Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2021 16:11:07 GMT -5
[...] Prometheus with Charlize Theron is another interesting one. It's about the origins of the human species. And how they envision - from their materialistic perspective on steroids, as you say - meeting our maker(s) would look like. Pathetic!  Haha. I hated that movie. I had such high hopes because Alien, and Aliens were great - classics. But Prometheus was just so stupid. A trillion dollar ship and her plan for medical quarantine procedure is to be a b*tch with a flamethrower on the loading ramp. Or the scientist who sees an alien cobra hissing at him and his response is to say "here kitty" and try to pet it. And the sequel was about the same. They just can't tell a good story much any more. The imagery is cool, but the writing... ugg. It frustrates me. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 17, 2021 22:19:21 GMT -5
Yes, a virtual reality is still the physical reality. And it is a world scaled down to the limits of the intellect. That's why it is devoid of any meaning or purpose, something that tends to be characteristic for humans. Which means in the end, these virtual worlds will prove to be incredibly unfulfilling, exactly like those movies that promote such ideas. I've watched a lot of these movies. And while intellectually stimulating, emotionally and especially spiritually I find them to be rather draining. But that's just me. Some others may see that differently. Prometheus with Charlize Theron is another interesting one. It's about the origins of the human species. And how they envision - from their materialistic perspective on steroids, as you say - meeting our maker(s) would look like. Pathetic! Yeah, I'm not a film connoisseur, but watch a fair few, and I often find sci-fi a bit bleak and draining, largely because the assumptions that many of them start from are so questionable. Ex-Machina was an interesting film, I couldn't fault its assumptions, but I ended the film with a shudder and knew I would never watch it again.. I did enjoy Interstellar and Arrival. Haven't seen Prometheus, I just have a gut feeling I'm not going to enjoy it. Even those 'virtual reality' headsets I struggle to see the point in. I mean, I guess I do get it... when life is painful, we seek to distance ourselves and distract ourselves, and so in that sense, the headset makes sense, and is even fun. But there's something more glorious than ever these days about just watching a spider, or spending time with a pet, or sitting out on the grass. For me, it's definitely been the case that the increase in dystopia in the last year has increased my appreciation for what is natural and untouched by human anxiety. There are different kinds of these movies. Some just explore what happens when humans interact with machines. Some other movies explore what happens when the line between humans and machines gets blurred. And then there are the really weird ones that take on topics that usually only religions can answer. And those movies are more of the eerie kind, almost crossing into the horror genre. Ex-Machina is basically about machines passing the Turing Test and how humans can get fooled by it. It's one of the better movies, IMO, because it doesn't require such a big leap of faith for the viewer. It seems very plausible given the technologies available now (at least those technologies we know of). So there's a high degree of realism. There's one catch though, those robots that are indistinguishable from real humans are all played by actual humans. So by attempting to make it more real, using real humans, they make it less real, less believable. There's another interesting movie though, Robot & Frank. It's about an elderly man who lives alone and suffers from dementia. So his family, who all live far away, decide to buy him a robot to keep an eye on him and to help him out. It's one of those robots you see on youtube that can walk, talk, carry things and give directions, pretty low-tech in comparison to Ex-Machina or I-Robot. First he doesn't like the idea but he soon realizes that the robot is actually useful and fun to play with. At one point, he decides to use the robot to assist him on a heist. That's where the fun starts. This movie you are going to enjoy. Prometheus you are not going to like. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 17, 2021 22:40:42 GMT -5
[...] Prometheus with Charlize Theron is another interesting one. It's about the origins of the human species. And how they envision - from their materialistic perspective on steroids, as you say - meeting our maker(s) would look like. Pathetic! Haha. I hated that movie. I had such high hopes because Alien, and Aliens were great - classics. But Prometheus was just so stupid. A trillion dollar ship and her plan for medical quarantine procedure is to be a b*tch with a flamethrower on the loading ramp. Or the scientist who sees an alien cobra hissing at him and his response is to say "here kitty" and try to pet it. And the sequel was about the same. They just can't tell a good story much any more. The imagery is cool, but the writing... ugg. It frustrates me. Yeah, the plot is pretty thin. I guess they think they can make up lack of story with CGI and special effects. That's a huge mistake, IMO. Most movies these day are almost 100% green screen produced. The technology is really good, but it still feels somewhat synthetic. The shadows are a bit off, and mostly everything instead of being lit by a light source, it's slightly glowing. What I've also noticed is that they tend to give these movies now a yellowish tinge, like you see on old photographs and the story plots are often really depressing. But that's just Hollywood. Not sure if my taste has changed or if Hollywood movies have become mostly tasteless. There are always excellent indie movies though, and foreign language movies. There was actually a Spanish movie with Penelope Cruz, Abre los ojos, which Hollywood reproduced as Vanilla Sky with Tom Cruise , about virtual reality and someone living in a virtual reality who then is slowly being reintroduced to actual physical reality. The Spanish original is excellent, the Hollywood version a bit flat. So if you haven't seen the Spanish original, I'll recommend it. That way you can also practice your language skills, hehe. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 18, 2021 4:36:32 GMT -5
