2012

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by tubejay on January 3, 2009 at 1:54pm

he certainly isn't an "expert" on masculine and feminine energy. from one culture to another, feminine energy is associated with birth, rebirth, destruction, suffering, and darkness. it's the dark side, the yin, of energy, but it is not "evil."

masculine energy is associated with protection, inspiration, and daytime, but it is not "good." without the creative force of the feminine side, the masculine force is impotent. without the protection of the masculine energy, feminine energy is destructive. but to go from one to the other would destroy everything. and to go from "masculine" to "feminine" on a universal scale would be to plunge the universe into the depths of hell. think of poor eve (eve, by the way, literally means "to live") in genesis, or the freaky book of revelations.

but depending on how you look at the past century, you can see a transition (you can probably see it in any century, but if this 13th b'ak'tun (or period of approximately 4 of our centuries, according to the mesoamerican long count calendar is significant, you should see more,) from less "enlightenment" to more, expressed in terms of greater communication between people, deeper (more worldwide) caring for animals and the environment (if only because of how much suffering we've contributed for both) and greater understanding of the mind (although the jury's still out.)

if we have made any kind of progress, or any leaps, (i think of the hopi prophecy that in the end of time, the world will be "crisscrossed by a giant spider web.") we can expect to reap their fruits if the prophecies are not bunk. i first heard of the hopi prophecy in the "koyaanisqatsi" ("life out of balance") trilogy, (must see, brilliant film) and if life is out of balance now, we should expect not a transition from one energy to another, but a return to a balance of energy. and yes, that is a good thing. think of prophesies of heaven.

but, it's been 5100 or 5200 years, and our culture is in a place where we can't relate to ancient people who said they could predict the general lifestyles of the future ages of mankind. we mustn't assume too much (if anything) and ultimately, an agnostic approach to it all seems the most likely to give us both the ability to enjoy the times ahead, whatever they are, or make the most of them, and do whatever it is we must.

that's assuming there is anything at all to old prophecies. if there isn't, an agnostic approach will keep us from wasting too much of our valuable days priding ourselves in how much more reasonable we are than those silly hippies in southern california, with their crystals and their flimsy clothing.

i love "live and let live." i'm not advocating what pascal was though, pascal was a dick. believe what you believe you should, let god or the universe sort it out, and live your life. any reasonable universe (even a slightly reasonable one) would have it no other way. it's too big to argue with and too big to agree with. but it's just the right size to make the most of it, do our best, and maybe live to tell. sometimes, it's nice to see everything on one big scale. if a big calendar makes you see life that way, more power to you.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Alex Barber on January 4, 2009 at 11:45am

The idea of a possible apocalypse with an actual date seems to influence peoples actions for the worse. Already I have heard people around me say things like, "Well the worlds ending in 2012, so why not?" or "It doesn't matter what we do, the worlds ending soon." I'm afraid this might escalate as we get nearer to this so called apocalypse. Unless everyone just gets bored of the idea and starts thinking straight again.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by tubejay on January 4, 2009 at 1:30pm

eh, december 1999 was the same way. people love excuses, but i don't think the idea of 2012 is going to make many people do things they wouldn't do anyway. it might give them a little extra incentive to bother instead of procrastinate.

it might make the fanatics a little more fanatic for a while, but so does the release of a new harry potter book. you could be right though. i doubt it, and i hope not, but you could be. none of this assumes that january 2013 will be any different than a day or a month prior.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Umar Ali on January 4, 2009 at 1:11pm

OH NO!! WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!!!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by J.J on January 4, 2009 at 5:55pm

The future has not happend yet, according to some quatum physics theory it all may be happening right now. Time is a relative thing ...but of course for us the future is still to happen and those theories need to be confirmed anyway.

I think 2012 will bring changes ...specially a new U.S president ...election year and of course changes in technology, but we already know that, don't we?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Opus V on January 5, 2009 at 9:29pm

In my opinion, quantum physics theory is a bunch of science fiction, it's so outside of reality that when you really look hard at it, it's based on a minimal number of observable truthes, wraped up in a lot of fancy words and fantasies.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by tubejay on January 5, 2009 at 10:10pm

that's also your opinion about evolution.

i appreciate that science has the capacity to push your imagination, but referring to years of research, study, and mathematical proofs as "science fiction" doesn't make it so.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Opus V on January 6, 2009 at 8:36pm

So, do you believe quantum physics is accurate?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by tubejay on January 6, 2009 at 10:24pm

i believe it's reasonable. the goal of science is for our understanding to improve. i believe it includes some of the most accurate ideas we have so far.

i do not believe it is "based on a minimal number of observable truthes, wraped up in a lot of fancy words and fantasies." such an opinion is there for anyone to have, but i have to question the honesty of anyone who arrives at such a conclusion.

it may be he has a real argument to offer against quantum theory, which i would find interesting to hear. it is more likely he simply likes to assume that anything he doesn't grasp is nonsense.

that however, is not a scientific or accurate way of seeing the world. if it was, computers and manned flight would still be impossible nonsense, and protons would be treated no differently than angels. i would rather see the imaginary bolstered as worth a second look, than painstaking research foolishly brushed off as imaginary.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Opus V on January 7, 2009 at 4:35am

I've done a bit of research into this subject before, and I have a couple good friends that know a decent amount about it. They always say, "oh, i'm not going to talk about it, it's CRAZY and hard to understand" but eventually they do. It's not hard to understand, it explains itself fairly well, same with what i've read about it. That being said, my problem isn't that i can't grasp it, that's the easy part. Suggesting that I don't like what i can't grasp is like saying I didn't "get" someones favorite movie because I didn't love it as much as they did.

my first problem with quantum physics, a decent percentage of what i've read and heard has been more along the lines of science fantasy than fact, and the intellegent people i've spoken to about quantum physics agree(not that this is a popularity contest). That being said, i'm not the type to take a theory seriously if i feel that it crosses this line a bit too far, the line between gravity being a theory, and quantum physics being a theory, they are obviously vastly different when it comes to evidence.

problem number two, it completly goes against my personal beliefe that time travel is impossible. I've come to the conclusion that the past is done, the future hasn't happened. You can't alter something as perminant as the past, and you can't alter something that doesn't exist(the future), simple as that. All we have is now. The past only exists in our memories, and recorded media, the future is nothing but our hope, anticipation, and predictions.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by tubejay on January 7, 2009 at 12:59pm

your personal beliefs are irrelevant to determining what is and isn't scientific.

as are the second-hand accounts of a theory, based on what friends tell you. there are a lot of fantasies attached to the theories, mostly by people that read a little about the theories and then make stuff up. (not that there's anything wrong with that, it just isn't scientific.)

but that's what you're attacking, not the actual science.

it's exactly like if i said gamma radiation was imaginary because it couldn't possibly turn peter parker into spiderman. of course it can't. but that's got nothing to do with science, either. i've only negated the musings of stan lee, i haven't limited the width of the electromagnetic spectrum.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Opus V on January 7, 2009 at 2:05pm

I should have been more specific, these conversations with friends of mine did involve showing parts of books and/or online articles, it as definetly more than second-hand accounts.

While i'm being more specific, the stuff about multiple worlds, and dimensions, and time travel are what i find completly ridiculous. In reality quantum physics is just a bunch of similar theories that someone decided to group together, and from my experience with it, way too much of quantum physics is complete fantasy, but i will say, there are some interesting experaments and facts, but none of it supports the BS(which is most of what quantum physics is..in my opinion).

▶ Reply to This

• 1
• 2
• 3