is (IMO) nothing more than an excitation of certain hormones which lead to a lack of ability toward rational thinking for a certain amount of time.

3) It is no secret nor anything special. It is only being quiet
and listening and allowing the mind to do what it will.
So we can listen to our minds? Then what are we?
 
1,476
0
You two, Zero and Mentat, are the ones making claims and assertions that you know. You know all about something that you have never experienced nor researched. I am mearly reporting on my experiences, showing that they are similar and supportive of other reportred experiences and what it meant to me, my interpetation and impression of them and what it felt like in the best terms that I know, trying to put in words that others can understand, while trying to keep my personal beliefs and biases out of it. This is what a good scientist, reporter, philosopher does. I make no claims, assert no knowledge nor advocate any belief system. If you don't believe me fine. Go prove it for yourself. going to great lengths trying to come up with scientific explanations for what is going on is a waste of time and effort. You don't know. Neither do I. One totally unreasonable explaination is just as good as any other unreasonable explaination.
 
hypnagogue
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,221
2
Originally posted by Mentat
Alright then, I ask you: Why does a normal child understand while a child with no senses does not?
This is a question of cognitive science. Regular sensual stimulation is necessary for the normal and healthy cognitive development of a child. But this is irrelevant to Royce's statement. I believed all he meant to say was that there is more to reality than meets the sensual eye. One simple example of this would be radio waves. I'm sure there are infintely many more examples, most of which we probably haven't stumbled across yet.

Sure, but (and I hate to agree with Zero on this point but...) this could just as easily be induced by drugs anyway, since it is (IMO) nothing more than an excitation of certain hormones which lead to a lack of ability toward rational thinking for a certain amount of time.
Royce explicitly granted that transcendent subjective phenomena could be 'just' a consequence of the workings of the physical brain, so what is your argument here? The point is that the ontology and origin of these experiences is not the important thing; the important thing is simply the experience itself.

So we can listen to our minds? Then what are we?
'We' in the conventional sense are egos, mental constructs of self-identity. 'We' learn a valuable lesson when we see that there is more to us than the ego and that consciousness can be experienced without the perpetually filtering lens that our normally functioning egos impose on it.
 
1,476
0
Well said Hypnogogue. It is a pleasant but unusual experience to find some one actually supporting and defending what I and other have said about this subject. You are saying it better than I could. Thank you.
 
732
2
It could be said that we are the result of our projected self image. In other words, whatever our minds percieve ourselvees to be, is what we outwardly project to others.
 
John_Titor
Sure, but (and I hate to agree with Zero on this point but...) this could just as easily be induced by drugs anyway, since it is (IMO) nothing more than an excitation of certain hormones which lead to a lack of ability toward rational thinking for a certain amount of time.
Mentat,

What is "Reality" ? Do you think what you touch is real or solid ? Do

you think what you smell and breath right now is air ?

To understand why drugs and other stimulants effect your soul

require first to understand the concept of "The Holographic Universe

Concept" that is connected in everyway of how it perceives our

reality.

for example:

In the 1950s, while conducting research into the beliefs of LSD as a

psychotherapeutic tool, Grof had one female patient who suddenly

became convinced she had assumed the identity of a female of a

species of prehistoric reptile. During the course of her

hallucination, she not only gave a richly detailed description of

what it felt like to be encapsuled in such a form, but noted that the

portion of the male of the species's anatomy was a patch of colored

scales on the side of its head. What was startling to Grof was that

although the woman had no prior knowledge about such things, a

conversation with a zoologist later confirmed that in certain species

of reptiles colored areas on the head do indeed play an important

role as triggers of sexual arousal. The woman's experience was not

unique. During the course of his research, Grof encountered examples

of patients regressing and identifying with virtually every species

on the evolutionary tree (research findings which helped influence

the man-into-ape scene in the movie Altered States). Moreover, he

found that such experiences frequently contained obscure zoological

details which turned out to be accurate. Regressions into the animal

kingdom were not the only puzzling psychological phenomena Grof

encountered. He also had patients who appeared to tap into some sort

of collective or racial unconscious. Individuals with little or no

education suddenly gave detailed descriptions of Zoroastrian funerary

practices and scenes from Hindu mythology. In other categories of

experience, individuals gave persuasive accounts of out-of-body

journeys, of precognitive glimpses of the future, of regressions into

apparent past-life incarnations.
 
1,569
1
"I also don't dispute there are other ways to know reality besides through reason, I am only saying philosophy is the art and science of reason."

what is the reasoning behind axioms? what are the reasons we should accept any axioms whatsoever?