[...] Prometheus with Charlize Theron is another interesting one. It's about the origins of the human species. And how they envision - from their materialistic perspective on steroids, as you say - meeting our maker(s) would look like. Pathetic! Haha. I hated that movie. I had such high hopes because Alien, and Aliens were great - classics. But Prometheus was just so stupid. A trillion dollar ship and her plan for medical quarantine procedure is to be a b*tch with a flamethrower on the loading ramp. Or the scientist who sees an alien cobra hissing at him and his response is to say "here kitty" and try to pet it. And the sequel was about the same. They just can't tell a good story much any more. The imagery is cool, but the writing... ugg. It frustrates me. Yeah, I get that. The alien-seeding theory is one of those stories that I don't buy into, but that it's fun to follow in the imagination, and, I mean, did you get a load of those pyramids? The flute theme was kind of haunting, and I'm a big fan of all the actors in both of these movies (Fassbender, for example) - rented Prometheus from redbox not even knowing it was an Alien film, probly would have passed on it otherwise. Even though I've always disdained the franchise as purile, I have to admit that Scott's ability to repetitively re-create that interlude of the ship crew during gestation - the social realism, the ordinary space of banter - that's pure genius that never gets old. Even though you know what's gonna' happen .. the med-bay scene in the sequel was one of the best action sequences I've seen in years .. the red-head's terror was rather compelling, an echo of the thread of Commodore Decker, a real sense of swimming through molasses in a nightmare-dreamscape. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 19, 2021 11:08:16 GMT -5
Russell's new video is excellent and relates quite strongly to this topic imo
It addresses particularly the difference between a spiritual approach to living and a materialist approach to living (the title of the video strikes me as being a 'clickbait' title, and the video is better than the title suggests).
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 23, 2021 1:06:32 GMT -5
Russell's new video is excellent and relates quite strongly to this topic imo It addresses particularly the difference between a spiritual approach to living and a materialist approach to living (the title of the video strikes me as being a 'clickbait' title, and the video is better than the title suggests). I'm not sure what this had to do with transhumanism or solipsism, but this here caught my attention: "You cannot accumulate massive wealth without a deficit. Whenever you see huge wealth it indicates a deficit. Even for me on a personal level, for me to have this phone and this laptop means other people had to suffer..."Such a bogus belief! These people believe in shortage, not abundance. In order create abundance for all you have to first believe in abundance yourself. The zero-sum-game model of economy is such a bogus model. It assumes that economy is a closed system. But it never is. There will be new inventions and the economic pie keeps growing and growing. That woman is teaching nonsense. Gates is not in the way of more abundance for the people. The people are in the way of more abundance for the people because they entertain bogus beliefs. The first step is to take Gates out of the equation. He is not the problem. The problem is to think that he is the problem by taking more than his fair share and since there is only so much to go around, the more he takes the more remains for all the others. Bogus! |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 23, 2021 1:11:47 GMT -5
Haha. I hated that movie. I had such high hopes because Alien, and Aliens were great - classics. But Prometheus was just so stupid. A trillion dollar ship and her plan for medical quarantine procedure is to be a b*tch with a flamethrower on the loading ramp. Or the scientist who sees an alien cobra hissing at him and his response is to say "here kitty" and try to pet it. And the sequel was about the same. They just can't tell a good story much any more. The imagery is cool, but the writing... ugg. It frustrates me. Yeah, I get that. The alien-seeding theory is one of those stories that I don't buy into, but that it's fun to follow in the imagination, and, I mean, did you get a load of those pyramids? The flute theme was kind of haunting, and I'm a big fan of all the actors in both of these movies (Fassbender, for example) - rented Prometheus from redbox not even knowing it was an Alien film, probly would have passed on it otherwise. Even though I've always disdained the franchise as purile, I have to admit that Scott's ability to repetitively re-create that interlude of the ship crew during gestation - the social realism, the ordinary space of banter - that's pure genius that never gets old. Even though you know what's gonna' happen .. the med-bay scene in the sequel was one of the best action sequences I've seen in years .. the red-head's terror was rather compelling, an echo of the thread of Commodore Decker, a real sense of swimming through molasses in a nightmare-dreamscape. They do play around with archetypes, in all those movies. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 23, 2021 1:12:52 GMT -5
Here we go...
