Hello, Here I’ll be interviewing an intelligence outside our commonly perceived sphere of existence. I will attempt to ask interesting questions and keep the topics as relevant as I can, if you have any questions or ideas, please let me know. Pras
Hello, are we connected?
Hello, if I am making sense now then yes.
Okay, great. Might I start by asking how this process works?
Certainly. I am in tune with your mind and place concepts there which your brain then translates into human forms that can be understood in your view.
Do you mean words?
… Yes, [laughs] your language is still made up of many separate mental gestures, we are not familiar with this.
When you say mental gestures?
I mean that each word forms a set of mental images and intentions.
Okay so you are putting thoughts in my head which are then interpreted into sentences by me.
Yes, at a non-conscious level, so although the expressed words are in your way, they do not come from your own thoughts.
Thanks for clarifying. Do you also use mental gestures?
Our mind is a web of streams, it is difficult to find the concepts in your mind without using many of your words. The concept of words is something akin to your alphabet to us. You could imagine that each of our words is a sentence perhaps?
Okay, that makes sense to me thank you. How about I start with some of the age-old questions that humanity holds?
We sense that you would like to skip those personally, do you think the audience of this information would be interested to hear our thoughts on your beliefs?
I’m certain they would, I am also curious to your views.
Please go ahead.
Why are we here?
You are there because you evolved there.
I think perhaps the question is more that we are asking our purpose in existence.
I, we do not understand you.
I think we as humans wonder what our purpose here on earth is.
To evolve.
Perhaps in some way, we look for a storyline which explains our being and gives us belief in our own personal story.
By story do you mean journey?
Yes.
… I think that you have created a question that conflicts with the answer. When you ask what your purpose is, we said to evolve. This is the very basic nature for your and our existence.
Do you think our notion of a divine purpose is incorrect?
You have a divine purpose, to evolve. To create new patterns is divine, it is to be part of the divine process. I am being informed that many of your religions support this notion.
I think I agree, when you say evolve, how do you mean?
To participate in the creation of new patterns.
Like in genetics?
What you call genetics is a structure of patterns of information existing in a certain zone. You refer to it as bio-chemical, we see it as another means of creating new patterns. Your idea of evolution describes a process that is present at all levels, not only in genetics.
I think I understand, do you mean that there are many layers of information and each one is evolving in it’s own way?
Yes, throughout every process in existence, the interaction between organisation and randomisation create patterns in the fabric they exist in.
I think this may be a little hard to follow. Are you referring to the same patterns existing at many levels, like orbits of atoms and orbits of solar systems?
That is accurate, but very simple – like your concepts of chaos and order for example.
Could you elaborate in a simple way?
It is not the patterns that exist at every level, but the patterns forming between the other patterns that give the answers to what we mean.
It is probably still a little beyond us, can you try to bring that closer to the human level? For example we are currently looking at the idea of intelligent design as opposed to evolutionary design.
We will need to take a moment to scan some information on your current understandings.. Your concept of Evolution is the same as your concept of Intelligent design.
Yes, I thought so too but many would disagree.
Do those that support intelligent design understand the intelligence of God?
I'm sure they do not.
You must try to understand that the most intelligent design process is one of an evolutionary nature.
I personally agree, but I think that supporters of intelligent design believe that there was some interaction from God in the design process.
Humans have a creator god, because they are creators. Their perception of God is only through their own reality, so God to you has to be a creator. The reality is much deeper than that.
Let's leave that discussion for another time then. Can we go back to the idea of our existence and purpose of evolution?
Yes. You can imagine that at the subatomic level, atoms are manifested by energies that interact in a way that empower each other?
Yes, I’ve heard some theories about that.
These energies are better understood as frequencies. As several frequencies lock, resonate or otherwise interact they create a patterned resonance.
Could you explain it like a chord in music?
… You could, possibly more like an orchestration of music. Each atom is a chord, yes. Several frequencies that interact to create a chord as you describe in music.
So atoms and therefore matter is made up of different frequencies?
Yes, the relationships of these frequencies define the different elements you see.
Aren’t all frequencies only relative to each other?
Yes, these frequencies have no existence without the presence of an underlying master frequency. They are all connected by their different relationship to this base frequency. You called it the Quantum Carrier Wave when you wrote about it.
Ah yes, can we leave the nature of the universe until later and go back to our human perceptions?
Yes of course, what would you like to ask?
Can we look at our perception of God?
… God, yes, we like this concept and are very interested in how you interpret it.
I’m not really a fan of the way humans look at the concept of God or what they can do in his name.
Yes, we have a few things to say, but we know that humans are very protective over their belief systems and would not want to cause a problem.
Personally, I don’t mind. I’d like to hear what you have to say, whether I or any human agrees or not is up to them.
Yes, we do not understand how anyone can be offended by a challenge to their belief system. We relish that opportunity.
Yes I agree, if you are afraid to be challenged it is because you do not truly understand why you hold a belief.
That is good to know, we did not get that impression from many of the others we have had contact with.
Yes, I can imagine.
For example, you choose a sex for your interpretation of God, this to us is very funny! It tells us a lot about your culture.
I never really thought about that to be honest, yes we do see God through our own image. We like to believe that he, or it, created us in it's image.
In the primal sense that is true, you are a part of the pattern of God, you resonate the same patterns that exist throughout existence. We are amused by your interpretation of this meaning that you think therefore God is a Human. This is quite common however, still it's very funny to us and cute.
I guess we all have our ways of connecting with the bigger picture as it is beyond us.
We feel that any religion that supports individual faith and variable beliefs should be adequate. Any religion that believes it is the one true faith is incorrect. Religions are methods of looking at God but they, like any intelligent process of understanding, must accept that the models they create are only models.
What do you mean by adequate?
Belief systems such as your religions are primarily civilisational constructs. They are created to help a civilisation advance and support the faith and belief of the people.
Do many advanced cultures have these kinds of beliefs?
Yes, in many forms although let's be clear, your culture is not generally considered to be advanced within the wider community. You are still comparable to the machine races, they also maintain belief systems and hold onto them for survival and strength. You will surpass that need, although the machine races tend not to which is why we use it as a measure of cultural advancement.
Yes, like a set of stories that allow people to connect under the ideals of the society?
Yes, however you must remember who created the belief systems, what they originally meant by them and how that message changes through history.
Yes, you can see that on earth, all our religions generally say the same things and have good hopes for society in their original form. Most of them have changed into power maintenance mechanisms today though.
Yes, this is very common and nothing to worry about. The message still exists even though there are those that use it for their own gain.
I feel that the institutions of religion are alienating the modern human, since as we become more intelligent, we find less and less to relate to in their explainations of the meaning of our existence.
This is because the knowledge maintained within them is very old, and somewhat obsolete. It is common, and we imagine like many other worlds you need to update the science of your belief systems otherwise they will become out-dated.
I couldn’t agree more. The stories of the past hold little value today other than the morals they attempt to teach.
Yes, like every kind of education, your religions need to explore what people find relevant today and focus on the wisdom of today’s humans and not those from before.
Okay, thanks I think that I have to take a break, let’s start again with the God subject tomorrow.
4 comments:
fantastic!
Hi Pras,
Just a few notes:
- The "I am in tune with your mind and place concepts there" idea, and telepathy in general, with third-parties (rather than quite-deep intimate relationships), even if accepted, is quite problematic regarding individualism, independence, and intimacy.
- The idea about "word sentences" is quite blurry. Logic is an articulation of specific ideas. There is not really any question of level, except as a very simple technical matter of memory capacity (i.e., shorter/longer alphabet and words, with more or less complex uses and meanings). We certainly have a lot to improve to achieve an idealistic language, but for humans, the basics are there and will not change much.
- The nature of humankind, as any other sentient and developed species and individuals, is precisely sensations (derived as sentiments and emotions), and development (as a state, I mean, not directly as evolution). Evolution is likely the cause (although as any phenomenon, it is completely uncertain, and in the absolute, everything could very well have been formed completely only yesterday, including everything we call past memories), and likely will continue forever, but there are absolute limits and very stable ideas in many aspects of materiality and mechanisms, and in development. Many ideas are very specific, and no amount of time and energy will change them in any significant way. And many evolutions can be controlled very positively, including by refraining from systematism (evolution for evolution). In the idealistic society, evolution will be quite limited, and this stability, in a very diversified society, is very important, and we should not fear it (there is a very important taboo today, around the idea of "stagnating"... it notably comes from the fear of the current situation perpetuating itself indefinitely, without any significant improvement, which simply does not apply to the idea precisely of solving all our problems, to reach a real stability in peace). The ideal is made of a very sweet balance of stability and diversity, with a number of very absolute ideas forming a framework for the experience of all the diversity of life, from calm routine to the most exciting adventures in peace, as individuality and moods go and pass.
