D-wave quantum computers are legit.

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by Baile

Someone today posted how their goal is to romance someone who told them they're not interested in a relationship. How do people not see that love, is loving what the other is, and wants. Love is respecting and loving THAT. But people want the trophy that tells them they're in control. Yes, it is fear, isn't it? But is it self-loathing though? Or narcissism rather?

Wow Baile ...that certainly is a whole other can of worms, hahaha...
And I have no idea to whom you're referring..so disclaimer: this is not a specific response to any particular post.

Fear and loathing in the context I provided is at the most broad level. It nearly always involves fear and loathing in the context of power-over, in which there is either a real or illusory power-over.

What it is, is nearly always a real desire to maintain a real or illusory power-over. For example, there is a nearly universal and historical desire by men to dominate all women so that men's power-over any individual women's sexuality can be demanded, expected, or ideally guaranteed. This physical, social, and economic dominion in the social realm can therefore be drawn upon by every individual straight man to assuage his anxieties about pleasing his partner sexually or maintaining sole access to her sexuality and her intimate person. This "typical" or "normative" historical social order has always REQUIRED imbalance, oppression, exploitation, and domination in male-female partnerships -- ultimately always enforced through physical might and sexual assault -- in order to assuage primal male fears of betrayal or infidelity that are (broadly) universal and reside entirely within them, having nothing to do with the individual, unique woman.

The interruption and complete transformation of this whole "power-over" context which reproduces itself in nearly every intimate partner relationship (either overtly or covertly) is completely undone by those core aspects of existence which cannot be controlled, routinised, or possessed. Such as spirit, grace, authentic love, awe, integrity, courage, faith, generosity, kindness, discipline and fortitude...and all other intangible aspects of love and spirit. Of course, authentic love in friendship or partnership requires allowing oneself to come to know and love a woman first and foremost as a person and as a soul, as a beloved friend. Instead of just 'knowing' her sexually as soon as possible and exchanging some casual affection, whereby the route to authentic love is nearly always bypassed. And therefore whereby paradigm of dominion and superiority is maintained.

In particular, the foundational, transformative root of authentic love is particularly radical and insurrectionist...it easily transcends all man-made oppression and imbalance, and challenges us with our biases, our oppression, and our cruelty to one another in our desperate attempt to pacify our primal fear and loathing at the expense of others' humanity. In other words, if a man overcomes fear and loathing and opens his heart to authentic love, he comes face to face with the hypocrisy and the schisms of what is and what he knows to be true. In other words, overcoming one's fear and loathing and opening to authentic love means that a man will absolutely have to confront some of his most fundamental, unspeakable, universal, primal fears. Fears which will otherwise be continually triggered by the woman's very existence and the authentic love that they feel for one another. Otherwise, both the free woman and the authentic love you could freely share instead become the objects of your derision...of your fear and loathing.

You are free to extend this to the particular situation at hand, if you find it to be useful It certainly can be extended to nearly all other aspects of imbalance and injustice in our society. We as a species do not yet fear and loathe the love of power (which is ALL about control) nearly as much as we fear and loathe the power of love (which cannot be controlled, no matter how much we demand and require than it must be.

Interestingly...the assuaging of the fear and loathing of authentic love and spirit is at the very heart of the modern obsession with control, mechanization, exploitation, and utilitarian philosophies and perspectives...ones which as much as possible deny love, deny spirit, and deny the human being realisation of the fullness of their capacities. Some simplifications aside, you can see that ultimately, the primal root of fear and loathing is really much more basic than we might think.

Peace & blessings
7L

[Baile]

Like this entire thread, I don't understand lol. I chose to comment on maybe the one sentence I could even understand. People wish to control others out of a kind of fear, I get that. But self-loathing? I suppose it depends on how theoretical one wishes to get (again, kind of like this thread). Me, what I see are controlling people operating out of hubris and narcissism. Sure, somewhere in the darkest nether regions of their psyche, they probably hate themselves. But don't we all, according to Freud or someone? Anyway yeah, quantum computers, blabbity blab and all that.

[Baile]

Originally Posted by dutchiexx

these quantum laws literally shows us how everything in existance works and that there is no other possible way for the universe and life to work as it does.

