Ron Reagan Jr. Not Afraid of Burning in Hell

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  2124
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
16 April 2020 14:51
PermieMan
 
Avatar
 
 
PermieMan
Total Posts:  85
Joined  08-12-2019
 
 
 
23 April 2020 12:23
 

While I am not Buddhist, I do not find the need to rule out the possibility of reincarnation…

 
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  9258
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
24 April 2020 13:19
 
PermieMan - 23 April 2020 12:23 PM

While I am not Buddhist, I do not find the need to rule out the possibility of reincarnation…

In Richard Dawkins’ book, ‘THE MAGIC OF REALITY - How we know what’s really true’ - there’s an illustration showing a thin sheet of paper representing our parents, grandparents, great grandparents all the way back to the time we were fish.  These sheets of thin paper formed a stack maybe a mile high or more.  Imagine if each sheet had a photo of the ‘couple’ on it.  Look, let’s pull this sheet our from about 400 million years ago.  Here’s grandpa when he first crawled out of the water.

Was it Buddha who said he remembered other lives?  (without the self)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hDDwBEobtk

 
 
agar
 
Avatar
 
 
agar
Total Posts:  2
Joined  06-01-2019
 
 
 
24 April 2020 20:04
 

To whom this may be of some interest:
Excerpts from:  https://whereto1.blogspot.com/2019/02/excerpts-from-httpssites.html
A layman’s one-time blog, article, essay, whatever

            “out there” into “in here”

The evolution of human thought is a leap from an organism reliance on its senses to navigate its environment. From the need of “memory” to identify and react in order to survive “out there”, evolving into memory as an “intellect” and “experiencing” mechanism.  In time, the ability to translate, interpret, manipulate what is in memory evolving into symbolic “thinking”. The human species adapted to a reality of knowing, the “out there” into “in here”, a private materialistic world of ideas in the tiny corner of the head. 

From the primitive process of identifications and reactions in order to survive, evolving into the symbolic process of identities and recognitions. Nuanced into a concreteness of “things” and “ideas”, the artifacts of knowing and thinking.

In the reality of human thought in the space of memory is the conceptual division of space and time.  In the here and there, this and that of space, and the past-present-future continuity of time.  In a sense of existence made concrete by a self-validating and self-affirming illusory knower.  Psychologically and existentially trapped in the state of knowing, the knower “lives” in its inner world where questions are from answers framed in things and ideas.

The images of the “presence” of things and ideas in the inner world empowers human thought to be the “living” reality where everything is a thing whether abstracted as a thing or an idea.  As such, every thing is a commodity, invested with values from the conditioning of the knower and of culture.  Including values on values,  in the mirroring to self-reflect, as in to own and to be the owner, ideas into ideals, free will to be free, the more the better, so on and on.  Round and round it goes from in the knowing to be the knower,  to different levels and layers in the valuing of things and ideas.  Something to itself in the one and the other.  And in the pursuit of eye-to-eye contact with the one and the other, a reinforced mirage of.“consciousness” in the space of memory of the inner world.


The natural world, all there is “out there” is not of the known.  It is not of the world of memory, not in the world of human thought.  What is in memory is not “out there” in the sense that a reflection in the mirror is not “out there” as the reflected.  What seems obvious however is also muddled because the knower “lives” in memory,  but not “out there”.  Yet it is the very image of the reflected in the reflection of the organism that gives “concreteness” to the movement of thought in the space of memory.  The knower validating its “presence” and the “presence” of things and ideas in its inner world,  with its hoardings of identities and recognitions.

And importantly, a knower that “sees” itself also to be outside the inner world, extending its existential and experiential states in an outer world.  The “out there” translated into the reality of the inner world and projected as the outer world.  Being there in the outer world,  the knower does what knowing does, to see “nature”, the outer world,  as a separate thing itself and separable into things. Thus dragging “out there”, the natural world,  into the illusory “presence” of things and ideas.  The ghost in the machine is real. The natural world, absorbed by the translation into the reality of the ghost, is nowhere to be seen.

