Queries

  • Thread starter Thread starter vampire_f00d
  • Start date Start date
vampire_f00d said:
I understand the reading and all is needed, that is not the problem, the problem is there seems no validity in any of the research
You must be joking. Or you just did not read any of the research. Unfortunately our "research" site, http://quantumfuture.net is down right now.
But it will recover.

vampire_f00d said:
which is why I am skeptical about reading a large amount of it if it is based soley on trusting one person and messages that have been 'received' through them.
We do not trust ourselves. We trust the result of the research.

vampire_f00d said:
With most philosophical and theological teachings they usually have some form of validity to them, ie Christianity does have natural phenomena which seem to relate to some of the parables, most deductive philosophy makes 100% sense, and a lot of empirical philosophy does also until you get to the point of stipulating answers from pure opinion.
"Seem to relate" has nothing to do with "validity". Nothing is as it "seems" to be.

vampire_f00d said:
The main factor is, if it is just one person receiving messages through ouija and hypnotherapy, I don't see any validity in it as it is solely one person. Psychological, sociological and philosophical investigations show how different things are valid and invalid based on sample size and other variables, so that's why I am hesistant to read much more, because it is a lot of reading and at the current outset it doesn't seem to have any rate of validity.
That is why we stress the necessity of researching all and everything. Theology, and to some extent also philosophy, have nothing to do with "research" - other than just historical. Research is looking after TRUTH, that is after "objective data".
 
Hello Laura, you sound a bit annoyed,

I have read some of the stuff, I read the glossary of terms that I was referred to, and the introduction to the wave and also the introduction to the cassiopea, so i'm not not reading anything, I looked at a sample of the work and couldn't see how any of it could be logically valid at all.

As for natural phenomena that relates to the bible is simple, they have the turin shroud, there was the spear of destiny at some point but then that disappeared, and also they believe they have found the mountain where noah's ark resided when the rains stopped. For someone well briefed in Christianity I would of thought you would have known all this.

Deductive philosophy that makes sense is simple, it goes in a form:

If P, then Q
P
Therefore Q

If you go to http://plato.stanford.edu and lookup deductive logic I imagine something similar to that will be there. Deductive arguments if they follow that formulae will always be valid regardless of what they say, if the argument is also true factually then it is also known as being deductively sound aswell as valid, I was only looking for validity as I appreciate to have soundness of argument I would have to read the material. Unfortunately everyone got on their high horses and started picking at me as opposed to helping me.

An answer to do with empirical philosophy being valid would have to be Hume's definition of Cause, and how it doesn't exist only necessary connection, as all we do is connect 2 events and can never infer a cause. It can be correct in some cases but does not account for 'all' causation.

I know very well about ouija and channelling, and I know the dangers and also the problems you have with it which is why I suggested that auto-suggestion and malevolent entities as problems for them, which is why I had a problem with them, if you hadn't actually been reading the thread as it looks like you haven't been at the moment, I was simply looking for something so I could be convinced to read more of the material as the sample I had read seemed illogical and invalid, so no need to get all hot under the collar, you seem to have switched into hyper sensitive mode, is it so wrong for someone to want a little reasoning as to why he should do something before he does it?

Christianity, Judaism and Islam were started by one person yes, but other people also had beliefs and interpretations of things, when all I get is 'read more', that is just one persons opinion and no more, and btw the catholic church didn't start until after Jesus' death, and even then there was a few hundred years between Jesus' death and it started where small pockets of Christianity existed, not to mention the fact that a lot of Christian rituals are just plagiarised from Paganism.

And I don't think most of psychology today would call the research done into it hooey, but if you want to call it that then you can go against pretty much all of the world



Han Deductive philosophy can have the conclusion at the start or the end of a syllogism.

Ark I do study logic, and your points make no sense at all. First of all you are extremely pendantic for quoting spelling on a web forum lol, that is rather childish, but I have stated many reasons why ouija is a very inconclusive way of gaining knowledge. I do not have time to study quantum physics, and as I have stated if you want to make your material accessible to people it would be better if you put it in other terms as not many people have time to study quantum physics, you CAN get decent results from ouija boards if you take the correct precautions in doing so, i'm not saying you will never get any decent results from them, but the way that it seems that you have conducted all of your experiments leads the gates wide open to ecological validity in them.
 