Relying on science and the intellect to definitely and once and for all explain the workings of the universe. No wonder I don't get this thread lol. Well it is the Aquarian Age now, I guess we need a new religion to replace the decrepit Age of Pisces belief systems people have been following for the past 2000 years.

[organic born]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

OrganicBorn, thanks for your response. You don't know me, you don't know how or where I grew up, nor what my life experiences are, nor anything else that lies "behind the curtain" of what I've shared. From what you've said about me, I personally know that you are way off in your statements regarding me, which is of course to be expected when you know nothing of substance or meaning about the other. IMO, it's for that very reason that I don't get into labelling others or stating that I know how they think and why it's wrong, or why it's this or that. It's ludicrous really.

I do find this humorous. You are lecturing me as to my comments towards you, using 'my not knowing you or your past' as your basis for complaining.

And yet you then say this about a people you know nothing about, you haven't even read the book that I mentioned in order to get a basic preliminary feel for how they're experiencing themselves.

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

My two points stand.
1) Your statements that the group in question is representative of all humanity is not borne out by the mass of anthrolopogical and sociological studies to date. That's all I was saying. The group you mention is no more authentically human than any other human group, and nor do they appear to represent some pure or untouched archetypal prehistoric human culture.
2) Also, it does appear that the culture of the group you mention happen to align with many of the more toxic and utilitarian aspects of modernity. I would add, their contact with modern culture is very likely much more profound than you or any of us yet realise, but cultural degradation can and does often happen just that quickly and that unexpectedly in many cases. Such that many older authentic traditions and lifeways can no longer be found to be in evidence, sometimes even just a short time after contact begins.

Regardless, your example group does not appear to be strongly representative of human history, and nor is your statement correct regarding the false antiquity and ubiquity of holistic spiritual traditions and social traditions. In fact, both of these are well established universal foundations of human society. Saying that they are not simply doesn't make it true, though you are of course welcome to your particular beliefs. It doesn't mean this group and whatever they stand for still doesn't speak to you...but it's just not necessarily going to speak to me or to others in the same way as it does to you.

So how does that work? :)

Besides that, their culture is not "culture" in the way that you're using the term "culture". They live as they live, with their day-to-day unfolding naturally. They don't use much of a cultural template in the way that formal cultures tend to count on. They respond in relation to natural imperative, in that regard they comfortably mirror nearly every other hunter and gatherer mindsets that preceded them.

A culture is a 'picture' of a model way of living. So any discussion of cultures require mentalized concepts. For millions of years our species lived without such tightly woven concepts. They responded to their environment based on natural imperative. Doing so is an entirely different mindset.

You are trying to compare apples to oranges, while referring to them both as oranges. :)

[organic born]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

In particular, the foundational, transformative root of authentic love is particularly radical and insurrectionist...it easily transcends all man-made oppression and imbalance, and challenges us with our biases, our oppression, and our cruelty to one another in our desperate attempt to pacify our primal fear and loathing at the expense of others' humanity. In other words, if a man overcomes fear and loathing and opens his heart to authentic love, he comes face to face with the hypocrisy and the schisms of what is and what he knows to be true. In other words, overcoming one's fear and loathing and opening to authentic love means that a man will absolutely have to confront some of his most fundamental, unspeakable, universal, primal fears. Fears which will otherwise be continually triggered by the woman's very existence and the authentic love that they feel for one another. Otherwise, both the free woman and the authentic love you could freely share instead become the objects of your derision...of your fear and loathing.

Most fears, as we know them, are cultural derivatives. While most definitions of love, as we tend to know them, are culturally implied.

Primal fears are the ones that come and go quickly. Is that a lion in the woods?, guess not... now what were we doing?

While the fear of not being loved is more common in large groups where individuals are essentially strangers to each other. So both love and fear, as we culturally experience it, are primarily cultural derivatives. Any formula of thinking to address either would likely be culturally specific.

..any attempt to create a one size fits all manor of addressing such things would have to be thick with both group and individualized projection. :)

[organic born]

Originally Posted by Gem

So indeed, all this is floating on a dream of thought and is barely connected to nature. I mean on my 30km commute to the city where I go to school, my feet do not touch the earth - which lies beneath a few inches of concrete. This symbolises how 'nature' is covered over by 'thought'.