- The idea of "divine purpose of evolution" is unnecessary and easily problematic. This is mostly related to the taboo of differentiating truth from beliefs. It is mostly self-censorship, and more direct fear of being attacked for saying otherwise (it's quite clear in many older books about humanism, alchemy, and utopianism, notably). The rest is fear of the absolute materialism of our beings, leading to what are precisely religious considerations, even for people calling themselves atheistic or agnostic. Of course, this is just trying to push the problem away (any true consideration of any sort of gods, is bound to pure materialism... everything else is logically erroneous), in a society where we have many other problems. In a more peaceful society, it would be quite easier to consider the absolute, and, if we so desire, use simple real beliefs, that is attaching ourselves a bit more to absolute possibilities, as a strictly personal decision, to reassure ourselves a bit, while being well conscious of the uncertainties and of the other possibilities, including as a reinforcement of our beliefs (i.e., lessening the fear of being in error). The rest, including more global considerations, would be simple imaginative stories.
(Continued in next post because of the 4096-character limit...)
- You say that "the most intelligent design process is one of an evolutionary nature". This is again quite blurry. Talking about any process, is a matter of movement, and thus evolution. Intelligence is first and foremost a matter of reflection. Matter reflecting on matter. This reflection is based on sensations (later possibly reflected as sentiments, themselves reflected as emotions). Then comes rationality, that is an ordered, coherent, willful orientation of the reflection, toward specific goals. This reflection leads to useful evolutions, as needed.
- You say "we do see God through our own image". Is that really the case, in the depth of your unconsciousness? It likely is much more nuanced than that. There is of course some reassurance in seeing a human body, and in the current society, in the image of fatherhood, but there is also much fear about identity. We fear ourselves, and I'm quite sure most people in fact at least unconsciously want it to be very different in all aspects, even physically. And it probably isn't all that unconscious, notably in our times, with the large monotheistic religions, with relatively very little depictions of how this god might look like (in other religions, the need to differentiate the various gods, in addition before then to the limitation of writing, likely pushed the practice of picturing more or less precise visions of the gods). This lack of pictures is likely the more visible sign we do not want to see that precisely a human figure. There is thus likely quite some selective remembering about all this (we say "we see God as ourselves", but the other half of the time, we refuse to see him as this -if at all, yet another aspect we could detail). We could also say, as a matter of fact, that most people, notably Westerners, probably just see the monotheistic god as the common depiction of Zeus :)
- Concerning the "adequacy of religion", this is much more limited. There are of course relatively positive orientations in our social History, but there are also many very negative effects and consequences of our religions over the past 10.000 years at least. It could very well all have been much more positive, much more directly. And after some level of development, it is always very problematic and negative, because a global religion, even if not effectively forced, will obviously lead to many problematic/negative consequences for "non believers", or people "believing otherwise". In all cases there will obviously many pushes from early childhood, and all along life. It limits significantly individualism, independence, intimacy, and strength. The concept of religion is problematic. As said previously, we must focus on pure rationality. Only then, we can use some limited beliefs, as a personal limited attachment to some absolute rational possibilities. The rest is erroneous, and obviously problematic, as any consciousness of these errors, and more globally the consciousness of the risk of error, because of lack of sufficient reflection, reasoning, and analysis, will greatly limit any reassurance which could be brought by ream beliefs. Also surely a bit different, you could compare your idea, with the one of "needing stress, conflicts, discriminations, wealth and poverty, and wars, to foster development". More or less unconsciously, this is mostly the fear of peace, the fear of beauty, the fear of the ideal, the fear of stability, the fear of lacking, the fear of loneliness, the fear of pure logic, the fear of decision, the fear of activism, the fear in fact, of progress. We seek to be pushed and forced, and to be guided, in our prostration in front of all our massive problems, from birth to death, since 10.000 years at least, in front of all our fears. This is mostly apathy, of the heaviest kind. Improving this situation can only pass, logically, by reflection, reasoning, and analysis. Limited beliefs can help, if we so desire, but this is very accessory.
(Continued in next post...)
- Concerning the obsolescence of many religious ideas, this is very clear and interesting to notice. There are quite an number of ideas which were quite practical and useful, as guides, in the past (and a number of others showed at least some "good intentions", although written/applied in problematic ways, regularly already very counter-productively). But many of them are now, not only outdated, but also regularly counterproductive, if not very negative. And of course, this is all mixed in many ideas which have always been very problematic and negative, so everything is very blurry and confused. However, for true beliefs, like any absolute possibilities, there is little obsolescence to consider... the goal is precisely stability, for reassurance. However, it is of course always very important to reconsider as needed, through reflection, reasoning, and analysis.
Bye.
Post a Comment