If we compare humans to other species like chicken or cows. In a way we could be considered there gods. How do we treat them. We pretty much harvest them.
I was wondering if it isn't the human ego that gets in the way of the possible understanding that beings that are in a position to call themselves human Gods don't really care for us in the same light our ego chooses to believe. Perhaps with them we are just objects to be harvested.
I read alot of the out of body books. And one of the things that never seems to be answered properly is our purpose. I noticed you mentioned it in your reply.
The first thing that comes to mind is what could a human learn in a physical world thats worth anything in a non physical world.
The key learning scenarios in the physical are related to physical pain (the pain of hunger being very poignant) and the need to kill other beings (animals and humans indirectly) to relieve themselves of that pain.
So lets imagine being in the Non Physical World - you don't have any pain from hunger, so everything you learnt about how to hunt and compete (fairly or unfairly) for food is of no consequence.
And I wager that if you did not need to eat and you did not feel the pain of cold weather (the elements etc.) - i.e. you felt no physical pain - I can't imagine too many people finding any good reasons to go to war and kill each other?? So all that killing you learnt about from your leaders would be of no real use to you in the Non Physical World either?
So really what purpose is there to experience this. Non of the books have really given a genuinely believeable answer.
They talk about learning to love - but humans to me already appear very loving. Its just that they are put into extremely painful situations that any other being from anywhere in the galaxy (with the same capacities as a human) would put aside love for survival killing. Humans are neither good nor bad they are what their surroundings force them to be.
I am convinced learning can be done without the need for physical pain. The obvious way is by using your creative ability to imagine the outcomes of decisions.
Loved your reply zareste.
I am very much alone with these kind of thoughts in the non-cyber world.
I received a private email from another person regarding the above. This person pointed out a book by David Benatar called "Better to not have been". I have not read it but the person does a summary of its contents for me. I will put it below it is a little long but I found it very interesting as it challenges the human ego in regard to its right to bring children into a world that is really heavily biased towards suffering. It seems that it really is the human desire to feel ethical and special will not allow it to contemplate such possible truths.
-------------------------------
Hello. I have just read your post. I have been fairly surprised to read something so similar to my own view of life, where coming into existence is always a harm, since it offers no benefit (what we label "good" are just needs that are created upon coming here) in exchange for lots of pain inherent to a biology design that is obviously biased towards pain (a very fragile physical body that, with aging, is more and more prone towards a very big set of pain producing illnesses). You may have heard about David Benatar's book "Better to never have been: the harm of coming into existence". It approaches this issue from a PMR perspective and gives a very thoughtful analysis that concludes that bringing others into existence is always a cruelty.
I am not asserting that this is what you imply in your post, but I have found it surprisingly similar to my own view of life. And, as you say, when you begin to talk to people about this they almost always get angry: their "not wanting this life to be a usefulness cruelty that's best to avoid, or exit out of altogether" leads them to bias their opinion towards their need; in short, they have no good argument to back up their opinion that bringing others into existence isn't bad for them, so they resort to "ad hominem" attacks (i.e. "you view life like that because you're not happy").
My reasoning comes from a PMR perspective. I cannot speak about NPMR because I am not sentient there, so I can tell you how I view it from here using logic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
realitycorrodes: I am glad to find someone that is open at least to considering the possibility of us not being that special and just perhaps batteries as they suggested in the matrix movie.
quamta: Not only have I considered such a thing as a possibility, but it's also been one of the main principles supporting my uncommon a-la-Benatar ethics. However, I have always started from the assumption that PMR is the only (proven) reality and, from there, I have derived everything else (that bringing others into life by reproduction is morally wrong an all that). I found Benatar's book much later and was absolutely astonished to see how similar it was to what I had been thinking, kind of like it had been written by me. Although I discovered Robert Monroe's books a few years ago and even had a few semi-lucid brief OOBEs, the idea of our PMR not being a fundamental reality was not so seriously considered, so no changes in my ethics were introduced. Only recently, after reading MBT and participating in this discussion group, have I begun pondering alternatives. It's interesting to note that, even starting from the assumption that we are existant before coming into PMR, I tend to maintain my reticence about viewing life here as a desirable outcome. I have even considered the benefits of existing in any reality frame versus non-existence. I have been trying to discuss it in this thread but quitted the discussion because I felt it would lead nowhere. Nonetheless you may be interested in reading it because it is related to what we are talking about right now:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2858&p=4720#p4720
realitycorrodes: I have been searching for the truth for a long time and I find my questions upset people. I carry many scars from searching for the truth.
