Quote:
|
Originally Posted by organic born
Another dodge and weave. If you had posted what you have in any other part of the forum I suspect this would fly.. but you're making claims about the lack of differences between men and women, you're stating that we've evolved beyond our genetics and are fully conscious-spiritually so our genetics no longer matters, you're insisting that you've lived past lives and claim that your intelligence is similar in each one without seriously entertaining how unlikely that would be considering the wide range of potential variables involved.. (these, and among numerous other claims).. and you're doing so among those who take the science of investigation serious enough that we'd/I'd like to seem some support, or at least some serious introspection as to the legitimacy of such claims.
|
Organic hello there.
To be honest, I find it difficult to communicate when I have to use paragraphs to communicate a given thought due to the very different understandings some of us may have. I find over and over you've not understood me at all, and it's rather exhausting and tiresome to constantly have to clarify and correct. There's not much left over for having a meaningful exchange when that's all it is.
Ok. No, I've not said much of what you claim I've said. That is, it sounds like partial understandings and/or things taken out of context and just no longer on point. I'll try to clarify my perspectives a bit, but I don't have to do more than that. If you continue to misrepresent me, then I will continue to attribute it to the perspective gap and leave it at that. If you simply are not grasping where I'm coming from, then you may just simply need to let it go and realise that sometimes there is a perspective gap that language cannot always fully bridge, and that's alright. It is what it is.
There is no litmus test for other lifetime experiences, nor for judging anyone's personal spiritual journey from the perspective of trying to somehow rate, judge, disqualify and/or certify it. That's simply ludicrous, every bit as much as any of us presuming to tell someone else who they are or what they feel or think. That's utter rubbish and it's simply not for anyone else to define another person and who they are and what they stand for. That's for each of us to do for ourselves. I think we can all get that, and the analogy extends equally to their thoughts and experiences whenever and wherever.
I certainly didn't say there are no physical or genetic differences between men and women, as we reproduce via two primary sexes and not asexually like some plants and fungi. That would be a rather silly statement. As spiritual beings, however, we are neither "male" or "female" in any persistent or eternal sense. You experience both sexes and perhaps other variations as well across at least a handful of lifetimes, perhaps more. And based on your own individual spiritual journey and whatever you have brought forward to that point, you will have your own individual challenges and weaknesses, as well as strengths, in any given lifetime.
To think that because you are male in some lifetimes that you are also physically "male" in spirit in the sense of testosterone and a penis is also really rather silly, hahaha
There is no such thing and nor is there any reasonable basis for making such an assumption, LOL. Everyone knows the physical body is temporal whilst a good many also understand that consciousness is not temporal (or, is not temporally bound as a permanent state).
There may be certain traits or perspectives with which you resonate in spirit, but they are not lined up by earth-bound or humanoid physical gender. Cultural gender, perhaps, as that goes along with certain traits. Much of cultural gender on earth (at least at this time) is trite and oppressive and rather two-dimensional, however, so it's a very loose comparison.
As to genes and limitation, the extent to which expression of genes is malleable is potentially quite large. Much of the variance in impact of environment and of the variance in genetic malleability and expression is itself highly situational and individual. This variance can be linked to an almost endless combination of external factors and/or constitutional ones, which through trans-generational environmental impact on phenotypic expression are also never strictly "genetic" in any sort of pure or isolated sense.
At a meta level, this very individual range of genetic malleability or variance -- like the physical realm itself -- exists to facilitate a place where we can work through the concepts of authentic love and healing, and manifesting these in a concrete sense. In whatever way is right for us individually. Through lives we've chosen to experience, we can work through spiritual iniquities, tests of character, and to grapple with and strengthen our weaknesses and thus our souls, our mettle, and our moral fibre and fortitude. That is, in broad strokes, why any and all differentiation exists from one person to the next, beyond the most basic need to reproduce the species.
Quote:
As I'm it, as a result of my own investigations, both through study and among direct and comparable experiences, that much of what you insist on is off the mark. That's why I've been pointing to the scientifically-based books that I have.. for if you read any of them then your dialogue would likely be updated to reflect some of the insight that they offer. It appears to me that you've been shooting from the hip with a very eloquent but outdated dissertation. Science has been actively revolutionizing it's ability to peer into ourselves over the last decade or so, so much so that I'm rarely (aside from a very few) reading spiritually-based books anymore (after roughly 30-40 years of doing so).. simply because the current sciences are far more effective and intimately usable than the rather huge collection of spiritually speculative and non-functional reads.
I like this forum and I like this section of the forum because it affords us the ability to enumerate our concerns among subjects that are usually allowed to stand as ones "personal take on things" as such occurs within the rest of the forum. At least in this sci-ency section we can openly query as to the legitimacy of such claims. I'm simply pointing out the seemingly lax way in which you tie things together. And when questioned you retreat into dismissing the inquiry, in a socially acceptable manor/and a rather nice way, leaving the rather large holes that have accompanied your dissertation intact.
|
It's not lax and it's not outdated. There is a vast portion of our existence which cannot yet be apprehended fully or meaningfully by science. For example, mystics and healers know in concrete ways that all living forms are compilations of sentience with which our self-aware sentience can learn to interact, but this core fundamental of healing cannot yet be more than marginally apprehended by modern science because it involves the realm of consciousness. Concepts such as quantum entanglement (the existence of which no physicist can explain) reflect the interbeing or interconnectedness that the mystics have known for ages...and again, quantum physics acknowledges that consciousness is the antecedent here, even though they cannot explain any of it.
You're applying labels to me. Why? Is it because I'm not in step with your particular outlook and the way you want to or prefer to explain things in your world? That's very controlling, IMO, and it's a real turn-off to free discussion. I reject those labels and will continue to do so. You say I "do this and do that" [insert pejorative language here]. Yawn, LOL
Why would you do that? It's a waste of time and it's not respectful of others' right to their own position, IMO. Instead of labelling me and trying to define me and what I do in pejorative terms, why not try simply stating your piece without judgment and labels and without defining me as this or that?
I've read loads and loads of stuff, nearly all hard core non-fiction studies and compilations, but the overly materialistic ones framed wholly within the mainstream scientific paradigm I generally find severely lacking and extremely superficial in their attempts to make sense of things from a highly materialistic/biological perspective.
That's to be expected, as the mainstream scientific paradigm freely admits that metaphysics, the hard problem of consciousness, or HPC (or even the soft problem, as far as that goes), and the existence of free will are well beyond the bounds of their respective disciplines. Though some in physics and the neural sciences have risked careers to do research into these areas, despite much of their well-documented research being largely ignored by the mainstream. These are the scientific reads I find challenging and interesting, because in the true spirit of scientific exploration, they have chosen to keep their minds open to the fundamental flaws in the materialistic paradigm and instead they are following the theories and the facts where they lead...and not where the current paradigms demand they must go.
New research on offer from bio sciences may be somewhat insightful but most of it is severely limited and fundamentally flawed as any sort of meta theory or explanation of humankind...again because it does not and cannot yet fundamentally address what it cannot yet even include in scope from within the bounds of materialism...which is the fullness of the human spirit, and the primacy of consciousness.
Peace & blessings,
7L
Linear Mode
