Discussing Eidotheosophy (Continued From Another Topic)

General Discussion
21

This is an interesting reply. I’m focusing a bit on this:

In a way, I certainly experience such a compulsion for finding and sharing truth, and so I can’t not agree. Yet,

I think some of this is accurate, yet the absoluteness of your point seems dubious to me. My experience of finding shared understanding (ideally of god’s truth, even if the point of the truth being god’s is not of much direct significance/relevance) is in listening to others to hear their implicit framework, and use their understanding to find a connection to mine, then use their language to invite them there. Some limits are obviously that it can’t be forced, but also that when such invitation is accepted, it is only ever partial and one step at a time (as is my own understanding of things).

I’d be curious to hear how you think of my point so far, (despite that I feel I’m still missing something), since I think your reply could help enlighten what I might not yet see. And also, could you clarify what “the role of faith” means to you?

22

@jared123456 Your misunderstanding is in not realizing that sharing one’s experience is fundamentally different than sharing the things of God. When you are sharing your experience, you are sharing what is understood to be subjective to you as a being, it is unique to you. When you share the things of God, you are sharing something that is without yourself, and resides in objective reality.
You are the authority of your subjective experience, because it is your experience. You are not the the authority of the things of God, so when you endeaver to share the tings of God to someone else, you are limited by the rules of the language you are using, including rules derived by social constructs such as culture, subject, and various understood frames of reference.

1 Like
23

(This reminds me of my point we arrived at in your previous thread on this topic, that point of the experience of non-individual-ness. Tangent aside…)

You say:

But, that is not representative of what I understand. And I’m not quite sure why you would say otherwise. I guess you probably tried to explain it in the rest of the comment, yet it is still not clear to me. When you can, could you make a quote or two from my comments, and use those to explain this point?

And briefly, to explain some of the difference in my understanding, from what you’ve misconstrued my understanding to be: one’s experience can enable an opportunity to learn some truth, a shadow of the things of god, and one can attempt (as we discussed) to share and explore experience with others, such that all gain further insight into such truth, (which does not come from us, ie. one can’t directly share the things of god).

24

Also, I’m still curious about:

As I had asked:

Thanks :turtle:

25

@jared123456
To expand upon the difference between sharing one’s experience is fundamentally different than sharing the things of God, we are probably going to have to take a step back and cover some fundamental ideas underlying those concepts.
We will start with “I think, therefore I am”, the “first principle” of René Descartes’s philosophy. Descartes was rooted in doubt about the reality of what one’s senses showed them and rejected past reasoning. Even thoughts from when one was awake could be false, just like dreams. But Descartes reasoned the he couldn’t doubt that he existed because he was thinking. He concluded that “I think, therefore I am” was the most certain truth.
Confirming that one’s self exists, we can determine that one has a self, and can perceive that there are thing other than the self, outside one’s self. We also find that everything outside of the self appears to be independant of the self. In the “outside of the self” we find and aquaint ourselves with the “others that claim selfhood”, and we stumble into the ideas of subjective and objective reality.
In such a context, we can see that “objective reality” is anything other than the self that exists is independent of any conscious awareness of it (via perception, thought, etc.).
Now subjective reality is the existence of what exists in the self, and what exists in each self is different than what exists in every other self.
As far as is commonly held, everything that exists, exists in objective reality, but what every self experiences, exists in subjective reality.
Furthermore, the Holy Spirit exists in the believer, which for all practical purposes, the Holy Spirit exists in subjective reality.
Like Schrödinger’s cat, the Holy Spirit exists in a state of quantum superposition, where it simultaneously exists (in believers) and does not exist (in nonbelievers).
Ok, I will stop there, as you may want me to clarify and expand on some of these ideas. Once we do that, I will continue and I can explain the difference between sharing one’s experience and sharing the things of God. We will also expand upon opur discussion of the role, or lack thereof of faith in science.

1 Like
26

Sounds good so far :slight_smile: please continue, thanks!

27

@jared123456 The difference between sharing one’s experience that is fundamentally different than sharing the things of God comes down to that in the perspective of the nonbeliever. One is sharing of something that exists, and the other is sharing of something that does not exist.
Due to the fact that conventional modern scientific knowledge has explored and incorporated the knowledge of self, and the subjective experience that the self has, sharing one’s own experiences with others, while subjective, consists of discussing things that are accepted to exist.
Because the Holy Spirit is not in the nonbeliever, its quantum superposition resolves to the nonexistance of the Holy Spirit.
Due to the fact that conventional modern scientific knowledge has not explored and incorporated the idea that the Holy Spirit is something that does exist, there is no practical difference between the Holy Spirit, and something like the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
This also means, that while many of those engaging in scientific endeavours might still have some sort of faith or belong to a religion, faith as a concept currently cannot be incorporated into modern scientific knowledge or practice.
Since faith is considered to be belief in something for which there is no proof, and it is generally not testable, it is therefore anathema to science.

28

Reminds me a bit of the red pill blue pill from the matrix.

If I may, it sounds like you’re approaching the sharing of things of god in a direct sense, and observing the impossibility of that. Yeah,? and continue if you’ve more, perhaps on faith? :slight_smile:

29

Lots of ilk could be assigned to their governments ruling classes. Often the nobles and religious figures take turns coercing then coddling throughout history. I don’t think any religion should shoulder direct blame here.

Religions are vessels that are going to be created by us whether we like it or not. I think framing them like our governments as inherently malign is not accurate. They seem to be a product of the current / past environment or a snapshot of the culture is more accurate.

The oldest stories triangulate on evidence around 50,000 years ago that an evolutionary split occurred. This seems to touch on many other things, including the seeds of religion.

The oldest oral traditions I can find seem to place themselves here, around 36,000 years ago in the Americas. In India, Himalayas, and a few pockets in Asia it is likely these traditions go back at least as far.

During this entire time there were rises and falls in sea level with an overall trend that it was receding until roughly 15,000-18,000 years ago.

The last rise was more rapid than pervious cycles that came immediately before. The sea level started to level finally bobbing above and below currently levels in the next 10,000 years ago.

These previous cyclical sea level rises had been ebbing with eddies that allowed for large rises and drops with a long overall long-term trend level dropping.

Cultures seem to preserve these observations of sea level fluctuations in myth, oral traditions, tablets, and writing. Because of the cyclical nature of these events it is a bit difficult to discern the severity of them. There seems to be slow flooding and recession of shoreline over the vast majority of these cycles events unfold slowly.

This spawns several mass migration events and these events most likely caused the rise of religion. This is highly likely created as a system in which factions could coexist and thrive. These coastal civilizations seemed to understand the benefits of seeding cultures and the influence and trade that is part and parcel. This would make sense and there is evidence of these exchanges. DNA studies of the so called Sea Peoples (Sea Peoples - Wikipedia) show a humans known for savvy sea fairing and navigation had diverse maternal linages. This shows some cultures were ancient indicating a travel to of females was common along with intermingling of factions. (Ancient mitogenomes of Phoenicians from Sardinia and Lebanon: A story of settlement, integration, and female mobility)

3 Likes
30

To me god (spiritualism) is our emergent understanding of our brains’ evolution. This may be called the divine spark. Manifestations of gods (Yahweh) grow across the earth, this appears heavily influenced by near east and far east culture. This seems to be preserved in the teachings of Barnabas in Christianity, not be confused with the gospel by the same name. The Sangam literature seems to have a strong connection to Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, and the cultural rise of gods in the Uruk period of Sumerian culture.

Looking at the historical events In Sri Lanka and the Maldives, you will see a Hinduism early Shiva is strongly associated with trident themes. These themes are found in the earliest Gods of the Uruk period. Example here showing god riding fish wielding a trident. (File:Cylinder seal Louvre AOD108.jpg - Wikimedia Commons)

This trident theme is further evidenced in Peru (Paracas Candelabra - Wikipedia Paracas culture - Wikipedia) this is worth mentioning here due the fact that DNA links royal priest classes to Mesopotamia and Levant. Further evidence show abnormalities shared by both priest(ess) king / queen. These abnormalities are often erroneously claimed to be deformities when in actuality they are coevolved DNA expression. This abnormality enters our gene pool roughly the same period (DNA evidence found here https://www.mpg.de/11883269/homo-sapiens-brain-evolution).

Barnabas was a Cypriot Jew. This is important context to understand due to the special importance of copper (as well as tin) mining of his era. One of coppers early uses was to make a durable fish hooks at speed and scale. This is important to know due to the heavy influence that was exerted over Cyprus by Crete, and the previous several hundred years saw this dismantled. During Barnabas’s time he would have lived amongst whom who witnessed the roman empire’s military incursion of Cyprus, they would soon take control of the island.

This is likely to have been the seeds for the established language in India along with evidence in Arikamedu (Kakkayanthope, Ariyankuppam Commune, Puducherry) of wine (likely enriched with hallucinogenic plants) likely Greek. As well as words Yavana ((Yona - Wikipedia Javan - Wikipedia)) in Prākrit and Pali for a Greek speakers there is tablet evidence of this in India 2500 years ago (Persepolis Administrative Archives - Wikipedia). Barnabas may have added this near eastern exposure perhaps indirectly into his teachings.

Influences often crossed one another culture and storytelling seemed to have fertile ground. You can see heavy similarities to; Zeus / Jupiter / Saturn (Phoenician) / Enlil / Elus / Deos. Oral traditions may have been codified in some religious books. This may explain stories found and reformed in the books of Genesis, and Enoch for instance.

2 Likes
31

When you examine ancient Crete you can’t help but notice many similarities with modern day Hinduism / Jainism / Buddhism. I would like to make an observation that seems to share symbols with Paleo / Hebrew and Karintamil. Vedic Sanskrit seems to stay regionally near the Kush mountains and spread south while Prākrit / Pali seemed to follow a priest classes into Northern Africa, Mediterranean, Black sea, and eventually Europe proper via scripts like Ashokan Prakrit, Mycenae (Liner B), ancient Greek, proto / paleo Hebrew (There is DNA evidence that supports this early east to west migration of culture. mtDNA from the Early Bronze Age to the Roman Period Suggests a Genetic Link between the Indian Subcontinent and Mesopotamian Cradle of Civilization).

Prakrit script like the Ashokan version seem to be the attempt to propagate stories of a religious nature. Brāhmī and Karintamil seem to have the oldest broad usage and seem to have preserved by traders, and monastic classes. Telegu and Tamil seem to have broad usage for very long periods. They may have a common root origin that is lost.

This is explained by attribution to cultural amalgamation the ancestors of a group that later subsumed by the Phoenicians (northern). This was likely due to their close ties with both Greek and Minoan civilizations. Grantha script, old Malayalam script (Koleluttu known as rod script) may have been an origin script used for trade / cultural purposes (as evidenced by the impressive large amounts of loan words). India’s coasts have always acted as a important link to east and west.

Further evidence of this is found in Tamil Brāhmī inscriptions that are found in the presence of one another and will express the same idea. This may be a form translation used that is perhaps similar to the Rosetta Stone (block linear scripting). The well worn language it can be vestige of societies once used communication facility then may become a de facto firewall (cryptologic hurdle) of sorts that stops rapid evolution / de-evolution of language without concern for purity and simplicity of the original (when culture is brought to a civilization; they (missionary / trader) tends to preserve the language in a; monastic fashion–Prākrit, Palai or preserved in convention abacus, accounting, ledger keeping, preserving scientific understanding in ritual). This exchange is evidence in artwork from the Mesopotamia, Levant, to; India broadly. The preservation of this floral pattern found on wrists of Gods of Sumerian, Metatron’s Cube, Geometric pedals similar to that of the “lotus” and countless artistic expression across the middle east and India. This pattern point geometry had additional meaning it was a teaching device. This information is preserved in ancient Vedic method for teaching scared geometry for the use in Vedic rituals (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s723-3hkUjA&t=467s).

2 Likes
32

In short, the languages / scripts just described seems to be a better explanation for the current evidence of Sir Lanka, Maldivian, and Himalayan origin of language than supporting interpolation evidence in their current form. The state of art in linguistic evolution seems to acknowledge convolution here.