"science of reason." that's an interesting way to put it. isn't science about observation, theorizing, and predicting?

philosophy, does it not, mean the love of knowledge (and not "the art and science of reason)? reason is only a tool for accessing knowledge, not the definition of philosophy. another tool for accessing knowledge is the higher self which can be superficially described as intuition.

btw, i question whether my intuition is a reliable tool for accessing knowledge just as much, if not more so, than i question whether reason is a reliable tool for accessing knowledge.

cheers,
phoenix
 
1,569
1
"What you think of "REALITY" is far from what you perceive it to be."

"Particularly here, a great many feel the senses are the only reliable avenue of experience."

i have other experiences besides what my (five or six) senses tell me. i also have experiences of thoughts and emotions.

descartes said once that the senses deceive us. memory can change the color of a car. eye witness testimony is not considered 100% accurate/reliable. my question is this: when two people have different sensory experiences as evidenced by their differing descriptions of reality, then who is to say what reality is? was the car really red or was it really orange?

the idea that what we perceive is an illusion is not at all new. i don't know what would constitute evidence that we're not in a matrix right now unless we become free of it somehow.

one way to put it is that what we perceive is an illusion but the way i like to put it is that what we perceive is the tip of the iceburg. to refine a little, i'm not just saying there's another side of the mountain you're not currently perceiving, i'm also suspecting that there's more to the mountain than is in three dimensional space. the mountain is just the 3D shadow/projection of the complete object that lives either in some abstract world or in hyperdimensional space.

whether or not this is an illusion, the illusion clearly has rules. rules like if you shoot yourself in the foot, there is a strong chance of encountering the illusion of pain. the rules for the rest of the iceburg are unclear to me; it is unclear that there are any rules except ones we invent.

cheers,
phoenix
 
1,569
1
"I'm going to suggest some things:
a) an English composition class
b) less drugs
c) more drugs(doctor prescribed)"

that is the typical reaction i encounter.

why take an english composition class? all it does is teaches you set ways of writing that are "tried and true". such ways don't immediately lead to original thought and writing.

i would say the writings are on the abstract side and i don't think they're meant to be understood as easily as a detective novel. they may have to be read a dozen or more times for even the basic essence to be perceived.

less drugs. that's almost funny. i wonder if the people who had faith in the old way of thinking thought einstein was on drugs.

more prescribed drugs. interesting. i guess anyone who doesn't fit in should be made to fit in, assimilated into the collective of the normal, right? or else, leave us alone?

cheers,
phoenix
 
1,569
1
"So you say, but why should I accept that statement, and even if I did, why should I accept it from you? I don't know if you are for real, or some crackpot on peyote or as Zero suspects, a bipolar patient who's forgotten to take his meds."

no one is saying, as far as i know, that you *should* accept the statements.

lincoln was an unmedicated bipolar person, according to doctors. he's on the five dollar bill, last time i checked. should we have instead thrown lincoln in an asylum so he could get better?

in other words, what i'm saying is that calling someone a crackpot (on peyote) or an unmedicated bipolar patient is a classic example of an ad hominem attack which is commonly considered an illogical basis for disagreeing.

cheers,
phoenix
 
1,569
1
"My major problem with this sort of thing is that it is based on a series of unfounded assumptions with no support. Here are a few of them.

1) There is more to see beyond what senses and logic can observe.
2) Somehow, certain people can see them.
3) The techniques used, even though they resemble brainwashing and hypnosis, really aren't, as long as you see the 'right' things."

zero, tell me what systems of knowledge aren't based on a bunch of unfounded assumptions with no support? in mathematics, we have axioms. in science, we have the assumption that the scientific method is the way to go (a way that wouldn't be acceptible to a mathematician). in philosophy, we assume that we're all going to use some version of aristotle's rules of logic.

is 1) something you have evidence against?
2) no. everyone can see them; they just don't.
3) are you saying that when i'm writing to you, that resembles brainwashing? all john is doing is writing. how is that brainwashing? hypnosis. i just don't see the resemblance to hypnosis. you use quotes when you write the word right, but, in fact, i don't believe john ever used the word. i'm not a firm believer that there is an absolute right and wrong, anyway, and i don't know how to find out if there is...

cheers,
phoenix
 
1,569
1
"All bunk, bubba!"

that doesn't convince me it's bunk. in fact, nothing you can say will convince me that i haven't had transcendant states of consciousness that have changed my life.

i could just as well say that i took 100 hits of LSD and had quite a trip. would your response be, "all bunk, bubba?" this is what i and others have experienced, bubba. i suspect that you think it's bunk because you've never experienced it. if i were you, i'd think it was bunk too. i know that all YOU have to go on is YOUR experience.

cheers,
phoenix
 

Related Threads for: Message Received From The Source

Replies
27
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
933
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
Top