From: Robert Lauzeckas Newsgroups: alt.consciousness.near-death-exp Subject: Trinity once again! Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 19:31:44 -0500 Organization: Netcom Lines: 226 Message-ID: <350B2170.457C@ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: flauzeck@ix.netcom.com NNTP-Posting-Host: wfd-nj4-35.ix.netcom.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------10FD6CFB310D" X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Mar 14 6:40:14 PM CST 1998 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U) Path: ccw.ch!bali.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!4.1.16.34!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!ix.netcom.com!news This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------10FD6CFB310D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/8361/maybe.html
--------------10FD6CFB310D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; name="race_realtionships_and_Satan's_many_kingdoms.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline; filename="race_realtionships_and_Satan's_many_kingdoms.txt" Race Relationships and why its so easy to love just your= self and not others. I once dated Japanese woman who told me that the biggest problem Ameri= cans had in understanding Asians(especially Japanese) is that they see t= he role of a person in society much more importantly in defining who the = person is, than the particular history of the individual. So the person = is more of who they are in society and in their job than they are as husb= ands or fathers(personal definitions). I thought, if this observation i= s true then a lot of cultural behavior can be more readily explained. And= , most importantly, possibly explain our difficulty in our trade deals w= ith them. Where in spite of the promised good intentions on both sides w= e always seem to be on the losing side. Let me lay a little ground work in some remote areas and finally tie the= m together with other ideas. This is all going to seem strange to you in= the beginning, so bare with me. Scientists already today have realized= that there is much information preprogrammed in our brains for assimilat= ing and shaping outside information, social information. = Take for example sexual preference, just recently they discovered that = a very small clump of cells in our brains determines our sexual orientati= on. All brains are born female, but usually for normal male brains, in th= e first 24 hours a hormone is released making a certain clump of cells g= row. If the cells do grow the brain will be male oriented, making it seek= out the female form. Vice-versa is also true. = But all this also means that the visual clues in our brains for female/m= ale traits also are preprogrammed in us. Unlike most lower animals, we = rely much more on visual clues than oratory clues. So there must be infor= mation already hardwired in our brains just to read visual clues of the= opposite sex. = This also is supported by the obvious fact that we don't have to be told = as to what the visual clues of a persons' physical appearance means. = There are visual clues for youth, meaning health and others telling us o= f old age, weakness and unsuitability for child bearing any more. None of= which we have to go to school to learn. = I don't have to go to school to tell me which females I like. Never had c= lasses in that. Did you? I even think that there is a good chance who we = like to look at, who we find attractive, might depend a lot on our gene m= akeup. If we have good genes and sense just as good and of the same type = in the opposite sex, we might be driven to want to have sex. Like craving= like. And since we all have our share of weak genes as well, we might se= nse our opposites which can improve on our offspring. So a type of liking your opposite is another flavor of craving. Some is = no doubt culturally imbibed. But for the most part, like wanting like, i= s the strongest. As animals we tend to feel more comfortable with those w= e share the blueprint of life.. Is it fair, don't know? But its nature'= s design for life. Why argue or deny it? I use to go out of my way to talk to couples which almost looked related= =2E And opposites. By no means any scientific study. Opposites seem to = enjoy each other better when they are younger, when sex is best, and if t= hey don't like themselves much. Likes were the happiest by far. Everythi= ng with them seemed happy and there was a togetherness there, which pass= ed gracefully into old age, when the attractiveness of youth of opposite= s faded, and the differences for the first time surfaced in greater impor= tance in the relationship because the sex drive no longer covered the dif= ferences. But then again, just my observations. Means nothing. = There is other information preprogrammed in us for listening to language= s, learning impossibly fast and well as a child , when we clearly outstri= p most adults in the assimilation of language. Later when just logic is = employed in the learning of languages, rather when we use some mysterio= us preprogrammed ability to assimilate language without conscious effort.