Something to itself in its inner and outer worlds, the knower is at once separate and the center.  Being separate among other things,  the need is to know its object of knowing eye-to-eye, whether a thing or an idea, as the knower being something concrete to itself, is also concreteness in the other. 

In the movement of thought, the knower is on the move, to be something else, somewhere else. As such being there is of becoming.  Not of “what-is” but of images, of “what-is-it-like-to-be-this-or-that”, “what-is-it-like-to-be-the-other”.  In the imagemaking of what-is-it-like-to-be is the knower’s existential need to fabricate questions of being and becoming.  The preoccupation in the pursuit of ideals like happiness, ownership, truth, ideologies, relationships, love, morality, spirituality, universality, oneness, so on and on, everything being a thing, the word and the image in the word a thing. The eye-to-eye contact is also the concreteness that reinforces conditioning, thus reinforcing the “presence” of things and ideas. 

The preoccupation of human thought in the want of control of its worlds of knowing is all visible in the daily life.  In the want of control is the dominance of the inner world over the outer world.  In the grip of the center as an individual. Or the center as a group from the grip of authority and of cultural conditioning.  Something from nothing in action. The subject of its object, ideals from ideas, comfort from security, the owner and the owned,  answers and questions, of purpose and meaning, idealizations of aspirations,  future in the hope, “solution” of the “problem”,  “ask-and-it-will-be-answered”, “imagine-and-it-will-be-real”...and on and on, on what knowing can do and can be.  Things and ideas, both commodities in the tinkering of the practical and the tinkering of identities and recognitions. The common purpose to gain control and the meaning to be in control - the human thought conditioning into being trapped and self-confined in the “presence” of things and ideas.


What is not seen in the reality of the knower is the presence of “out there”, the natural world that is not of experiencing, not of comprehension, not of knowing, not of the known,. The concreteness of the knower and the eye-to-eye contact or separation of the knower with things and ideas, and its two worlds are not “out there”.  To ask “what is it like to be” is might as well be to ask “what is it like to be me”. For the answers are from the known, where every question is from a beginning -  the “presence” of things and ideas. The seeming contradiction is caused by the need and the futility to communicate that all communication hides what can not be communicated.  For in the wants and preoccupation with the-more-and-the-better is not what is immeasurable, in the same sense that “out there” is not of the known and thus can not be known.

Being there is of the “presence” of things and ideas,  of what is not the presence of “out there”. There has to be something, there has to be knowing.  As such, being there is of the knower, of a reality confined to knowing, confined to the “presence” of things and ideas.  As such, there can not be eye-to-eye contact in the presence of “out there” for there is no one when there is no other. The force in the presence of “out there” is the force of “out there”.  As such is the force in the thunderbolt in the question, crudely put, that has no beginning and can not be asked: “What happens looking at one’s outer world without being there?”

 
Q
 
Avatar
 
 
Q
Total Posts:  40
Joined  04-05-2020
 
 
 
04 May 2020 18:17
 
MrRon - 16 April 2020 02:51 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7996hjxbJ_I

Enjoy.
Ron

I did indeed, MrRon. Thank you. I listened to the beginning, will finish it later. I like Ron R Jr. I like the way he speaks and thinks, with interesting family dynamics. I remember the same thing as a kid, I didn’t buy it either. Just that short segment brought to mind a few things re Atheism. For instance, I recall seeing a Pew Research Survey years ago, rating American Christians’ perceived threats to American values, in order. There was a lengthy list, probably 10-20 as I recall. But, number one on the list was - Atheist; 2nd - Homosexual; 3rd - Muslim. Another thing he reminded me of was, for several years, a group of friends and I would have dinner out once a week. One of the single ladies in the group who was in her 70s, Republican, living comfortably let’s say, was surprised when I said I was an Atheist. I’m not shy about it, but I usually bring it up when I think it’s appropriate, or when I just want to. Anyhow, she says, “But you’re too nice to be an Atheist.” Well, I won’t bore you anymore. Nice seeing you again.

 
Q
 
Avatar
 
 
Q
Total Posts:  40
Joined  04-05-2020
 
 
 
04 May 2020 18:44
 
agar - 24 April 2020 08:04 PM

To whom this may be of some interest:


Being there is of the “presence” of things and ideas,  of what is not the presence of “out there”. There has to be something, there has to be knowing.  As such, being there is of the knower, of a reality confined to knowing, confined to the “presence” of things and ideas.  As such, there can not be eye-to-eye contact in the presence of “out there” for there is no one when there is no other. The force in the presence of “out there” is the force of “out there”.  As such is the force in the thunderbolt in the question, crudely put, that has no beginning and can not be asked: “What happens looking at one’s outer world without being there?”

Somehow, this reminds me of Sam Harris’ neurological study on the difference between knowledge and belief. I think he found that the same area of the brain lit up for both. From that, I’ve always been of the opinion that it demonstrated the axiom of “Garbage in - Garbage out,” thus, the importance of science in distinguishing the two.

 
Q
 
Avatar
 
 
Q
Total Posts:  40
Joined  04-05-2020
 
 
 
04 May 2020 18:59
 
unsmoked - 24 April 2020 01:19 PM
PermieMan - 23 April 2020 12:23 PM

While I am not Buddhist, I do not find the need to rule out the possibility of reincarnation…

In Richard Dawkins’ book, ‘THE MAGIC OF REALITY - How we know what’s really true’ -

Smokie, do you remember when I got all pissed off when I heard Richard Dawkins said he couldn’t be sure fairies didn’t live in the bushes?

 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  9258
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
05 May 2020 09:07
 
Q - 04 May 2020 06:59 PM
unsmoked - 24 April 2020 01:19 PM
PermieMan - 23 April 2020 12:23 PM

While I am not Buddhist, I do not find the need to rule out the possibility of reincarnation…

In Richard Dawkins’ book, ‘THE MAGIC OF REALITY - How we know what’s really true’ -

Smokie, do you remember when I got all pissed off when I heard Richard Dawkins said he couldn’t be sure fairies didn’t live in the bushes?

Q, do you have a former life on the forum?  When sitting out in the backyard or the woods in a relaxed or ‘innocent’ state of mind, you often see small moths flitting in the bushes.  It isn’t hard to remember that children see them as fairies.  They have little bodies that have a lot in common with ours plus amazing superpowers of their own.

quote:  “Would you have guessed 60%? That’s right, 60% of the DNA code of fruit flies and humans is identical. That means that most human genes and insect genes are the same and function very similarly.”  -  Jan 12, 2016

I like the fact that Richard Dawkins has this kind of poetic imagination . . . maybe hasn’t lost childhood sense of ‘magic’ in nature.

 
 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  2124
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
07 May 2020 06:50
 
Q - 04 May 2020 06:17 PM
MrRon - 16 April 2020 02:51 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7996hjxbJ_I

Enjoy.
Ron

I did indeed, MrRon. Thank you. I listened to the beginning, will finish it later. I like Ron R Jr. I like the way he speaks and thinks, with interesting family dynamics. I remember the same thing as a kid, I didn’t buy it either. Just that short segment brought to mind a few things re Atheism. For instance, I recall seeing a Pew Research Survey years ago, rating American Christians’ perceived threats to American values, in order. There was a lengthy list, probably 10-20 as I recall. But, number one on the list was - Atheist; 2nd - Homosexual; 3rd - Muslim. Another thing he reminded me of was, for several years, a group of friends and I would have dinner out once a week. One of the single ladies in the group who was in her 70s, Republican, living comfortably let’s say, was surprised when I said I was an Atheist. I’m not shy about it, but I usually bring it up when I think it’s appropriate, or when I just want to. Anyhow, she says, “But you’re too nice to be an Atheist.” Well, I won’t bore you anymore. Nice seeing you again.

You’re welcome, Q.

Where have we seen each other before??

Ron