26 Mar

I have been involved recently with some interesting discussions about the nature of specific religious outlooks. This has led me to consider a few perspectives that were not immediately obvious to me before this period commenced.

It occurs to me that several of the implied inherent “givens” of the major religions may be in line for re-evaluation. One I have already dealt with was around the “goal orientated reward systems”

The next would be the premise that continuation of “life” after death, be based upon a continuing humancentric existence. This probably is a common denominator amongst the vast majority of religions, that directed life choices made in the understanding and consideration of the cosmological viewpoint of said religion, result in the individual being accepted at the end of Earthly existence into the community of that particular religions approved individuals.

This idea has its basis in the power structures of human society. Some would conclude, not unreasonably, that this was suggestive of the desire of a continuing restriction after the end of life and was more representative of the individual’s who would attempt to continue to assert their domination over the majority after the end of this life and into the next, than of what actually may be the case.

With the advent of scientific data demonstrating the specific and unusual conditions needed for us to live, the feeling of isolation experienced by humanity as a species, tends to make perspectives rather introverted. The physicality of living on this plane of existence results in the inability, for many, to consider if this totality of human living is the only measure of existence. To deal with this, it is necessary to evaluate if the consequences of human living constitute a total perspective. I was recently watching a program on the BBC that dealt with newly observed phenomena of everyday activities that are too quick or subtle for the human eye or brain to deal with in real time. One amazing fact that left be reeling was that the total percentage of the visible light humans can see is just (if I recall correctly) 0.0000000001%. That is to say, 99.999999999% of visible light is unseen by humanity. Now, to put this into some form of perspective, and if my rudimentary scientific knowledge is up to scratch, as a species, we exist on the crust of a planet thats depth represents less than 0.6% of it’s total mass, in an atmosphere only conducive to human respiratory systems to a height of less than 5 miles (either way), growing food supplies on the area of the earth that represents around 10% of it’s total area and with a visual ability that would, by our own standards, class us as severely blind.

We would appear to have some handicaps inherited to us by nature and we perpetuate them further by insisting to continue with these conditions of living after our allotted time span is over. This is at best, inconsistent or at worst, totally depressing.

Yet, over the last hundred or so years, humanity has been experiencing interactions, borne initially from superstitious beliefs but developing through both experiential and more recently, experimental means, that suggest that this isolation may be suggestive of an inherent inability by ourselves to perceive the actuality of what the cosmos actually represents. Advances in both technology and communications mean that this inherited blindfold may be in the process of, if not being removed, at least shifted.

Most striking as far as the relevance to religious beliefs are concerned, are the changing nature and methods of communication between humanity and the other realms.

I will be presenting threads over time that both explore the changing nature and the changing interactions that I have been party to. This will not be an exercise in the methodology of how these were arrived at, for I consider that the “mechanics” of these interactions to be a purely subjective thing and it has been my experience that to qualify such a thing usually results in too much time spent in disclosure as to the “correct” way of doing it and what usually happens is that the subject matter is somehow lost in the rhetoric surrounding that methodology. In doing this, by not presenting my methodology at how I arrived with such things, I leave my positioned weakened to the more skeptical. I also leave myself open to the position of having these experiences condemned as delusional. That is as it may. What I will do though, is to concentrate on the substance of what has been disclosed to me and leave the subject matter at the discretion of the other parties to raise. You are invited to contribute, if the subject matter interests you and to raise any and all points of interest relating to the subject matter.

Leave a comment

Posted by on March 26, 2010 in Speculative conjecture


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: