The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins

[Ahuaeynjxs]

Oh you mean the cosmic christ thigny... yeah, thats not earth

I see a similat phenomenon happening daily about collective lucid dreaming, more in the imagination realm than actual dreams.

It creates networks, not unlike the internet, and gives a similitude of global consciousness thats totally independant from religions and mysticism, which has much more influence in our daily living than any form of physical organisation.

I would like to highlight that Wonka here wants to limit the imagination to "around you" and you will notice all his moves are to keep the children from looking UP, quite a bit of violence, he even pulls a hair from one of the child robbing him of a part of his power. "symbolically"

Then you see him planting his cane into the green deadly amanita which symbolises the toxic mushroom as seen in Mario brothers, which symbolises parasitic fungi that keep humans from establishing firm symbiosis with the amanita.

I'm glad I fell on this one, it explains very well how songs and physical prowess and glamour can be used to "taint" the realm of imagination and limit it to being drugged with "candies" and exploring crazyness.

See how those people are munching on the candies, and how that woman only seems to eat the white universal veil (inactive) part of the amanita mushroom ; interesting, even if it wasn't done on purpose. (I hope)

universal veil... this is making so much sense.[/i]

 

[Ahuaeynjxs]

Incredible... as I was closing it I noticed at around 2:20 the girl seems to be holding something structured to make a difference, it looks like the 7 chakras that are superposed over her own in a way, like she was munching from her own kundhalini (I know, far fetched but STILL)... then Wonka passes by and knocks a gummy bear in her hands, and she forgets about the chakras to munch on the bear.

INTENSE :lol:

I mean thats DEEP symbolism... the first religions were the bear religions in prehistoric men, they used to make a huge ritual out of eating it, thats very universal.

Incredible the amount of subconscious manipulations we can find in children movies...

 

[Ahuaeynjxs]

Ok so it seems I'm not THAT delusional...

And to end this digression on a funny note :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsE0UOz1 ... re=related

:lol:

 

[Brugmansia]

Earth consciousness hardly fits in the equation... you rather mean who maybe the earth thinks it is interpreted by people who have the rest of the equation in mind

The human mind as a similar attribute as a shovel. Can I say exalted? It is too dreary to even note you as a joker now.

 

[Ahuaeynjxs]

Like WE didn't know it would end up that way...

*turns the other cheek*

 

[Brugmansia]

I'm not angry or provocative.

This forum is about entheogenic initiation, we are not offering theoretical knowledge in first instance. We are offering the possibility to choose, actual choice through the founded self.

The purpose is to accompany other people to get them there, to the point from where they can choose direction by only their very own self.

It's much more complex and totally different than reading metaphors, consciousness is very vulnerable for falling into a direction that's not actual interest if in the middle of becoming enlighted. It can happen with something that catches the eye at the wrong moment.

You've diminished this for quite some time now; 'no answer, never getting out of the puzzel, not solving the riddle, doubtful' and so on.

Just don't change topic discussions into complete other directions. Whatever entheogens have done for you, which you said wasn't much, remember that others who're encountering this forum, ain't getting much constructive support if they are reading lots of various theories all over while they also read that initiation is very minor.

"turning the other cheek" that's what a Christian would say who follows Jesus.

 

[Ahuaeynjxs]

Well noone ever told me you had a hate network with initiation rituals in here...

I read it as a psychonaut community.

*turns the other cheek* I don't really follow Jesus, we all know it's the sun, and I know I should follow it... cycles of the sun make for a healthy lifestyle.

But anyhow I'm not going to fight for hate, nor love. You have totally missed my point...

It's ok... as I said I have been ridiculed before, hope you're having a good time.

 

[Brugmansia]

I appreciated your posts about health, they were educative and we share that part closely. Just don't diminish initiation as a sun follower. :wink: You're loved. :goodman: :heart:

 

[GOD]

"turning the other cheek"

Can mean showing someone your arse .

 

[Crimzen]

People don't want to see that because they know subconsciously that the established institution that teaches those things are biased, not because their research is not right, but because the knowledge has been disseminated according to a pattern that striked up the fear that has been implanted into them at a very early age.

Sure evolution, but the greeks heck were more evolved than we are socially, what happened to evolution then ?

You see what I mean, the schism is so large that some people will have a cardiac arrest just by realising something that proves the schism ; it's a schism in a schism.

I would be considered an atheist by religious people, because I beleive in nothing, but I feel the presence of the fractality of this world and if a scientist tells me there is no life on the sun because it's too hot ; I will accuse him of dogma.

If life is fractal according to science, you cannot tell me there is no life on the sun, or even in the large masses of suns in the middle of the galaxy, where there is obviously too much light to theoretically support life. (the suns are very close to each other)

Hope this perspective helps resolve your question

evolution has nothing to do with social issues
"social evolution" isnt evolution, evolution is genetic

 

[Crimzen]

To me Dawkins is a mindnumbed version of Krishnamurti:

The hypothetical doubtful teen who is looking for something that makes sense doesn't need Dawkins, he need to convince himself of what truth is.

His arguments are not that strong IMHO, because he misrepresents religion, reduces it to something onedimensional. He takes everything too literal, just like a lot of believers out there, instead of learning from the wisdom embedded in some of these ancient texts. Monotheism isn't a bearded man on a cloud, it is much more than that. By reducing religion to a charicature, he is himself reduced to a charicature of someone that has a critical perspective. Dawkins is no real critic of religion, like he claims to be, he fights stupidity and taking things for granted, but this happens in (the practice of) science as well as in religion, it is a common human trait. Projecting all of this on religion is quite ignorant, to say the least.

he doesnt misrepresent religion, he represent the general religious society, and of course hes going to take things literally.. hes a scientist, he actualy commends deists for not being so mindless
and how can you possibly believe Dawkins projects all stupidity on religion? sure he'll project it where its due and if hes writing a book about religion why would he bring up the stupidity of everything/one else? that'd be way off topic not to mention it would take many many years

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

Here are some short videos featuring Richard Dawkins I do not find unreasonable at all:
"What if you're wrong? "
Dawkins on Bill O'Reilly
On Bill Maher
Nice!

 

[Forkbender]

he doesnt misrepresent religion, he represent the general religious society, and of course hes going to take things literally.. hes a scientist, he actualy commends deists for not being so mindless
and how can you possibly believe Dawkins projects all stupidity on religion? sure he'll project it where its due and if hes writing a book about religion why would he bring up the stupidity of everything/one else? that'd be way off topic not to mention it would take many many years

he represents general religious society.
general religious society is not religion.
taking things literally is stupid in case of myth/religion. even scientists know that.
the reason I said he was projecting, is because he takes a human trait found in many religious people and assumes religion is wrong because religious people are wrong. That is not scientific, nor logical, nor right. He takes all the crap within religion in the broader sense that makes it unreligious and then says: that is wrong, therefore religion as a whole is wrong. And he is wrong about that. The analogy would be: many scientists make mistakes in designing their studies and have faulty conclusions because they misinterpret data. Therefore science is wrong. That is bullshit, and you would agree to that.