quamta: I resonate with that. I have reached the point where I have put all this into the "taboo" category in order to avoid the depressing feeling I have had to endure most of the times I have tried to make people understand the concept of "better to never have been". So far, I have been absolutely unsuccesful most of the times. But, look on the bright side, if you read Benatar's book you will improve your verbal fight skills in that department and, with a little practice, you could sort of reverse the situation and know how to put most people in a situation where they realize they have no rational arguments to refute your thesis. Then, they will resort to the "not everything is rational, intuition is more important" or similar fallacies... don't take them too personal, it's just that their ego is cornered by the irrefutability of your arguments and they are too adamant to concede you are probably right. Of course, I have to admit that all this "verbal judo" instruction is absolutely egotic in nature and it's up against what MBT dictates for entropy reduction but, hey, we are to remain skeptical and not adhere to any kind of dogma! So the ego thing must not necessaritly be supressed if one is able to use it profitably (in order to feel better, for instance), nor are MBT postulates to be accepted if they don't resonate with one's own feelings, experience and data.
That said, not everybody would be cornered by Benatar's arguments. For instance, both Campbell and Monroe would be very effective at blocking that kind of logic by stating that it starts from the fallacious premise that PMR is all there is to us. They deserve all my respect. Now, let's be honest, that is not the situation that happens when one speaks about this with most people (the ones that get upset and create scars, as you say, with their lack of understanding): for all they care, it (whether or not this is the only fundamental reality) doesn't matter! They will just vehemently assert that "Coming into this life is okay and there is nothing wrong about it. Don't be so negative, there are many good things in life. Period" and will refuse to broaden their perspective. They have chosen a conclusion (that coming into life is okay) before logically trying to find an answer and that's why it will almost always be impossible to make them reason. Their pre-chosen conclusion is most likely biased by at least one (probably more) of the following:
1) They are predetermined to supress any kind of feeling that might put to an end the hedonic binge they live up to, which needs a "suffering doesn't exist" illusion in order to survive. If you demonstrate that coming into life is always a harm, they will almost instinctively block such information so to preserve their hedonic feelings and avoid a probable depression. This is not bad in itself, since not a lot of good outcomes can come from feeling depressed, but it begins to be bad when they need to block all kind of logic and reason in order to avoid such depression.
2) They have already had children and accepting that bringing others into this life is always a harm would put them into a very uncomfortable position. Their morality, which they always thought to be correct (i.e. "there exist some people who harm others, but not me, I have always been one of the 'good guys' and I can feel proud and guiltless, for I have never seriously harmed anybody"), would be questioned and would probably create more guilt than they are ready to accept. However, denial and self-delusion don't seem to be very desirable attitudes from my viewpoint and the most appropriate attitude would be that of accepting that what's done is done and there's no point in torturing oneself with useless guilty feelings: better to broaden one's knowledge with the new understanding than to continue to err on the side of delusion.
3) They plan to have children in the short/mid/long term future and the acceptance of the conclusion that bringing them into this life might be morally abhorrent would lead them to a "either I have them anyway - giving up my ethics about not harming others - or I refuse to have them altogether, thereby renouncing happiness". Solution: selfish denial in order to be able to maintain an "I am an ethic person" illusion while doing what they have always needed (i.e. being parents) at the same time. Not to be mysogynistic here but women are specially proficient at this: they would do anything to get away with the fulfillment of their reproductive needs, even if it implies harming others (their children, by bringing them into life), creating scars in those that want them to see a bigger picture, giving up their ability to use logic and reason and resorting to a fallacious "I am not rational, I am intuitive" attitude instead, etc. The end justifies the means (whatever they may be) for them.
On the other hand, justifying the suffering in this life by saying that "that's the way ecosystems are made" and things like that doesn't refute an iota the idea that bringing others here is wrong. If ecosystems are designed that way and that is part and parcel of life, all the more reason to conclude that life (life here, at least) is not good. Why does it have to be accepted just because the system decided to design it that way? Should we have to accept it just because a system (or entity, or whatever) profits from its cruel design? Moreover, to say that it's humans who create suffering and not the design itself is a mislead rambling to say the least! Human beings are capable of high levels of cruelty, but suffering and cruelty go way beyond humans' actions, since we, as most animals, are biologically designed for suffering and, cruel or not, human beings (as most animals) would always have to endure high levels of cruelty, whether caused by a virus, a natural disaster, a terminal illness, etc. The possibilities are countless and resorting to neglect that by saying that "it's all humans' fault" is plain incorrect. Moreover, as you said, even if humans were hypothetically to blame for all kinds of suffering and cruelty here, that wouldn't justify (or make less harmful) putting an entity here, since he/she/it will have to suffer regardless of who's to blame for such suffering and avoiding the situation (rather than finding out who's to blame) should be the priority. As you say, one can even draw the analogy between bringing someone here and putting someone in a river full of ungry piranhas: yeah, it's the piranhas fault, not the river's fault, but the outcome of putting someone into the river is going to be suffering anyway, so it's going to be unethical, whether the piranhas' or the river's fault.