Wonderful reply Gem! You were raised close enough to the ground in order to appreciate the difference! We are free to think outside of nature but we need to keep track of just how far we're straying. Physically our connection with nature is seamless. While mentally we can define things in such a way that nature appears to be irrelevant. We do so however at our own risk, if we're not consciously sober about such straying.

In the book "Don't Sleep, There are Snakes" by Daniel L. Everett, he describes in some detail the results of natural living based on the tribe in South America that he spent 30 years with. These folks have never owned land, in the recorded sense, and lived historically off the land in a hunter gathers way going back for many of years. Here's a little snippet of how the their children collectively respond to such upbringing:

"What effect does a Pirahã upbringing have on a child? Pirahã teenagers, like all teenagers, are giggly and can be very squirrelly and rude. They commented that my *** was wide. They farted close to the table as soon as we were sitting down to eat, then laughed like Jerry Lewis. Apparently the profound weirdness of teenagers is universal.
But I did not see Pirahã teenagers moping, sleeping in late, refusing to accept responsibility for their own actions, or trying out what they considered to be radically new approaches to life. They in fact are highly productive and conformist members of their community in the Pirahã sense of productivity (good fishermen, contributing generally to the security, food needs, and other aspects of the physical survival of the community). One gets no sense of teenage angst, depression, or insecurity among the Pirahã youth. They do not seem to be searching for answers. They have them. And new questions rarely arise."

Not bad considering that no religions are involved, no tribunals are needed, no traffic cops behind every turn.

These cultural paradigms only become relevant as populations increase, and the need for a manor of binding our thoughts into a communal format begins exerting itself. I've been trying to explain the simplicity of this process to another member in this thread, but the fog of their convictions is far too thick to successfully penetrate. :)

But as we start binding our thoughts in order to "communicate/participate-in culture" we encounter the risk of becoming lost in our projections. The problem of getting lost in this way is quite obvious when we know what to look for.

The foods that now surround us are horrific. I'll often enter a grocery store looking for something healthy to eat and will often leave with little to nothing. If we're wanting to eat healthy we need to know a farmer or patiently learn to grow our own food. We need the bacteria from nature (on our skin and in our gut) in order to remain healthy and vibrant. Most people see bacteria as dangerous and try to kill it. Loony toons... And for the most part we view each other with suspicion. We are loosely bound together with our neighbors, with little to no history, so we tend to "maneuver" in relation to their habits. And there's no way that I'd visit a doctor for anything other that blunt trauma injury. Even at that I wouldn't take the drugs that they give me.

As a species we have strayed some distance from our biological center and no amount of conceptualized "spirituality" will resolve this gulf in a synthetic way. We're needing to get back to the basics. Dreaming alone won't cut it.

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by Baile

Like this entire thread, I don't understand lol. I chose to comment on maybe the one sentence I could even understand. People wish to control others out of a kind of fear, I get that. But self-loathing? I suppose it depends on how theoretical one wishes to get (again, kind of like this thread). Me, what I see are controlling people operating out of hubris and narcissism. Sure, somewhere in the darkest nether regions of their psyche, they probably hate themselves. But don't we all, according to Freud or someone? Anyway yeah, quantum computers, blabbity blab and all that.

Hahaha It's all good Baile.

As to your assessment of the other situation you mention...I couldn't say since I'm not familiar.

But as far as my example of the fear and loathing goes...
I think the loathing is typically externalised, as is the fear...that is, it is often projected onto others, in order to avoid looking inward. Using the example already posted from above of the role of fear and loathing in male domination (and in power imbalances more broadly), a man's primal fear of betrayal and cuckolding becomes or involves a fear and loathing of that which he cannot control...love (or spirit or life's mysteries, etc.). And just as often, whomever is associated with that love...i.e., fear and loathing of the person themselves.

This in turn has historically and to date always led to a "need" to control women, all women. This need is then institutionalised in imbalanced, repressive and exploitative relationships where men have power over women...enforceable through the usual means (threat of violence, assault, coercion, rape) as well as social propaganda available in the modern era, etc....and reproduced generation after generation. Though sociobiologists, sociologists, and economists have much more to say about all of this, including the roots of male domination in primal male fears surrounding sexuality.

It's possible there is also self-loathing, but typically this would only be applicable for those who are more deeply aware of the fear and hypocrisy interwoven in their dominant position and perspective. So it may or may not be applicable to the issue you have in mind.