= And later, just a little older, it gets turned off, and we become the sl= ow adults who can move to a new country and learn the new language there = more slowly in fifty years than as a child in their own country in two ye= ars. In some strange ways, we become dumber not smarter for certain task= s with age. And all to do with what nature hardwired in us. Other indications are the studies in Israeli where physchologists discov= ered that if children are closely exposed to children of the opposite sex= when younger, they will develop the incest taboo and not marry those pe= ople. Even when they weren't biologically related. Strongly proving that = there is instinct behavior in us, that is preprogrammed from birth which= is conductive not for the individual member of the group, but for the = group as a whole. We are as programmed for certain social behaviors as i= nsects are in their domain. But we have the luxury of free thought proces= sing over these instinctive conceptual behaviors and thought patterns. Now I'm almost at my point. There is another theory by a behaviorist at= Harvard that much of our altruistic behavior is really deep down instinc= tually selfish behavior. He demonstrated with social insects with almost mathematical precision that the amount of willingness and effort = one insect will sacrifice for another is in proportion to the amount of s= hared genetically material they have. If the other insect is not DNA rela= ted at all, no sacrificing is involved. You just don't, evolution in re= verse it would be. For siblings with a quarter gene overlap, so much sac= rifice, with fifty percent twice. Programmed altruistic behavior on the surface, but lying underneath, t= he instinctive consideration that your genes in you, are also in them, = and they are just as important in them as they are in you. Individuality = we might have trouble relating to each other, but beneath our surface, = we might be always registering similiaries and differences between oursel= ves and acting accordingly. But always struggling with higher principles = to govern and shape our behavior in accordance to other considerations, = usually abstract values. But always, a struggle between instinct and mi= nd. And as in so many cases with war, with the alarming probability of c= omplete gene destruction with impending physical death, instinct wins. Now what I want to suggest that maybe, just maybe we also read visual cl= ues on other peoples faces as to who they are on a genictical level and a= s to how they overlap with ourselves. Also I will assume that this Japanese woman was correct in her assumptio= ns about out critical differences in seeing ourselves in regards to our s= ocial standing. If there are two preprogrammed conceptual triggers: one,= to judge and take care of ourselves as individuals within a greater soc= iety of animals for ourselves and two, another value system for weighting= our importance towards the greater group we are in. A constant strugglin= g of warring values, usually opposed to each other. And if the visual clues in groups with less range of visual clues for de= termining genital material is in Asians because they are less varied with= surface traits. Almost always with straight black hair and eye color, wh= ere Europeans range from light blond to dark, from green eyes to blue to = brown eyes. = So in one group the systems for enforcing greater group consciousness an= d set of values is naturally stronger, but changing with time and integra= tion. Where in the other, the triggers for individuaitic values are stron= ger, leading more to a more exploratory nature and a natural stressing o= f individual values. From political revolutions to even the normal day to= day behaviors manifesting themselves in a million different ways. The premise is , if the above is true, for Asian states as they are n= ow, are almost driven to look out for themselves. Much stronger group be= havior values in them than us. Both are good, both can be bad, depending= on how they act and where and when. From Japanese soldiers disposing an= d not understanding American captured soldiers in World War Two, sending= them off on a death march because they thought to themselves, just look= at them, how could they not sacrifice themselves with death for their = group, what low life these Americans must be. They deserved horrible dea= ths, may they never shame their family and race in the same way. And wit= h horrified American soldiers not understanding the seemingly complete la= ck of compassion for individual concerns and rights. Two systems values p= layed out then and later today, in a disguised form with a new setting. = I n today's trade negotiations. One looking at the world in general on principle, putting in the backg= round group concerns, the other with it in the foreground claiming other= wise, but always breaking promises to accommodate only themselves and o= nly their group. All groups have their good and bad in them. All people have their angel = and devil in them. So all struggle within themselves to be good for more= than just themselves or their group. The struggle is greater today than = it will be someday, when we all blend together, as one overall geneti= cally integrated race. Well, maybe not completely, I think that certai= n biological templates should be preserved....like beautiful French looki= ng women and others elsewhere..all beautiful in their own way....and let = the rest mix. Until then, we have to guard ourselves from ourselves. Both= dwell there, the Kingdom of God, and the divided kingdoms(along racial = lines) of Satan. = So until then................................... another planet, MAYB= E On a distant