Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Aquila King

Sacred Geometry

286 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, Mr Guitar said:

To me, nothing is sacred.

To me - everything.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mr. Argon said:

To me - everything.

So there is nothing profane?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, stereologist said:

So there is nothing profane?

A bit less sacred.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Another ploy to cover up your falsehoods about a contradiction?

How about this. 

I'll point out the contradiction, if you answer my question. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Scepticus said:

How about this. 

I'll point out the contradiction, if you answer my question. 

LOL. Go ahead point out the contradiction.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, stereologist said:

The propositions A and B are given. They are not related propositions. These propositions are assigned numerical values in the middle, but something else on the right side. Then the bottom asks if the solution is one of the propositions leading to a numerical assignment for spirit.

I don't see that there is anything connected here.

~

That's the part where the arguments must provide with the 'proofs' by which they arrive at A or B ... doofus

:lol:

( look, it was meant to be a bit of a some light hearted fun ... )

~

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, stereologist said:

LOL. Go ahead point out the contradiction.

Answer the question then. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Scepticus said:

Answer the question then. 

This simply tells us all that there was no contradiction.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, stereologist said:

This simply tells us all that there was no contradiction.

Actually it doesn't. 

But I am fascinated how you draw conclusions. 

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Scepticus said:

Actually it doesn't. 

But I am fascinated how you draw conclusions. 

 

Your reluctance shows that you were untruthful. It is funny that you are fascinated by being caught.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sacred–profane dichotomy is an idea posited by French sociologist Émile Durkheim, who considered it to be the central characteristic of religion: "religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden."[1] In Durkheim's theory, the sacred represented the interests of the group, especially unity, which were embodied in sacred group symbols, or totems. The profane, on the other hand, involved mundane individual concerns. Durkheim explicitly stated that the sacred–profane dichotomy was not equivalent to good/evil. The sacred could be good or evil, and the profane could be either as well

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, stereologist said:

Your reluctance shows that you were untruthful. It is funny that you are fascinated by being caught.

That a very unscientific way to draw a conclusion. Do you always use this method?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

try to understand each other.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stereo is a good logician and so are you.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Mr. Argon said:

try to understand each other.

I always do, hence my responses. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Scepticus said:

I always do, hence my responses. 

i know.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's nice to try to focus on truth in what a person is saying. interpretation is a very messy thing - perceptions are connected to emotions. flame is sparked easily.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but of course we have to deal with perceived fallacies. very complicated.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scepticus said:

I'll now ask you, is everything in the universe energy? 

i view it as consciousness, but energy is also acceptable term.

physical plane is a certain densed range of this consciousness (energy).

Edited by Mr. Argon
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mr. Argon said:

i view it as consciousness, but energy is also acceptable term.

Energy in physics is not synonymous with consciousness. There is a law that appears to always be true and that is the law of conservation of energy. Energy is not created or destroyed, but is changed from one form to another. Do you believe that is true about consciousness?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, stereologist said:

Energy in physics is not synonymous with consciousness. There is a law that appears to always be true and that is the law of conservation of energy. Energy is not created or destroyed, but is changed from one form to another. Do you believe that is true about consciousness?

yes.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mr. Argon said:

yes.

Interesting. With the world population increasing, how do you propose that consciousness is not increasing?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Interesting. With the world population increasing, how do you propose that consciousness is not increasing?

it is not increasing or decreasing. it is evolving. world population only means more (human)souls present on a material plane of existance.

Edited by Mr. Argon
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mr. Argon said:

it is not increasing or decreasing. it is evolving. world population only means more souls present on a material plane of existance.

So how do you know that consciousness is conserved? You did say that it is like energy in physics in which it is not created or destroyed.

Edited by stereologist
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, stereologist said:

So how do you know that consciousness is conserved?

i don't. it is a hypothesis. by studying a nature of universe the most likely explanation for me is that is one vast consciousness on different levels of evolution. in that respect i view a consciousness of a man as a consciousness on a certain cosmic level of development on a voyage through physical realm. i view a physical life as a cosmic dream and true higher self as being on different plane of existance. this dream is a way of evolving, of learning. physical brain in this respect is a sort of organ on physical plane which enables a contact with higher consciousness in a limited way. analogy may perhaps be as a brain being a tv set and higher consciousness a tv signal.

Edited by Mr. Argon
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.