Peace & blessings
7L

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by organic born

I do find this humorous. You are lecturing me as to my comments towards you, using 'my not knowing you or your past' as your basis for complaining.

And yet you then say this about a people you know nothing about, you haven't even read the book that I mentioned in order to get a basic preliminary feel for how they're experiencing themselves.



So how does that work? :)

Besides that, their culture is not "culture" in the way that you're using the term "culture". They live as they live, with their day-to-day unfolding naturally. They don't use much of a cultural template in the way that formal cultures tend to count on. They respond in relation to natural imperative, in that regard they comfortably mirror nearly every other hunter and gatherer mindsets that preceded them.

A culture is a 'picture' of a model way of living. So any discussion of cultures require mentalized concepts. For millions of years our species lived without such tightly woven concepts. They responded to their environment based on natural imperative. Doing so is an entirely different mindset.

You are trying to compare apples to oranges, while referring to them both as oranges. :)

Look Organic, it's all good. You are fine to see whatever you like or want or need to find in this group to support you on your journey.

The fact is nothing you've said about them thus far speaks to me, nor does it resonate with anything I've ever read about indigenous cultures...which I find a bit odd and more aligned with probable effects of modern contact...and so it's not of much interest to me. No offense.

The group you speak of certainly doesn't disprove anything or take away any of the rich culture and spiritual traditions so evident in other indigenous cultures.

But it's all good. You do and say what you like, I'll do the same and we can agree to disagree.

Peace & blessings,
7L
7L

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by organic born

Most fears, as we know them, are cultural derivatives. While most definitions of love, as we tend to know them, are culturally implied.

Primal fears are the ones that come and go quickly. Is that a lion in the woods?, guess not... now what were we doing?

While the fear of not being loved is more common in large groups where individuals are essentially strangers to each other. So both love and fear, as we culturally experience it, are primarily cultural derivatives. Any formula of thinking to address either would likely be culturally specific.

..any attempt to create a one size fits all manor of addressing such things would have to be thick with both group and individualized projection. :)

Actually, the primal male fear I described is one referenced widely by sociobiogists. Although they tend to look for justification and thus to stress the need for men psychologically to be assured of or less anxious about the "legitimacy' of the offspring. Of course, that's arguably not the only or even primary reason...other ego-centred reasons are equally primary. Regardless, the (in)ability to possess, control, and solely dominate one's sexual outlets has been identified as a primal male fear, underscoring social control, social hierarchies, sexual control and the resulting female oppression and subjugation, and so forth.

It all amounts to the same thing...a universal, primal male need to control the woman, which has been translated or built into the social hierarchy of all agrarian and post-agrarian societies, and into most (but not all) prehistoric and indigenous societies, as well as in most other male primates, factoring into their social hierarchies as well.

This primal fear is no doubt managed better by some men than others, of course. That I will indeed grant you

As a society, and as a collective species, however, we are far from having successfully dealt with this issue...as the need for domination and control over women originates primarily from the individual level and the primal fear in (nearly) every man's heart...unless and until one has transmuted that fear with authentic love of the other as a person and as a soul.

Only secondarily is the imbalance and desire for control reinforced from social controls, inequality, and exploitative, imbalanced paradigms built into the collective level. If the individual level were to transmute this fear and loathing en masse, the collective structures would themselves immediately begin to undergo transformation, both the call for transformation and the reckoning.

Peace & blessings,
7L

[Gem]

Originally Posted by organic born

Wonderful reply Gem! You were raised close enough to the ground in order to appreciate the difference! We are free to think outside of nature but we need to keep track of just how far we're straying. Physically our connection with nature is seamless. While mentally we can define things in such a way that nature appears to be irrelevant. We do so however at our own risk, if we're not consciously sober about such straying.