planet where God was the composite mind of left brain= s of a species. And the Devil was a composite mind of right brains, but w= hich were divided along racial lines and always fighting in-house. Never = quite getting their act together. And with their Jesus claiming it was do= omed to failure because Satan had a divided kingdom, so how could it sta= nd? Wasn't Satan's Kingdom divided against itself, those abrasive right b= rains! Really?! They can't even get along with themselves. And so in the past, about five hundred years ago in France a doctor on t= he move in Europe, Nostradamus, predicted three anti-Christ's. One wou= ld come from France herself. A conqueror, falling only in Russia. But one= , who before he falls, changes Europe and the world forever. It is socia= lly liberated but with a hidden cost because that liberation was before i= ts time. And so the Devil said to God, see my stronger sub-kingdoms have = been liberated. Now the industrial revolution will take place before you = can integrate them peacefully. War machines will be created faster than l= asting peace treaties. And God smirked. Sixty years ago the Devil said, there goes Hitler. Another sub-kingdom = as Nostradamus predicted. The second anti-christ was born. But he to, fai= led! And said before dying that Germany failed him, it deserved to die w= ith him. And that he somehow sensed the next threat would come from the e= ast, he thought Russia. Maybe not. Now he is pointing his finger again and saying to God, see there is my = largest sub-kingdom. I will arm her with the weapons she needs and then a= nd then....for the last time.....BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM! = And unless we all learn to accept the differences between all groups, es= pecially racial, without an ounce of hatred, and learn to appreciate th= em, suppressing the instinctive desire to fight only for your own group. And to trade fairly. This bullshit about only 14% of the world's populat= ion being racist, with the remaining 85% percent, not being.. But always= being allowed to only care about themselves, with a GIVE ME ATTIDUTE, a= nd calling it ethical pride has got to go. Show me where in the far east = they are integrating like the west. = Otherwise, God's rules fail, and Satan scheme of wiping out the weaker = portions of Mankind will become a reality. It is either, reform now or di= e later. When the wrong people, climb to the top, it will be too late for= the changes which were required today. = Then again we're so fucked up, so maybe................ = = --------------10FD6CFB310D-- ##### From: "David Ladley" Newsgroups: alt.consciousness.near-death-exp Subject: Re: Trinity once again! Date: 15 Mar 1998 10:17:28 GMT Organization: Middlebury College Lines: 62 Message-ID: <01bd4ffb$c423ad60$1cd0e98c@scuttlebutt.middlebury.edu> References: <350B2170.457C@ix.netcom.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: resnet-f-28.middlebury.edu X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155 Path: ccw.ch!bali.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!boston-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!pampascat.middlebury.edu!not-for-mail Hi Robert! Have you ever read Desmond Morris' essay entitled "Altruistic Behaviour"? It discusses some of the same issues you do about how protecting genes is the main aim of altruism. Morris hypothesized that with primative man, individuals lived in confining tribes, and all the people one was likely to see in one's lifetime would be, at least distantly, related to him. Therefore altruism was a mechanism for protecting your own genes, in the form of an other relative. Then he goes on, in a rather Freudian/Jungian way, to show how nowadays, the altruist archetype is often applied nowadays to other people we're not related to, as well as to things. Morris is a staunch atheist, and his essay drips with materialist overtones. That's one of the main points I disagree with him on. Overall, I think his argument holds some water, but not tons. I have read nothing by newer researchers like Daniel Dennett (who some people say is The Last Word on the origins of humans, the origins of brain consciousness, and meaning of life, or rather, lack thereof.) I have two theories of my own, which support ethnocentrism (and hating those who are different in general) as being biological: 1. From Morris' argument, if primitive man saw almost exclusively others who were related to him, then it follows that anyone who did not look like him must not share his genes, and is therefore competition for the survival of his genes, and is therefore an enemy. By this model, peoples of the world who are extremely ethnocentric (I won't mention any specific ones, but I'm sure I don't need to), are completely justified in being that way. They're the ones who are being true to their nature, unlike the rest of us "compassionate fools" who deceive ourselves with philosophical flim-flam. 2. From simple Darwinian based logic: a. Blind hatred causes anger b. Anger causes conflict c. Conflict causes violence d. Violence causes death e. Death through mortal combat causes, you guessed it: Survival of the Fittest! By this model, what's supposed to happen is that we should make no effort to stop war, and let the stronger ethnic groups exterminate all the weaker ones until there is only one ethnic group left to repopulate the planet. It's only lingering philosophical