Ark, go look up representative realism, that's pretty objective that you can't disagree with and that's a philosophical concept
 
Ok I just read another message, my simple point is this:

I read a sample of your material, it didn't have any logical validity to it, it had some concepts which were interesting but I would like a reason as to why I should read a massive amount of material if the sample I look at just seems like it will end up with a long story of ideas and notions that were derived from a means that can't really be derived as having any logical base. I emplore you to give me that logical base as I am willing to read anything. I thought after the shoutwire article you would be happy to give me this as I didn't want to accept one article as the truth but I come on here and after a bit of investigation and wanting a bit more information, all I end up with is insults from various members that said they were happy to 'intellectually debate' and bitterness from not only members, but the leader and her counterpart.
 
vampire_f00d said:
I'm angry at all, i'm just trying to explain it to you in terms you can understand as you don't seem to understand it at all.
That is probably because I noticed you have problems with logical thinking.

vampire_f00d said:
It's like this, you want me to read a mass of information that has all been divulged by 1 individual, that you claim is the further of human evolution and the answer to everything.
Again, you miss the whole point. If you want to talk in an intelligent way about some subject - you NEED to study it first. Otherwise you likely produce just noise.

vampire_f00d said:
All that information is pretty much just that 1 individuals word, and has no verification, justification or logical argument to it, and you don't seem to have any answer to that either, yet you are telling me to read it, why should I when all outsets point to it being just an opinion of one person, that many people follow for some reason as they seem to take it as a sort of divine word, when in reality it is just one person's perception of reality.
This is because it is evident that you do not have KNOWLEDGE that is needed to talk about things you want to talk.


vampire_f00d said:
All of this information is supposed to hold deep secrets and meanings to the world and existence, yet it his obfuscated so much in terminolgy that it can't even simplify it at all to be accessible to more people, the most likely reason I can see for this is because if it is simplified in anyway then it probably will seem completely fictional so it is hidden behind a lot of technical jargon to try and give it some substance and verification.
Space, time, past, future - are technical terms. While it is true that it is often being used by laymen, laymen do not add much to understanding their meaning.


vampire_f00d said:
When asking your groups members for some sort of verification, logical argument or justification of the whole texts, why they should be read, and why I should read them, you cannot give me any so the only thing that can really be concluded as you don't seem to want to give someone any real reason to read the texts, is that you all believe incoherently in soemthing that one person has said to beleive some fantastical vision of what life is supposed to be.
We do not believe anything, and we are not asking YOU to believe anything. If you decide to believe something or not - that is YOUR problem.

vampire_f00d said:
If you would like to give some sort of argument against that apart from 'read more' then that is all that can be concluded, as if you are simply saying that you cannot do this then you cannot show anyone that your belief has any justification too it at all and it is merely fiction created by laura for whatever needs she wills.
Let me repeat:
We do not believe anything, and we are not asking YOU to believe anything. If you decide to believe something or not - that is YOUR problem.

vampire_f00d said:
Any group, not just religous, in the world can usually sum up their belief in some sort of lamens terms so that an individual can understand these beliefs and disagree or agree with them, if you can't do this then that says something about the belief. You will most likely go on about belief-systems, but it is nothing to do with belief systems, it is simply a matter of fact. There is no group involved here in divulging information from what you have told me (you always refer to laura), there is no understanding except what laura pretty much tells you, it is simply just listening to laura and nodding like yes men.
Let me repeat it third time:
We do not believe anything, and we are not asking YOU to believe anything. If you decide to believe something or not - that is YOUR problem.

vampire_f00d said:
So if you can justify your views, writings, research in anyway feel free to as I really would like to hear it.
You can not "hear it". But you can "read it". It is up to you to decide, whether you want or not. The same with learning phsyics and math.

vampire_f00d said:
I would like to hear a summing up of the main points of your understandings, and in lamens terms that are accessible to everyone.
Research, research and again research. Is THAT accessible to everyone? I guess it isn't :)

vampire_f00d said:
When you go to school they don't just simply give you the books and then say "see you in 8 months for exams" they teach you, as members of a group that is your job, if you cannot do that then it just simply seems that you are all just listening to laura and doing everything and anything she wants. If you cannot teach or sum up, then how are you not just laura's intellectual slaves?
If you cannot learn - how can ANYONE tech you anything?
 
vampire_f00d said:
Ok I just read another message, my simple point is this:

I read a sample of your material, it didn't have any logical validity to it,
Well, perhaps you need to study LOGIC?
 
vampire_f00d said:
Ark I do study logic, and your points make no sense at all.
Good. then find another forum. I suggest theological one. Theologists also study logic - in order NOT to deal with the objective world.
 
vampire_f00d said:
So you are trying to enlighten people, but not even caring if you bother to enlighten anyone?