In the book "Don't Sleep, There are Snakes" by Daniel L. Everett, he describes in some detail the results of natural living based on the tribe in South America that he spent 30 years with. These folks have never owned land, in the recorded sense, and lived historically off the land in a hunter gathers way going back for many of years. Here's a little snippet of how the their children collectively respond to such upbringing:

"What effect does a Pirahã upbringing have on a child? Pirahã teenagers, like all teenagers, are giggly and can be very squirrelly and rude. They commented that my *** was wide. They farted close to the table as soon as we were sitting down to eat, then laughed like Jerry Lewis. Apparently the profound weirdness of teenagers is universal.
But I did not see Pirahã teenagers moping, sleeping in late, refusing to accept responsibility for their own actions, or trying out what they considered to be radically new approaches to life. They in fact are highly productive and conformist members of their community in the Pirahã sense of productivity (good fishermen, contributing generally to the security, food needs, and other aspects of the physical survival of the community). One gets no sense of teenage angst, depression, or insecurity among the Pirahã youth. They do not seem to be searching for answers. They have them. And new questions rarely arise."

Not bad considering that no religions are involved, no tribunals are needed, no traffic cops behind every turn.

These cultural paradigms only become relevant as populations increase, and the need for a manor of binding our thoughts into a communal format begins exerting itself. I've been trying to explain the simplicity of this process to another member in this thread, but the fog of their convictions is far too thick to successfully penetrate. :)

But as we start binding our thoughts in order to "communicate/participate-in culture" we encounter the risk of becoming lost in our projections. The problem of getting lost in this way is quite obvious when we know what to look for.

The foods that now surround us are horrific. I'll often enter a grocery store looking for something healthy to eat and will often leave with little to nothing. If we're wanting to eat healthy we need to know a farmer or patiently learn to grow our own food. We need the bacteria from nature (on our skin and in our gut) in order to remain healthy and vibrant. Most people see bacteria as dangerous and try to kill it. Loony toons... And for the most part we view each other with suspicion. We are loosely bound together with our neighbors, with little to no history, so we tend to "maneuver" in relation to their habits. And there's no way that I'd visit a doctor for anything other that blunt trauma injury. Even at that I wouldn't take the drugs that they give me.

As a species we have strayed some distance from our biological center and no amount of conceptualized "spirituality" will resolve this gulf in a synthetic way. We're needing to get back to the basics. Dreaming alone won't cut it.

I think what humanity has been doing is progressively becoming more and more 'virtual'.

'Virtual' is now used to describe 'cyberspace', but in the perceived separation between man nature, man by definition is a 'virtual entity'. As civilisation becomes increasingly complex the 'society' becomes a more complex set of symbols. To understand what a symbol is, it is a 'paradigm which has meaning', so up and down, while having no inherent existence, is a meaningful paradigm. We see this is one step removed from the real.

Our knowledge is based on this sort of paradigm, so when we observe the 'raw data', although there is no meaning inherent to it, we can interpret it into symbolic representations, and say 'we know'. This is clearly demonstrated in the hardest school of knowledge, physics, which has only become increasingly abstract, so much so, 'if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics'. All of this stuff, our computers, are constructed on these most abstract quantum descriptions, and civilisation in the information age is entirely reliant on such abstraction, and we have such a thing as 'cyberspace'.

It didn't happen suddenly. It manifested over thousands of years, so what we think of as virtual (which manifested as 'cyberspace') pre-existed cyberspace itself. "Virtuality" is in essence and abstract way of 'understanding', which is 'making meaning' of the natural world, and this is so tacit and subtle that it becomes 'the way in which people see the world'. When this way of seeing is misconstrued as 'the way things are', man becomes like a dreamer who while dreaming thinks the dream is real. It is, of course, all produced by his mind.

As this virtual state of mind became convincing, the thoughts covered nature, and are taken as real, so people in general already live in a virtual world, thinking all their imagery is real, and not recognising that it is a dream of their own construction. In the future I speculate that 'virtual reality' of digital worlds will so accurate represent the world we really live in that if one forgets they are immersed in the machine they will honestly believe that they are in the world itself, so this coming of the Q-bit age is really a manifestation of what has already been increasingly the case in the non-digital world.

This goes a bit deeper, because the implication is, we can't 'know' if the world which we perceive is real. Perhaps the lyrics, "Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily - Life is but a dream," could be taken literally. If so, the huge irony of all this is, even the 'real world' which we have become so removed from is, in itself, one step removed from 'reality'.

Yes. 'Reality' ever recedes as knowledge pursues it, and as knowledge strives to reach it, ironically, we become increasingly 'virtual' beings. Soon enough cyberspace will provide, not a virtual world, but an alternative reality, in the sense that what we consider to be 'the real world' is itself not 'real'.