beliefs that have kept this from happening. If either of my theories is correct, then ethnocentrism cannot be erased from the human condition, no matter how much "tolerance teaching" there is. Eugenics (something I'm against) would be the only cure, as it would be for all biological-based human problems. In any event, I'll be very glad to be free of this limited body, this pre-programmed mind, and these selfish genes once I die. Now I may be speaking too soon, because for all I know, the burden we will carry may be heavier in our next state of existence. But whatever may await me at my grave, even if it's total annihilation, I will face it bravely, and with the face of a warrior. Peace! Dave Ladley ##### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch Newsgroups: alt.consciousness.near-death-exp Subject: Re: Trinity once again! Date: 15 Mar 1998 23:23:57 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 141 Message-ID: References: <350B2170.457C@ix.netcom.com> <01bd4ffb$c423ad60$1cd0e98c@scuttlebutt.middlebury.edu> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 "David Ladley" worte: > Have you ever read Desmond Morris' essay entitled "Altruistic Behaviour"? Yes these ideas are in Morris, also in Dawkins, actually in all modern (= evolution based) socio-biology. > all the people one was likely to see in one's lifetime would > be, at least distantly, related to him. Therefore altruism was a mechanism > for protecting your own genes, in the form of an other relative. That is still so today. Who do you see first after getting up out of bed? Wife, child, parents, friends, work colleagues, people of your nation and race. All of them people whose wellbeing is contributing to your wellbeing (at least indirectly). > Then he goes on, in a rather Freudian/Jungian way, to show how nowadays, > the altruist archetype is often applied nowadays to other people we're not > related to, as well as to things. Actually you need no Freud/Jung for this (and IMHO Morris doesn't use any). It is an obvious thing, that as we all become more interdependant, the wellbeing of further away people becomes relevant to our own wellbeing. 500 years ago no one in Washington (or London/Paris/etc) was relevant to your life, 200 years ago they were. 50 years ago no middle east ruler was relevant to you, today Saddam is. > Morris is a staunch atheist, and his essay drips with materialist > overtones. That's one of the main points I disagree with him on. Why/what do you disagree? IMHO the materialist viewpoint has a lot for it. MEthinks you are only disagreeing with a strawman you have constructed. And yes, I do think that parapsychology and NDE will have a materialist explanation one day, when todays pseudo-scientists become real and stop ridiculing them and research into them. > I have read nothing by > newer researchers like Daniel Dennett (who some people say is The Last Word > on the origins of humans, the origins of brain consciousness, and meaning > of life, or rather, lack thereof.) Dennett (I have read his massive "Darvins Dangerous Idea", 520 pages, good) is based on Morris and Dawkins for the basics, Dennet just adds lots of thinking (he is philosopher, not zoologist/researcher like Morris/Dawkins). > 1. From Morris' argument, if primitive man saw almost exclusively others > who were related to him, then it follows that anyone who did not look like > him must not share his genes, and is therefore competition for the survival > of his genes, and is therefore an enemy. In the days of primitive (collectors and hunters) societies that was enough (not same = foreign = not relevant). > By this model, peoples of the world who are extremely ethnocentric (I won't > mention any specific ones, but I'm sure I don't need to), are completely > justified in being that way. They're the ones who are being true to their > nature, unlike the rest of us "compassionate fools" who deceive ourselves > with philosophical flim-flam. Ethnocentric from heritage, yes. But today interdependance makes others relevant ot our genes survival, even if they have no gene-copies in common with you. So altruism towards anyone becomes genetically (= egoistically) sensible. So it has nothing to to with "compassionate", just intelligent enough to see where the ball is going. The ethnocentrics you mentioned are simply mentally backward in their development, dumb beasts whose million year old genes still dominate over their not yet developed intelligence, which is manifest in us "compassionate fools" how you call us. Roberts call for eliminating ethnocentrics is full on the point. > 2. From simple Darwinian based logic: > a. Blind hatred causes anger > b. Anger causes conflict > c. Conflict causes violence > d. Violence causes death Up to now I agree with you. > e. Death through mortal combat causes, you guessed it: Survival of the > Fittest! But the winner also often loses (injuries). So he loses fitness. Any intelligent life form (and even mooses or cats qualifiy here) avoids a fight if it is unneccessary. Why exterminate the other at great cost if you can live with him? Or even profit from his existance? Darwinism is a difficult theory to understand, that is why so many fail at it. Being simple on the surface helps decept people into failling on it. > By this model, what's supposed to happen is that we should make no effort > to stop war, and let the stronger ethnic groups exterminate all the