Btw Han you do not seem to understand what deductive philosophy is, correct deductive philosophy is never invalid. And you seem to all basically be saying "do the reading and validate it yourself, we don't care".

How can you claim to be a group that want to further the evolution of humanity and the like, if you aren't even bothering to answer questions people put to you? Tis a very pompous notion. I don't need statistics to understand stuff, I need some sort of at least logical argument to show that it makes SENSE, otherwise what is the point in reading a mas of information to find out at the end it makes no sense.

Discussion does make things yes, but you can describe many very complex philosophical concepts without having to read the entire books each author wrote, if a concept is good, strong and true it will not need a mountain of jargon behind it, but will be able to be simplified into a short easy paragraph. If it can't then chances are it is not a very good argument.
The "jargon" you speak of is the only way to describe some aspects of human behaviour that have not been approached in the same way before. There is a diverse resource of knowledge here that sometimes demands a new "jargon." It is helpful and necessary to understand new concepts. We learn these new concepts and test them. As it is directly related to inner work it is never easy and sometimes extremely difficult. Good, strong and true can mean many things. Your concept of "Good, Strong and true" may be skewed. Even pompous. if we do not want to be tied to a "juvenile dictionary" of outdated and co-opted terms we must advance.

Even maths can use a single equation in order to show multiple meanings. But first you need to know the math in order to understand those multiples. Arguments can be distilled into soundbytes, sure. But they are often bereft of any depth.

In order to reach the simplicity in matters pertaining to the meaning of life and our place in it, it often means we have to face considerable complexity. In order to get to that point of simplicity it requires effort - are you prepared to make that effort? Or do want everyone to spoon feed you? Learning on our own and making connections with an open mind via networking can be something that expands our awareness in ways we simply cannot do in isolation. Are you open to the fact?

You then may be able to answer a lot of your own questions. These may then be built on by sharing your discoveries. You may even learn something about yourself. Assuming that is one of your goals, which I very much doubt.

G.
 
I didn't read anyone insult you. Especially not in the way you insulted the editors in your Shoutwire post.



vampire_f00d said:
all I end up with is insults from various members that said they were happy to 'intellectually debate' and bitterness from not only members, but the leader and her counterpart.
 
Hello Vamp,

It kind of sounds to me like you came here with an agenda *NOT* to understand anything, but I am going to hope with all my heart that this impression is wrong.

I myself came from a background of "magick" before finding the work at Cassiopaea.org. Here is a quote from the end of an article (http://cassiopaea.crystunix.com/qfs/qfs_ritual.htm) that you might find interesting:

On a more personal note, I would like the reader to notice very carefully Regardie's words directly above. Those who have studied or read Laura's work, and any of the works that she has drawn from, will realize that Regardie is here presenting a framework that very much resembles real esoteric work. I personally was very familiar with this framework when I encountered the Cassiopaea material and Laura's work, so one could well imagine that I would think there was, indeed, something to this Casssiopaean business. In my mind, this new material only complemented what I already knew and thought. Of course, eventually I encountered the warnings and statements against ritual and magick and a burning desire to figure out what was going on was kindled in myself.

Several possibilites seemed evident. My first thought was that Laura and the Quantum Future School had just not had much exposure to the philosophies of magick, "how could they have exposure to magick and not see how complementary the two materials were?" I reasoned. After reading more material, I quickly threw out that reasoning and was faced with another prospect. One was wrong and one was right. Though the philosophies agreed on many major points, there was still some rather important disagreements, especially concerning ritual. Thus the two main possibilities presented themselves in sharp contrast to each other, either Laura and company were wrong, or magick was wrong. Of course, I had my biases, but I also had to know the truth and I knew I didn't have enough information to determine that.

