Study Hall.

[sunbern]

that was my interpretation too Jim



     
                          same to you Del and all

[Del.]

off to stay with a friend over Christmas so wont be posting till after boxing day.
I hope you all have a wonderful Christmas and all the best for 2017, ''wow'' where has twelve months gone.
Cheers guys.

[Jim]

You too Del ... have a happy holiday ... as far as the last 12 goes - I have no clue

Everyone have a happy holiday ...

[Brenda Marguerite]

Happy Christmas Jim and Del. Hope you both have a good rest. Specially you Jim your brain must be overloaded, know how that feel. All the best. X

[sunbern]

Thanks for keeping me from getting bored mate have a good one

[Jim]

Happy Christmas Jim and Del. Hope you both have a good rest. Specially you Jim your brain must be overloaded, know how that feel. All the best. X

Rest is short lived in my world

I was contemplating the "afterlife" idea in an overall context of human history, and, as usual, it doesn't make sense. What about earlier versions of the "human" species? What about the other life-forms on this planet? "Religion" answers this with the inclusion of the "soul." So, "we" had a soul, and  - no one else did? I don't buy the idea of a "soul" ... I think it's simpler ... I think it's part of the overall construction of "life" and that when the part of us that needs bio-mechanical "support" to continue (the physical body), fails ... it falls away and what's left is the underlying energy. Religion cannot explain this - this is a job for science. Unfortunately, science fears peer ridicule, and topics like the paranormal (which would be where we should start looking) are ignored.

At any rate, I started looking around, found some work by Dr Daniel M. Ogilvie, Department of Psychology,
Rutgers, and made a .DOC, read it, and made a PDF if you are interested. The topics are The God Problem - Soul Searching Project - A Partial History of Afterlife Beliefs. The links are in the paper and I put them all in one text.

If you want one, send me an email and let me know if you want the .DOC or the PDF. If you want to just look at the links ... here you go.

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~ogilvie/HistoryAfterlife.htm
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~ogilvie/research.html

[sunbern]

pdf by preference pls ,back to the land of the living and an internet connection

[sunbern]

Homo sapiens sapiens appeared a mere 30,000 years ago—some say only 10,000 to 20,000 years ago





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9Pazv8baVI

[Jim]

Wanna tell me what I'm looking for?

[sunbern]

you'll have to wade through it i'm a bit short of time at the mo ,the origins bit caught my eye ( that's why i posted it ) sorry just a bit tied up right now ...make of it what you will or bin it ,never know what time you have on your hands but i do know you like to do your own research

[Jim]

Well basically the picture, simply put, is not that young. The term homo sapien sapien regards changes to what was, and the overall picture is that we are all just homo sapiens. Dates vary but the changes seem to tie to the "changes" c 40,000 BC.

[sunbern]

how about treating yourself to an ou course on the afterlife beliefs ? maybe it would open up more email opportunities and dialogue .



http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~ogilvie/HistoryAfterlife.htm

[sunbern]

fascinating reading Jim ,so it seems our own brain development was responsible for our heirarchecal system ( plannning ahead ) and as we developed this more, the peer orientated aspect of our our human structure became more developed amazing stuff ,really enjoying reading it ..ongoing .

[Jim]

Yeah, from my perspective it all boils down to how the brain works, and, "doesn't work." If we can look at today and see the antisocial aspect of control, the question to ask is "How far back into history does it go?" Psychologists add the "hubris syndrome" to this picture, where a more mentally "normal" leader just - loses it completely. Basically, keeping it simple, it all breaks down to the same antisocial picture, and we are still screwed.

http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/132/5/1396

[sunbern]

and still they line up ,if Donald Trump is'nt displaying hubris symptoms it's all a myth

[Jim]

Shrinks broke the rules and diagnosed him as a full blown narcissist with antisocial personality disorder. He could very well "lose it" On the other hand, he's a successful billionaire businessman ... and since this whole picture is about money, he MAY do what's needed to fix this mess, and bathe in the glory of the chanting people (also known as narcissistic supply).

[Del.]

Shrinks broke the rules and diagnosed him as a full blown narcissist with antisocial personality disorder. He could very well "lose it" On the other hand, he's a successful billionaire businessman ... and since this whole picture is about money, he MAY do what's needed to fix this mess, and bathe in the glory of the chanting people (also known as narcissistic supply).    