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 23, 2021 5:34:54 GMT -5
Russell's new video is excellent and relates quite strongly to this topic imo It addresses particularly the difference between a spiritual approach to living and a materialist approach to living (the title of the video strikes me as being a 'clickbait' title, and the video is better than the title suggests). I'm not sure what this had to do with transhumanism or solipsism, but this here caught my attention: "You cannot accumulate massive wealth without a deficit. Whenever you see huge wealth it indicates a deficit. Even for me on a personal level, for me to have this phone and this laptop means other people had to suffer..."Such a bogus belief! These people believe in shortage, not abundance. In order create abundance for all you have to first believe in abundance yourself. The zero-sum-game model of economy is such a bogus model. It assumes that economy is a closed system. But it never is. There will be new inventions and the economic pie keeps growing and growing. That woman is teaching nonsense. Gates is not in the way of more abundance for the people. The people are in the way of more abundance for the people because they entertain bogus beliefs. The first step is to take Gates out of the equation. He is not the problem. The problem is to think that he is the problem by taking more than his fair share and since there is only so much to go around, the more he takes the more remains for all the others. Bogus! Well, capitalism is a collective system born out of collective false belief...a belief in lack, a belief that 'having an advantageous edge over others' is useful and necessary. It is true in this context that having our cell phones and laptops caused suffering. If you are in any doubt about that, ask yourself if you would buy something which you knew was created in an abominable sweat shop where kids are physically suffering a lot, and that your purchase would contribute to that suffering. In a spiritual (LOA) sense, I agree they are wrong. It is possible for people to have wonderful things and others not suffer, but the spiritual truth of the matter is not yet one that we have collectively....or even individually....manifested. That's where 'the golden age' comes in...'the age of aquarius' etc. In the meantime I would say it IS useful to be conscious of how our purchases and actions in general affect the planet. I guess you don't throw plastic in the ocean, even though the spiritual truth of the matter is that you are not hurting the fish. (In case it's not clear, that's not saying that communism is the answer). |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 23, 2021 5:48:20 GMT -5
In regard to transhumanism, transhumanism is materalism on steroids. It expresses an absolute disconnect from who we are as organic and spiritual beings, in a relationship of giving and receiving with the world around us. Transhumanism is about conquest and control, it's about getting an edge over....and colonizing.... the human body. It's actually an inevitable extension of capitalism (really quite close to Marx' predictions)
The video quite strongly addresses some of these themes imo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2021 6:47:10 GMT -5
Well, capitalism is a collective system born out of collective false belief...a belief in lack, a belief that 'having an advantageous edge over others' is useful and necessary. I doubt it. That statement itself sounds like a false belief about a thing called capitalism. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 23, 2021 7:48:49 GMT -5
Well, capitalism is a collective system born out of collective false belief...a belief in lack, a belief that 'having an advantageous edge over others' is useful and necessary. I doubt it. That statement itself sounds like a false belief about a thing called capitalism. In a universe known to be abundant, and in accordance with LOA principles, there is simply no need to ever compete over resources, or seek advantage over another. There is NEVER any lack, nor perception of lack. There would be no profit, no accumulation, no savings, no 'business', no insurance. In truth, a grain of sand is 'worth' as much as a mansion, and both can be as easily manifested. 'Ask and it is Given''. (The concept of 'worth' is actually a false concept itself) In its essence, capitalism, as a system, goes back to the allegory Cain and Able, and the fall of the Garden of Eden. We have lived in a system of false belief for probably thousands of years, but things change. A great many are learning to consciously create and consciously manifest, based on true principles. That signifies quite a big evolutionary change in itself. To be clear, 'capitalism' isn't a thing like an 'apple' is, it's more a system of functioning. It's quite an abstract one, because it requires us to 'weigh up' how much something is worth, and then 'trade' based on our perception of how much something is worth. It's all false. I'd be surprised if many animals engage in bartering based on arbitrary relative values. They'll fight for what they want obviously, but don't weigh up its worth for trading purposes. I would argue that the belief in a 'lack' universe is the deepest false belief, for deeper than the belief in a 'separate self'. I would even say the belief in 'lack' perpetuates and underpins. the 'separate self'. In an abundant universe, there's just no NEED for a 'separate self'. What would you need it for? It's essentially a protective and defensive device. In the absence of lack, that device no longer serves any purpose at all. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2021 8:56:35 GMT -5
I doubt it. That statement itself sounds like a false belief about a thing called capitalism. In a universe known to be abundant, and in accordance with LOA principles, there is simply no need to ever compete over resources, or seek advantage over another. There is NEVER any lack, nor perception of lack. There would be no profit, no accumulation, no savings, no 'business', no insurance. In truth, a grain of sand is 'worth' as much as a mansion, and both can be as easily manifested. 'Ask and it is Given''. (The concept of 'worth' is actually a false concept itself) In its essence, capitalism, as a system, goes back to the allegory Cain and Able, and the fall of the Garden of Eden. We have lived in a system of false belief for probably thousands of years, but things change. A great many are learning to consciously create and consciously manifest, based on true principles. That signifies quite a big evolutionary change in itself. To be clear, 'capitalism' isn't a thing like an 'apple' is, it's more a system of functioning. It's quite an abstract one, because it requires us to 'weigh up' how much something is worth, and then 'trade' based on our perception of how much something is worth. It's all false. I'd be surprised if many animals engage in bartering based on arbitrary relative values. They'll fight for what they want obviously, but don't weigh up its worth for trading purposes. I would argue that the belief in a 'lack' universe is the deepest false belief, for deeper than the belief in a 'separate self'. I would even say the belief in 'lack' perpetuates and underpins. the 'separate self'. In an abundant universe, there's just no NEED for a 'separate self'. What would you need it for? It's essentially a protective and defensive device. In the absence of lack, that device no longer serves any purpose at all. " There would be no profit, no accumulation, no savings, no 'business', no insurance." The teaching "there is no lack" means those things are not lack. It's not those things that are the problem, it's the ideas that they are bad and represent only "lack" or "competition over resources" . Drop the ideas, not the things. Yes, if someone believes they've acquired something real and permanent when they have a number in a bank account, they are delusional. But when the delusion drops, bank accounts don't go away. They are just flow in a financial system, which is required. Otherwise you get to the absurd hippie belief that it is "spiritual" to trade an apple for $100K. Do you want to do that right now? I didn't think so. That's because it's a head trip and you don't actually believe it's "false value". Business/"capitalism" is not all some mean-spirited competition over resources. Of course there are some douchebags in business, as everywhere. But it's also creative play, exchange, freedom, deals, risk, gambling. It's glorious, and you can lose money if you're not careful. Oops. Other animals do recognize relative value. They just aren't as complex about it obviously. A squirrel saves some nuts. A lion chooses to protect her cubs over catching a prey animal, and chooses a gazelle over a 2-pound prairie rodent. The buffalo herd moves to the greener pasture, or the land with water, etc., etc. There's a really funny video online, of a monkey that get's pissed when he's given a cucumber while his neighbor monkey keeps receiving grapes. He then throws the cucumber back at the human running the experiment. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2021 8:58:30 GMT -5
Other animals do recognize relative value. [...] There's a really funny video online, of a monkey that get's pissed when he's given a cucumber while his neighbor monkey keeps receiving grapes. He then throws the cucumber back at the human running the experiment. Here it is. I love it: |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 23, 2021 9:29:45 GMT -5
In a universe known to be abundant, and in accordance with LOA principles, there is simply no need to ever compete over resources, or seek advantage over another. There is NEVER any lack, nor perception of lack. There would be no profit, no accumulation, no savings, no 'business', no insurance. In truth, a grain of sand is 'worth' as much as a mansion, and both can be as easily manifested. 'Ask and it is Given''. (The concept of 'worth' is actually a false concept itself) In its essence, capitalism, as a system, goes back to the allegory Cain and Able, and the fall of the Garden of Eden. We have lived in a system of false belief for probably thousands of years, but things change. A great many are learning to consciously create and consciously manifest, based on true principles. That signifies quite a big evolutionary change in itself. To be clear, 'capitalism' isn't a thing like an 'apple' is, it's more a system of functioning. It's quite an abstract one, because it requires us to 'weigh up' how much something is worth, and then 'trade' based on our perception of how much something is worth. It's all false. I'd be surprised if many animals engage in bartering based on arbitrary relative values. They'll fight for what they want obviously, but don't weigh up its worth for trading purposes. I would argue that the belief in a 'lack' universe is the deepest false belief, for deeper than the belief in a 'separate self'. I would even say the belief in 'lack' perpetuates and underpins. the 'separate self'. In an abundant universe, there's just no NEED for a 'separate self'. What would you need it for? It's essentially a protective and defensive device. In the absence of lack, that device no longer serves any purpose at all. " There would be no profit, no accumulation, no savings, no 'business', no insurance." The teaching "there is no lack" means those things are not lack. It's not those things that are the problem, it's the ideas that they are bad and represent only "lack" or "competition over resources" . Drop the ideas, not the things. Yes, if someone believes they've acquired something real and permanent when they have a number in a bank account, they are delusional. But when the delusion drops, bank accounts don't go away. They are just flow in a financial system, which is required. Otherwise you get to the absurd hippie belief that it is "spiritual" to trade an apple for $100K. Do you want to do that right now? I didn't think so. That's because it's a head trip and you don't actually believe it's "false value". Business/"capitalism" is not all some mean-spirited competition over resources. Of course there are some douchebags in business, as everywhere. But it's also creative play, exchange, freedom, deals, risk, gambling. It's glorious, and you can lose money if you're not careful. Oops. Other animals do recognize relative value. They just aren't as complex about it obviously. A squirrel saves some nuts. A lion chooses to protect her cubs over catching a prey animal, and chooses a gazelle over a 2-pound prairie rodent. The buffalo herd moves to the greener pasture, or the land with water, etc., etc. There's a really funny video online, of a monkey that get's pissed when he's given a cucumber while his neighbor monkey keeps receiving grapes. He then throws the cucumber back at the human running the experiment. I wouldn't ''trade'' an apple for a house, because if I am still functioning as part of a capitalist system of ''trade'', it wouldn't make contextual sense, but I would theoretically GIVE a house away. Why wouldn't I? There is nothing I wouldn't give away in a universe in which ''ask and it is given'' and I KNOW that the universe is infinitely abundant in its resources (as opposed to finitely abundant...i.e 'lack') The whole point of manifesting is to 'give and receive'. It's not to 'earn, buy, sell', though those things are still happening until we achieve a higher degree of mastery, and release the old defunct system. They key point that I think you missed in what I said, is that I DO still carry a belief in false value, I still function within a false collective system. But I also understand it is false, and my general 'evolution' is to continue to release falsity and manifest a true reflection of actual universal principles. Simply because it reflects my highest desire. So yes we have a financial system now, but it's born out of false belief, which I continue to manifest (until I dont). And I agree capitalism isn't all bad, it's been a necessary evolutionary process that has brought some really good things with it. I'd take capitalism over communism, but I think both are expressions of false belief. You gave me some animal examples, but as you point out, the animals aren't functioning to the same degree of abstraction we are. The squirrel instinctively saves nuts, but when another squirrel comes along, he doesn't think, ''how many squirrels shall I offer for that apple i.e how much are these squirrels WORTH in relation to that apple''. Even the monkey isn't thinking in terms of ''worth'' there. The concepts of ''worth'' and ''value'' are uniquely human, and uniquely false. |
|