Thus I threw myself whole-heartedly into Laura's work. I first read the last seven articles from the Adventure series because of advice given in one of the smaller articles that I initially encountered. From this, I realized a much more in depth investigation into Laura's work needed to be conducted for myself, and I decided that in order to give the material a fair shake, I needed to get to know the woman who brought this material to light. Thus I began with the Amazing Grace series. I drove myself night and day through this series and then the Wave series and the rest of the Adventures series. At the end, I still did not have my answers, they were not handed to me wholesale in any one part of the voluminous information that I had read. It was then that I learned my first real lesson about true esoteric work.

The only way I was able to find the answers was through my own efforts. This required gaining an understanding of both magick and the Cassiopaean material. I had already spent many years on magickal theory, so I knew I had to buckle down and try to understand and assimilate Laura's work. Only after I gained some understanding of her work did the answers become availabe to me, but even then I've had to search long and hard for them. I will say that the hardest part was overcoming the subjective biases toward magick that I had built up over the years. My mind kept wanting to interpret the Cassiopaean material in terms of magick. And here I learned my second real lesson about true esoteric work, one has to first divest one's self of all attachments that are not objective truth before one can truly embark on a true esoteric path. This is the moral bankruptcy that Mouravieff and Gurdjieff mention. I did not truly understand that concept until after I had begun my search for answers in earnest and ran up against the obstacles of my own attachment to magick. And I should also say that it was only my sincerity and yearning for truth that allowed me to finally see and overcome those obstacles.
As always, the choices you make are yours.
 
zoobiedoo said:
Hello Vamp,

It kind of sounds to me like you came here with an agenda *NOT* to understand anything, but I am going to hope with all my heart that this impression is wrong.
I decided to use my "administrator privileges" and to block the guy from posting. He will be happy, I think, and he will move to a theological forum, as I have suggested - and he will "believe" that he was RIGHT! Let him believe what he chooses to believe.
 
I think that evening there was flood of shoutwire trolls on our forum


but this one has showed extraordinary resilience which tells me that he must be very good proxyserver
 
vampire_f00d said:
Hello Laura, you sound a bit annoyed,
Well, maybe it is your imagination that sounds a bit annoyed?


vampire_f00d said:
I have read some of the stuff, I read the glossary of terms that I was referred to, and the introduction to the wave and also the introduction to the cassiopea, so i'm not not reading anything, I looked at a sample of the work and couldn't see how any of it could be logically valid at all.
In your dreamworld logic, nothing is logical until you say so. It's also called "deductive logic."


vampire_f00d said:
As for natural phenomena that relates to the bible is simple, they have the turin shroud, there was the spear of destiny at some point but then that disappeared, and also they believe they have found the mountain where noah's ark resided when the rains stopped. For someone well briefed in Christianity I would of thought you would have known all this.
Blah blah blah. Can you discern fantasy fiction from reality? It's kind of like a question like: "For someone well briefed into Christianity, I would have thought you would have known that Santa Claus lives on the Northpole!"


vampire_f00d said:
Deductive philosophy that makes sense is simple, it goes in a form:

If P, then Q
P
Therefore Q

If you go to http://plato.stanford.edu and lookup deductive logic I imagine something similar to that will be there. Deductive arguments if they follow that formulae will always be valid regardless of what they say, if the argument is also true factually then it is also known as being deductively sound aswell as valid, I was only looking for validity as I appreciate to have soundness of argument I would have to read the material.
Same meaning, different (read: more) words. I see I understood correctly...


vampire_f00d said:
Unfortunately everyone got on their high horses and started picking at me as opposed to helping me.
Well, maybe that is because we begin to see you don't want to be helped at all? You do not even TRY to understand what is being said. Like a mindless steamroller...


vampire_f00d said:
An answer to do with empirical philosophy being valid would have to be Hume's definition of Cause, and how it doesn't exist only necessary connection, as all we do is connect 2 events and can never infer a cause. It can be correct in some cases but does not account for 'all' causation.
We have a very special definition for these scentences; called "word salad."


vampire_f00d said:
I know very well about ouija and channelling, and I know the dangers and also the problems you have with it which is why I suggested that auto-suggestion and malevolent entities as problems for them, which is why I had a problem with them, if you hadn't actually been reading the thread as it looks like you haven't been at the moment, I was simply looking for something so I could be convinced to read more of the material as the sample I had read seemed illogical and invalid, so no need to get all hot under the collar, you seem to have switched into hyper sensitive mode, is it so wrong for someone to want a little reasoning as to why he should do something before he does it?
You don't seem to reason, that would take longer.


vampire_f00d said:
Christianity, Judaism and Islam were started by one person yes, but other people also had beliefs and interpretations of things, when all I get is 'read more', that is just one persons opinion and no more, and btw the catholic church didn't start until after Jesus' death, and even then there was a few hundred years between Jesus' death and it started where small pockets of Christianity existed, not to mention the fact that a lot of Christian rituals are just plagiarised from Paganism.