weaker > ones until there is only one ethnic group left to repopulate the planet. No, not according to my book (and IMHO Morrises and Dawkins). WAring them (and even their wars among themselves) will cost us. Just look at the Asian market crises and its recessionary effect on the US. > It's only lingering philosophical beliefs that have kept this from > happening. No, intelligence keeps us (at least those that have intelligence) from being so stupid. It is the animals such as Saddam (and many other politicians, both nazi and market neo-liberals) that pose the danger. Roberts remarks on 3rd world exploitation being bad are on point. > If either of my theories is correct, then ethnocentrism cannot be erased > from the human condition, no matter how much "tolerance teaching" there is. > Eugenics (something I'm against) would be the only cure, as it would be for > all biological-based human problems. Luckily for all of us your theories are wrong. Ethnocentrism will be erased but it will take time, lots of it, many centuries or even millenia. Now the obligate question (to anyone): what has this discussion got to do with NDEs? -- private: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch, http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin.remove.this@arch.ethz.ch, http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ If I go missing, its once again my newsfeed that has craped Now hope they don't kill this message too. ###### From: Robert Lauzeckas Newsgroups: alt.consciousness.near-death-exp Subject: Re: Trinity once again! Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 23:43:56 -0500 Organization: Netcom Lines: 81 Message-ID: <350F510C.41CA@ix.netcom.com> References: <350B2170.457C@ix.netcom.com> <01bd4ffb$c423ad60$1cd0e98c@scuttlebutt.middlebury.edu> <350DEEDC.3C51@ix.netcom.com> <350e1041.2931810@207.14.113.10> Reply-To: flauzeck@ix.netcom.com NNTP-Posting-Host: wfd-nj1-20.ix.netcom.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-NETCOM-Date: Tue Mar 17 10:52:55 PM CST 1998 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U) To: Optional Path: ccw.ch!bali.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!news-dc-1.sprintlink.net!news-east.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!netnews.com!howland.erols.net!ix.netcom.com!news Optional wrote: > > On Mon, 16 Mar 1998 22:32:44 -0500, Robert Lauzeckas > wrote: > > You know when I left my body with once, it felt exactly that...FREEDOM > >ONCE AGAIN! > > > > Man, did it feel good. The level of awareness is so much greater than > >anything now, there isn't any way to compare. Its like to figure colors > >from black and white, no way, no how. > > I know exactly what your talking about. It was as if my soul had been > imprisoned within the physical body. The words of MLK described this > feeling very well. "Free at last, free at last, Thank God Almighty! > Free at last". Our abilities and level of awareness are so limited > while in the body. This was one of many reasons why I did not wish to > return. > > > But I sensed I did this many times before. You don't reach human until > >you go throught a lot of shit. Lower shit. But I also sensed, I had a > >task to perform, and I didn't do it yet. So back I went, without choice. > > I know that there is a very good reason why we have to go through all > the "lower shit". I just wish that I could remember that reason. It > all was so clear then. But it seems that we are only allowed to > return with a limited amount of the knowledge we gain during the > experience. Perhaps we are here to gain wisdom that can only be > obtained while we are at this level of limited abilities and > awareness? > > At the end of my NDE I was told by this one soul (spirit guide? > guardian angel?) that I had to return. It was not like an order but > rather a statement of fact and I knew he was right. I did feel like I > had a choice, but how could anyone choose to go against the desire of > such love, and if I had not returned it would have deeply hurt the > people that I love most. > > As always, > > Optional Good thing you listened to your guide. I also had dreams warning me to either do something or avoid something coming up. In the beginning when it all began, and I was still in that, this can't be happening, it can't be real, get a reality check, I defied it. Went against the advice, and each time, I fucked up without exception. I was a slow stubborn learner. Nothing that was happening, belonged in my then little limited scientific view of reality. And in my stupidity, if it didn't belong, how could it be true? I was smart enough to be stupid. Blind to even being blind, competely blind. I remember that first moment, realizing I was dead. And it was as natural then as it had been a million times before. My soul was a giant, all of it me, full consciouness, everypart aware, so many lives, all merged, tinier souls merging over time. Then I knew, not time yet. I promised to do something, had to do it. Didn't yet, had to go back. I was pushed back, wasn't given a choice. And in that state I naturally sensed an infinite mind behind reality, beneath reality, is something, all mind, all alive, as alive as alive can get. I was part of it, but a drop. A growing drop, but a part. I belonged. Everything, everybody belonged. We all merge, on the lowest layer of reality. I liked it. I was back home. I know one thing for sure, we don't die, ever. R.L.