DNA evidence of our evolution suffers from a similar organizational issue. In these two sciences we believe our existence should be tracible back to an origin. A point of understanding emergent order from chaos in other words. This point of view is flawed. A preponderance of the evidence shows multiple origins for many civilizations over vast periods of time. In other words what is more accurate for our existence is a cyclical reemergence and disorder.

Heavy reliance of interpolation data seems to be about control. These models do not seem to account or do a poor job accounting for language if you don’t allow “them” to explore outside an imposed dogmatic framework.

While the model is a tool, too much importance was placed on it, likely due to evolutionary linguistics misplaced importance, as well as a over reliance on thermal dynamics based on model. Incremental reliance on such evidence over time can build up erroneous support and diffuse opposition.

Given the importance placed on current interpolation framing of the data in an effort to indicate a organic source. These cultural conduits were often spread through a monk / trader class. Priest kings were present in both Indus Valley civilization and that of Mesopotamia. In fact the Greek philosopher king would seem to be a preservation of this idea as well. These injections of culture often came with much more than the worship of gods it comes with trade as well.

This all neatly nests in the content of the Sumerian tablet translations.

Experts have a very difficult task understanding the evolution of linguistics due to the cosmology of our cyclical catastrophes’. It is possible to scrutinize other channels for evidence in furtherance of researching language. Then difficulty comes in when weighing small bits of data spread across vast swaths of time.

I suggest accuracy and weighting of linguistic entropy models along with ancillary evidence with a larger group coordinating and weighting an interdisciplinary model. I know this is easier said than done. The ability to accurately model better detail with these spheres of influence and how they came to merge diffuse one another seems to be really valuable to this effort.

2 Likes
33

Another danger with misunderstanding the spread of language is we place to much importance of characters and morphs. Understanding pictography’s potency with much more ergonomic and has a higher of concentration of meaning while having a lower overhead to learn when as opposed to most languages. Also many may have never attempted to communicate with those that don’t share a common language. Many believed this is difficult. It only seems so when a party is hostile, the natural progression seems to pointing and pantomiming. This frame of single origin is also very likely erroneously. Miss place importance on the evolution of words and a less then sophisticated understanding of how cultures influenced them leads us to our current state.

Religious classes used rituals to teach science and self reflection.

This model would to spread through cultural exchange, ie. trade / religious missions are known sources for cultural exchange (Akkadian (striking similarity to Anaikoddai, Sri Lanka ( Some of the oldest and for the time advanced artifacts found (Fa Hien Cave - Wikipedia))) Cuneiform to Eridu, Sumer). Proto-Indo-Iranian, origin in Anatolia.

The Sangam literature Paṭṭiṉappālai , mentions Eelattu-unavu (food from Eelam). One of the prominent Sangam Tamil poets is known as Eelattu Poothanthevanar meaning Poothan-thevan (proper name) hailing from Eelam. (Eelam - Wikipedia) This some what similar to the Hebrew Elohim (Elohim - Wikipedia) they may have a common root origin. This could be due to proximity and nomadic influences. Phonetically similarities seem to exist although it is hard to make a derivative connection. This could possibly indicate a unknown common root.

Anatolia has very old and very large settlements / complexes but that are likely part of a growth of population given the scale and cultural dissimilarities to all other nearby populations of the period.

An observation worth mentioning is common Anatolia burial mounds are similar (but smaller) to those found in Mongolia (group burial mounds) built for the khans and emperors of China.

The custom is a bit different in that the Khans seem to share mounds dissimilar to a custom Chinese (don’t share mounds with other rulers) or pre China lost civilizations royal custom.

Anatolia, Steppe, and Siberia people seem to have many similarities between languages and cultures. Facility complexes found in Anatolia seem to have heavy fertility themes these complexes don’t seem to have permeant living quarters. While this maybe congruent with a nomadic tribal culture, the scale of the complexes are enormous. While still early on many excavations one would expect much more evidence of domestic habitation.

2 Likes
34

Fascinating! It’s funny because my daughter and I were just talking about (keep in mind that when I say we were just talking, it could have been months ago :joy:) when the Homo sapiens and Neanderthals split and how the brains of the Homo sapiens became more spherical and grew super fast, relatively spea8. She wants to be a paleoanthropologist, so we talk about this kinda stuff for fun. It truly is fascinating.

1 Like