And I don't think most of psychology today would call the research done into it hooey, but if you want to call it that then you can go against pretty much all of the world
Finally some understanding, but I don't think it was intentional. You seem to misunderstand one thing, though, it is the "most of psychology," the way you understand it, that seems to deviate from reality.


vampire_f00d said:
Han Deductive philosophy can have the conclusion at the start or the end of a syllogism.
Well, for me it may even appear mid-syllogism. How's that?


vampire_f00d said:
Ark I do study logic, and your points make no sense at all. First of all you are extremely pendantic for quoting spelling on a web forum lol, that is rather childish, but I have stated many reasons why ouija is a very inconclusive way of gaining knowledge. I do not have time to study quantum physics, and as I have stated if you want to make your material accessible to people it would be better if you put it in other terms as not many people have time to study quantum physics, you CAN get decent results from ouija boards if you take the correct precautions in doing so, i'm not saying you will never get any decent results from them, but the way that it seems that you have conducted all of your experiments leads the gates wide open to ecological validity in them.
The fact is, you live in a dreamworld, where up is down, and sense is no sense. Where everything can be explained by deduction, and nothing is uncorrect. Sweet dreams.
 
Wow... this little exchange has taught me that some people who seem interested in the truth can actually be mindless trolls immersed in formatory thinking. Validity is not the same as truth, and uncovering the truth takes hard work of questioning ALL your assumptions.
 
Hi Vampire_food,

Quote Vampire_food: "I'm [not?] angry at all, i'm just trying to explain it to you in terms you can understand as you don't seem to understand it at all. It's like this, you want me to read a mass of information that has all been divulged by 1 individual, that you claim is the further of human evolution and the answer to everything. All that information is pretty much just that 1 individuals word, and has no verification, justification or logical argument to it, and you don't seem to have any answer to that either, yet you are telling me to read it, why should I when all outsets point to it being just an opinion of one person, that many people follow for some reason as they seem to take it as a sort of divine word, when in reality it is just one person's perception of reality." -end quote

This is rather troubling. Page 3 post #24 under this topic. Now that I can in fact offer something as food for thought I wanted to quote this in order to do so. First off, heck ya it is a mountain of data. Is the data that of one individual? Laura never quoted anyone? Not trying to be too combative here but alot of the useful data and concepts that are being drawn together are from the works of several others. Castaneda, Ouspenski, Gurdjieff, Nicoll, Lobaczewski, The Ra Material and most certainly the list goes on and on and on.

Are you receptive of it or not? Do you choose to add or take away? (Sorry that might have been somewhat/kind of paramoralism based, but also pertinent I believe.) I can imagine how some of what has been said to you may or may not be misconstrued as attacking. You may actually take some information in certain ways or be only able to grasp with limited tools (conceptual ability). I believe thus far everyone's conceptual presentations, except yours (as can be seen above) have been clear and direct. It's simply a red pill blue pill scenario which if you have the tools and capacity to discern you may come to realise that have all the above posts have been direct and to the point.

There is no attempt being made to make you a certain way but mearly an opportunity to reevaluate some of the concepts (may be even sacred cows) that you believe/pretend/do understand. Being wrong doesn't mean anything compared to being able to learn from the mistake itself.

Maybe there is too much butter on the bread making it taste too little like toast and too much like butter.

Might it be that you are on overload from all the info? Could it be that there are too many preconcieved notions floating about your head? Could it be that you are not susceptible to change based on too many prior convictions? I think the wave series really tackles those things if one is suspectible to them. I don't mean suseptible in terms of weak spots that can be invaded, I mean it in terms of open minded enough to be able to take in the information no matter the cost to the ego/sacred cows/ factory of I's. In the end I guess it is simply a matter of choice and then to Work from there.

Doh! I missed the part "Ark wrote" - "I decided to use my "administrator privileges" and to block the guy from posting."
 
Back
Top Bottom