realitycorrodes: I have to say I am probably not clever enough to be on this forum as Tom's work is very intellectual and academic - I am afraid I don't understand a word of anything that people are talking about - but somehow I do enjoy reading it even without understanding.
quamta: Having begun to question the ethics of existence automatically puts you into the clever category from my point of view. The fact that you don't understand many of the things spoken here doesn't tell anything about your level of cleverness. It's probably because a lot of acronyms are being used, and sometimes it takes a lot of time to get familiar with them, that you feel confused. Moreover, don't assume that all the posts here are valuable, there's also a lot of trash (mine included) that stems from a confused state and/or a compulsion for posting. To make a long story short: you probably don't understand many posts not because the concepts are difficult but because they don't make any gosh darn sense in themselves.
realitycorrodes: My intuition keeps alerting me to something not being quite right about everything - including all forms of spirituality. I could of course be paranoid.
That's the idea behind the Matrix triology, way better conveyed in the Animatrix movie. Paranoia is good if it doesn't make you lead a very unhappy life, since it's commonly the precursor of higher levels of understanding and intelligence, not available to most people. However, one also has to be careful with this and I echo Campbell's words here: "you are overanalyzing and overintellectualizing until you confuse yourself". Of course, the boundary between overanalyzing and "not analyzing deep enough" is so blurry and difficult to quantify that I wouldn't know where to put it.
realitycorrodes: I guess that perhaps the truth cannot be known in PMR - afterall PMR is just an illusion so that would mean that at best we could only acheive
quamta: That's a plausible possibility. In fact, even all the experience that Tom has been able to put together might be part of an a-la-Matrix computer simulation, that creates OOBEs, NPMR, MBT,etc. as part of the "game". That is, you could have an OOBE and verify you have been out of your body a thousand times, but you could not rule out the possibility that it all is part of an illusion - a simulated reality - and that the real you resides elsewhere, with his perception blocked. However, what's the probability of this? One can never tell for sure. Nonetheless, take into account that, when one begins accepting the possibility that everything is part of a fake reality (including one's OOBEs, one's verification processes, one's trips to NPMR and, in short, anything one can imagine) you cannot say for sure anything anymore: even PMR pain and all those terrible things might be fake. Would it be wise to neglect this possibility of everything being fake for the sake of consistency?
realitycorrodes: If given the choice I would personally have remained in a place without Physical pain and without the need to eat other beings.
quamta: The question is: have we really been given the choice as Seth (channeled through Jane Roberts) and Campbell assert? If so, have we really taken an informed decision or have we been fooled into believing that the trip was going to be fun and risk-free?
I have always thought that I was forced to come here by means of a not-chosen-by-me pregnancy that lead to the biologycal design of this physical body I inhabit, but that was before considering the possibility that I might have existed before birth. Now, if I start from the assumption that I existed before birth, I wouldn't know what to tell you. It strikes me as really "not-like-me" the fact that I had voluntarily chosen to come here, since the risk/benefit ratio doesn't seem too optimal.
realitycorrodes: William Buhlman says something like, most beings in NPMR refuse to experience PMR as it is too hard (I think cruel is better word). He goes on to say there is also not enough guidance. I don't think there are too many people who were truly given an informed decision about the nature of this PMR would have gotten involved.
quamta: I have read a William Buhlman interview, it looks pretty interesting. Again, the more one can broaden one's knowledge from different sources (Seth, Monroe, Buhlman, Campbell,...) the more skillful one will get to tell truth from dogma.
realitycorrodes: The Monroe series then goes on to elude to a better earth experience in the year 3000 as if they knew it wasn't a very good design themselves in the beginning. I am sure you know all this.
quamta: Yes, I remember this. If I am not mistaken, Tom said that Monroe had probably queried one of the probable future (or even unactualized past) databases and that the event was pretty unlikely (because one cannot accurately predict a so distant future). In any case, it's Tom's opinion versus Monroe's experience. Who's right? Now, some people tend to consider Tom as the number one reference when it comes to OOBE related phenomena, but before MBT they probably had Monroe as a reference, and so on. Reality feels very slippery after all, one doesn't know when the reference one is following is right or wrong. Can we ever get to know?
realitycorrodes: sorry for the ramble - I've been very much in "stream of consciousness" mode in this reply rather than "strict censored" mode for forum questions. I rely on your intuition to feel for what I am trying to communicate rather than perhaps taking too personally my tired daydreams - so to burden you with that responsibility.
quamta: Getting out of the "strict censored" mode and speaking one's mind is good from my point of view. Repressing who we really are and what we really think, as our societies want us to do with their "herd thinking" ideal promoted by mass media, is bad for our mental and spirit health, so the "stream of consciousness" mode is welcomed as far as I am concerned.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM