Why is it that one of the tests for success in being a prophet, a viewer, a psychic, a whatnot is whether or not they made a lot of money? When you look around the world as it is now, does it appear that having or securing a lot of money is consistent with holiness, consideration, thoughtfulness, higher morality, truthfulness? Or does it…
Why is it that one of the tests for success in being a prophet, a viewer, a psychic, a whatnot is whether or not they made a lot of money? When you look around the world as it is now, does it appear that having or securing a lot of money is consistent with holiness, consideration, thoughtfulness, higher morality, truthfulness? Or does it appear differently?
If we learn that there is a significant "spiritual" component to one's ability to move beyond the body or disengage consciousness from a confined locality, and we also learn that money or desiring money is harmful to one's spiritual growth and consistency and flourishing, would we still make that test a standard?
I get the skepticism towards outlandish or slapdash claims. It is also accurate historically to notice there are various systems of remote viewing, which is a different activity from "out of body" experiences or practices. Uri Gellar, for example, emphasized coordinate remote viewing —the practice that became a part of GRILL FLAME, under an operating theory regarding the role consciousness plays in undermining what the supraconscious mind accesses when viewing. Other people practice different techniques; for example, Ed Dames, if I'm recalling correctly here, uses a more intuitive/interpretive model, with different outcomes.
For me, I'm more familiar with the Gateway techniques and practices advanced by the Monroe Institute, which don't focus so much on remote viewing as developing one's consciousness to be less inhibited, less constrained, and so more free to go beyond the physical body. Do you recall the story told about Jesus where the disciples around him were concerned about paying taxes? The story goes that Jesus instructs them to go fishing, and soon enough catch a fish with the exact amount needed to pay the tax. When you combine this with the "Render unto . . ." story, I take it the point is that focusing on material wealth and gain confines you to material concerns. When you give yourself over to a "higher power" that's orchestrating "higher events" out from the seemingly random and seemingly conspiratorial and seemingly mundane occurrences happening all around you, you find you are given a life that balances out. The more I have learned about the spiritual world, the less I have wanted a life of material wealth. Of course, I'm a poor and broke person, so maybe this is just delusion to assuage a regretful ego, when if I had applied myself and gotten my papers in order, I'd be making nice cheddar stacks and live as a village godfather like my grandfather had. Or, on the other hand, I'm working through the karma such a family history built up and I'm learning to treasure more wisely.
Either way, I agree there are many forms of psychological warfare occurring, and in this age of Endless Total War, what better weapon is there than to inculcate self-doubt in people in order to deny them the most effective and powerful force-multiplier they have: their spiritual self? You cannot use the car parked in your driveway if you don't even believe in cars; you cannot leave an unlocked room if you are thoroughly convinced to never even try the knob —why look silly? Won't you be embarrassed when it doesn't work? Only fools and clowns believe in The Outside World! You don't want to be a clown, do you? You don't want to get scammed, right?
I'm not saying any of this to say that Riordan is right-on or legitimate.
"Why is it that one of the tests for success in being a prophet, a viewer, a psychic, a whatnot is whether or not they made a lot of money?"
Read my just-written pinned comment.
Either something cannot be tested, in which case...if you can convince an observer, then they can also be convinced of nonsense. Such a person will eventually drink somebody's kool-aid. So, encouraging people to believe without tangible validation is entirely irresponsible---except insofar as it comes with a childhood lesson on the limitations of trust.
Or, this is something tangible, so why not use it to predict where investment capital is best deployed (where it will help more people realize the gains of technology by definition)?
"Can also" is not the same thing as "will be." You're making a modal argument to assert an ethical claim that's totalizing: "entirely" irresponsible. So, on the basis of what might happen, you're free to assert what is universally the case for all people, all the time, everywhere? How does that actually work?
What is a tangible test for Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems? If someone finds it convincing that no logical system inclusive of arithmetic is capable of representing all truths concerning itself within itself but cannot build a machine to test this with graspable objects, does it actually follow such a person will have nonsensical views? But if someone can build such a machine, does it actually follow such a person will never have nonsensical views?
I did offer a "why not" reason not to do something. I also offered (contextually) a broader framework to understand that why-not reason. Consider my why-not reason in the same logical form but different context: "If your powers of persuasion are so effective, why not use them to seduce any person and have all the sex you want? Why not use them where social capital is best deployed and realize the gains of evolutionary selection, having as many children as possible and securing your genetic legacy?"
It's not value-neutral to assume a "best deployment" of "investment capital;" likewise the case for "helping" people "realize the gains of technology." Notice all of the presuppositions lurking behind these terms, presuppositions others not only do not share, but might also see as seductively harmful given they are also aligned with others' interests and values, people who don't have a problem with, for example, convincing a large number of people to self-inject themselves with poison or behave in self-destructive ways conducive to becoming further dependent on state or technocratic rule. There are many reasons why you shouldn't immediately use the powers you have available to you to make yourself richer. You've read Lord of the Rings, right? The Ring is very much the Ring of Gyges in Plato's Republic, with the same ethical question attached to its use: if you *could* have the capacity to do whatever you wanted with no one to see you, no one to judge you, why not use that ability to do all the things you ever *really* wanted to do?
The research Targ and Puthoff performed and Adey's critical response to it, when the CIA leaked it in a controlled way, had enough people convinced that remote viewing was untrustworthy and ineffective —and thus closed off many minds to the other findings they did demonstrate: there is ample evidence for human involvement in something much larger than traditional "five sensory inputs" models, something akin to an active participation in fields that permitted non-local interaction. It was in the CIA's interest to maintain the narrative that psi is nonsense, kool-aid, fringe, because it not only worked to embarrass the DIA, but also discouraged people from further examining what was actually happening.
So, consider a different side of your own asserted maxim: encouraging people to disbelieve without further exploration is entirely irresponsible —as you have already made posts on this theme before, where controlled opposition, well-poisoning, and straw man takedowns are enough to convince people that there's nothing to see here, no need to look any further, nothing worthwhile to find. Move along, it's all tiresome and boring, anyway.
At any rate, it's not unhealthy to approach the world with an open mind and a curious spirit, holding onto and letting go of various frameworks, and occasionally finding one's self believing in "nonsense." From a different perspective, you yourself believe in nonsense that you find personally convincing, satisfying, and sense-making, a viewpoint you capture in the metaphor of a rounding of the earth. But from that other perspective, what you do here is convince people to deviate from the majority, from the sensible, from the sound, because you are encouraging them to believe in misinformation, disinformation, and fraud —from which you profit by soliciting subscriptions and securing funding for other projects you promote. It's an open mind that looks past that other perspective and recognizes truth is not always conveniently sensible.
Why is it that one of the tests for success in being a prophet, a viewer, a psychic, a whatnot is whether or not they made a lot of money? When you look around the world as it is now, does it appear that having or securing a lot of money is consistent with holiness, consideration, thoughtfulness, higher morality, truthfulness? Or does it appear differently?
If we learn that there is a significant "spiritual" component to one's ability to move beyond the body or disengage consciousness from a confined locality, and we also learn that money or desiring money is harmful to one's spiritual growth and consistency and flourishing, would we still make that test a standard?
I get the skepticism towards outlandish or slapdash claims. It is also accurate historically to notice there are various systems of remote viewing, which is a different activity from "out of body" experiences or practices. Uri Gellar, for example, emphasized coordinate remote viewing —the practice that became a part of GRILL FLAME, under an operating theory regarding the role consciousness plays in undermining what the supraconscious mind accesses when viewing. Other people practice different techniques; for example, Ed Dames, if I'm recalling correctly here, uses a more intuitive/interpretive model, with different outcomes.
For me, I'm more familiar with the Gateway techniques and practices advanced by the Monroe Institute, which don't focus so much on remote viewing as developing one's consciousness to be less inhibited, less constrained, and so more free to go beyond the physical body. Do you recall the story told about Jesus where the disciples around him were concerned about paying taxes? The story goes that Jesus instructs them to go fishing, and soon enough catch a fish with the exact amount needed to pay the tax. When you combine this with the "Render unto . . ." story, I take it the point is that focusing on material wealth and gain confines you to material concerns. When you give yourself over to a "higher power" that's orchestrating "higher events" out from the seemingly random and seemingly conspiratorial and seemingly mundane occurrences happening all around you, you find you are given a life that balances out. The more I have learned about the spiritual world, the less I have wanted a life of material wealth. Of course, I'm a poor and broke person, so maybe this is just delusion to assuage a regretful ego, when if I had applied myself and gotten my papers in order, I'd be making nice cheddar stacks and live as a village godfather like my grandfather had. Or, on the other hand, I'm working through the karma such a family history built up and I'm learning to treasure more wisely.
Either way, I agree there are many forms of psychological warfare occurring, and in this age of Endless Total War, what better weapon is there than to inculcate self-doubt in people in order to deny them the most effective and powerful force-multiplier they have: their spiritual self? You cannot use the car parked in your driveway if you don't even believe in cars; you cannot leave an unlocked room if you are thoroughly convinced to never even try the knob —why look silly? Won't you be embarrassed when it doesn't work? Only fools and clowns believe in The Outside World! You don't want to be a clown, do you? You don't want to get scammed, right?
I'm not saying any of this to say that Riordan is right-on or legitimate.
"Why is it that one of the tests for success in being a prophet, a viewer, a psychic, a whatnot is whether or not they made a lot of money?"
Read my just-written pinned comment.
Either something cannot be tested, in which case...if you can convince an observer, then they can also be convinced of nonsense. Such a person will eventually drink somebody's kool-aid. So, encouraging people to believe without tangible validation is entirely irresponsible---except insofar as it comes with a childhood lesson on the limitations of trust.
Or, this is something tangible, so why not use it to predict where investment capital is best deployed (where it will help more people realize the gains of technology by definition)?
"Can also" is not the same thing as "will be." You're making a modal argument to assert an ethical claim that's totalizing: "entirely" irresponsible. So, on the basis of what might happen, you're free to assert what is universally the case for all people, all the time, everywhere? How does that actually work?
What is a tangible test for Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems? If someone finds it convincing that no logical system inclusive of arithmetic is capable of representing all truths concerning itself within itself but cannot build a machine to test this with graspable objects, does it actually follow such a person will have nonsensical views? But if someone can build such a machine, does it actually follow such a person will never have nonsensical views?
I did offer a "why not" reason not to do something. I also offered (contextually) a broader framework to understand that why-not reason. Consider my why-not reason in the same logical form but different context: "If your powers of persuasion are so effective, why not use them to seduce any person and have all the sex you want? Why not use them where social capital is best deployed and realize the gains of evolutionary selection, having as many children as possible and securing your genetic legacy?"
It's not value-neutral to assume a "best deployment" of "investment capital;" likewise the case for "helping" people "realize the gains of technology." Notice all of the presuppositions lurking behind these terms, presuppositions others not only do not share, but might also see as seductively harmful given they are also aligned with others' interests and values, people who don't have a problem with, for example, convincing a large number of people to self-inject themselves with poison or behave in self-destructive ways conducive to becoming further dependent on state or technocratic rule. There are many reasons why you shouldn't immediately use the powers you have available to you to make yourself richer. You've read Lord of the Rings, right? The Ring is very much the Ring of Gyges in Plato's Republic, with the same ethical question attached to its use: if you *could* have the capacity to do whatever you wanted with no one to see you, no one to judge you, why not use that ability to do all the things you ever *really* wanted to do?
The research Targ and Puthoff performed and Adey's critical response to it, when the CIA leaked it in a controlled way, had enough people convinced that remote viewing was untrustworthy and ineffective —and thus closed off many minds to the other findings they did demonstrate: there is ample evidence for human involvement in something much larger than traditional "five sensory inputs" models, something akin to an active participation in fields that permitted non-local interaction. It was in the CIA's interest to maintain the narrative that psi is nonsense, kool-aid, fringe, because it not only worked to embarrass the DIA, but also discouraged people from further examining what was actually happening.
So, consider a different side of your own asserted maxim: encouraging people to disbelieve without further exploration is entirely irresponsible —as you have already made posts on this theme before, where controlled opposition, well-poisoning, and straw man takedowns are enough to convince people that there's nothing to see here, no need to look any further, nothing worthwhile to find. Move along, it's all tiresome and boring, anyway.
At any rate, it's not unhealthy to approach the world with an open mind and a curious spirit, holding onto and letting go of various frameworks, and occasionally finding one's self believing in "nonsense." From a different perspective, you yourself believe in nonsense that you find personally convincing, satisfying, and sense-making, a viewpoint you capture in the metaphor of a rounding of the earth. But from that other perspective, what you do here is convince people to deviate from the majority, from the sensible, from the sound, because you are encouraging them to believe in misinformation, disinformation, and fraud —from which you profit by soliciting subscriptions and securing funding for other projects you promote. It's an open mind that looks past that other perspective and recognizes truth is not always conveniently sensible.