Mmmm, that's food for thought, never looked at it that way before..

[sunbern]

Mmmm, that's food for thought, never looked at it that way before.. hmm

well there you go mate our society has been shaped by a sucession of narcisists and hubris sufferer's

[Jim]

Then too, one would tend to think that if he was in the "elite's" way - he should wind up dead

I'm going to be out for awhile ... get back to this later.

[sunbern]

"Yeah, from my perspective it all boils down to how the brain works, and, "doesn't work." If we can look at today and see the antisocial aspect of control, the question to ask is "How far back into history does it go?"



there are still some tribes that live by the ` live for today `principle which seems to entail working together for the tribe so ,the `control` aspect did'nt come `as standard `It seems to be a factor connected to larger societies and the thinking ahead principle ( accumulate more and strive for more ) this does seem to be condusive to peer control ( i guess it stemmed from the best ones at it were the most respected ) Maybe it's inevitable and part of our evolution, maybe also civilizations have destroyed themselves at this point in their evolution .Perhaps the et's that are `hoverring` in the background are watching us through this `difficult period` in our development as a species ...I really hope so ..

[Jim]

there are still some tribes that live by the ` live for today `principle which seems to entail working together for the tribe so ,the `control` aspect did'nt come `as standard ...

Any culture will develop according their rules and beliefs, and there are still "live for today" tribes on the planet it seems. People born with these kind of potential "brain problems" will always be in the picture. It's like cars in a assembly line - every now and then, there's a "lemon." But it seems if they did pop up in those cultures - they were eliminated.



`It seems to be a factor connected to larger societies and the thinking ahead principle ( accumulate more and strive for more ) this does seem to be condusive to peer control ( i guess it stemmed from the best ones at it were the most respected ) Maybe it's inevitable and part of our evolution, maybe also civilizations have destroyed themselves at this point in their evolution .Perhaps the et's that are `hoverring` in the background are watching us through this `difficult period` in our development as a species ...I really hope so ..  

Yeah they have - and the "watching" didn't just start. Our problem is that this is OUR planet, OUR lives, and in the overall picture of constructivism ... WE have to figure it out. Unfortunately, I don't see it happening.

[sunbern]

"Yeah they have - and the "watching" didn't just start. Our problem is that this is OUR planet, OUR lives, and in the overall picture of constructivism ... WE have to figure it out. Unfortunately, I don't see it happening"




Neither do i until people realise this is the only home they have and if they wreck it picking up the pieces may not be an option this time ...

[Jim]

Neither do i until people realise this is the only home they have and if they wreck it picking up the pieces may not be an option this time ...

Well, for me at any rate, this is where the constructivist approach comes in with regard to our entire picture of life and life after death. Making YOU do it all ("...until people realize..."), and knowing nothing regarding "what's coming" when you die, gives you the freedom to be YOU. And if YOU are an asshole, you've now proven it, and you are placed accordingly "after death."

If the "front office" (for lack a better term) just "gave us the answers," people could actually manipulate the picture and pretend to be "good" - and would be able to contaminate the afterlife.

If that's right, WHO is giving out all this - "information" - that is leaving us so confused? We know what's going on here, it's what we can't see and what appears to people and "tells them things" that needs to be identified properly. I dunno ... that's as close as I can get.

[sunbern]

looking at it from `their` point of view i'd say they have gathered more than enough `material ` to kick start the next level of humanity on another planet ,no need to bother with this one other than keeping it ticking over in case they need any more ,i'd say this is now a planet in stagnation and i can't see why they hav'nt taken the population measures we should have adressed ,i know we are given free will ,i just cant fathom why they are letting us destroy ourselves ,maybe it's because they dont think we are trying hard enough and are not worth helping ( cant think of any other reason .) perhaps there are so many earth like planets we are considered expendable .

[Brenda Marguerite]

Bernie if they come to help us they take away our free will. They are not allowed to do that. We make our own choices, so its up to us how we do this. I think they are there to make sure we don't blow their Planet up, and will act if that ever comes to frutition.

[Sponsored content]