See: ‘Smart-Nerd Invents God’ if you want to see where I’m coming from on this topic…
Brief summary of the theory:
Primitive man tells stories of their ancestors’ heroic deeds, over time these become more and more colourful, more ‘mythologisized’… These hero-ancestors become small gods. They become good-luck talismans, worn around huntsmens’ necks. A defence against the evil-eye, tacked above the door. A small idol perhaps, in the village meeting place, rubbed for luck, or to cure the sick. Then one smart homosap. comes along and exploits the storyculture of the tribe to build a power base around the superstition… A big boom-boom God is born and religion ensues…
Now, according to the tulpa concept above, if a person, or better still, people, begin to actively imagine a being, in the group-mind’s eye give it agreed upon features, mannerisms, powers… And make themselves believe in it… A composit Tulpa will manifest itself.
Now if, and even slightly if, the Tulpa concept holds any water at all, magnify that initial group to the size of a race of people, let’s say an opressed tribe back in the days of Moses, or a little later perhaps, around 20AD… A people desperate to believe in anything that will give a meaning to their slavery… And a compelling storyteller to harness that belief and give it some kind of shape…
“[size=134]I am what I am[/size]” Scrawls a finger in the sand…
Wow. TR, I have no idea what you’re on, but send me some, please?
You were winging right along till you tripped over the tulpa. The concept of a one-behind-many God wasn’t particularly special in many early cultures, even though they might not have called it ‘god’ The J-C version is the benchmark, but only in the West. The different cosmologies of the various cultures generated different concepts of creation and creator.
An entity created by willpower alone? I can buy into some sort of collective consciousness, but a walkin’ talkin’ tulpa? Pass the pipe.
I see you as half right. Man has two natures; one devolved from above and one is a natural evolution from below. These two life influences combine in Man.
These influences from above remain as intuitive knowledge. A person has an intuitive knowledge of their higher influence that calls them "home’ so to speak. “Ways” have been established with help from above to aid those so inclined in their return.
However Man’s lower nature has no interest in this and it just gets in the way so it is stuck with the unenviable task of how to close off to it making it less annoying.
In service of this aim, “experts” are created to “interpret” this intuitive knowledge so that it can become respectable and fit for polite company insuring that they will not have to be bothered by the truths it covers. So while Man is a purposeful creation of higher consciousness, “experts” also create their acceptable God.
Yes I do believe a person is capable of creating a thought form or “tulpa”. Actually on a small scale, we do it all the time within our own presence when we become obsessed with negative emotion. All this force can begin to form a certain something that has been sometimes referred to as demonic. Usually it dissipates quickly from the lack of life force feeding it. But when we do feed it, it may not be so easy to dissolve.
Now whether or not enough experts can pool their abilities during the collective experience of some sort of righteous indignation to create a composite tulpa is an open question. If it happens, it would create one heck of an anti Christ.
I’ve already acknowledged the possibility of collective consciousness, but there is decided difference between the power of universal consciousness and the willful bringing into being tulpas, or zombies, or …
We do know that there is ‘something’ behind collective attenuation of mind, but our limited knowledge allows us to speculate, and that is the extent of it.
When some of the early studies showed that this ‘something’ was actually present, there was much speculation that a human-wide oracle would be able to solve all of humanity’s problems.
You may be right, but taking a vague generalness down to the particular, a tulpa, seems like a real stretch.
Its seems to me that the idea of a “smart” cave man inventing the concept of God in order to achive tribal status, though humorous, is a bit contrived. First of all your trying to take a 21st cenury mind(yours) and place it in a prehistoric world. Sure maybe thats how you would have done things knowing what you do. But somehow i dont think even a smart cave man could “invent” the concept of spirit or God. Ever read the myth of prometheus? No, it seems to me that this whole deliberation is rather odd in that it has no bearing on any advanced study in the field of discussion. The references to the various experiences with “the gods” or with angels and or daemons in most cultures around the globe indicates an actual phenominon associated with the concept God that cannot be contributed to the inventiveness of a physically inferior troglodyte miscreant in order to assuage his own otherwise trivial existence within the tribe. Not to mention the fact that this idea as rather mundane in that the mysteries and knowledge contained within many of the ancient traditions could not be explained away as having no basis on which to found themselves in the first place save the cunning of a repressed neanderthal.
As far as the concept of a “tulpa”, i believe the concept originally refered to the perceptible immaterial body of the dhyani (taken on in order to manifest owtwardly toward mankind) who later incarnated in through the human race. I may be wrong… Regardless, I tend to believe that individual mind is effected by cosmic mind and not vice versa, our imagination and or vision even as an entire species is the product of a cosmic body polotic and in the end a means whereby the cosmic mind might realize itself in time.
The concept of God was an inspiration not an invention.
In light of the higher knowledge I know to be associated with the concept of God in the various traditions throught recorded history, to think otherwise (to me) seems absurd.
I read Tabula’s excellent thread on ‘smart nerd creates god’. There are certainly very good arguments for this theory—at the very least the theory is plausible. I am certain that while some humor was thrown in, Tabula’s intent was to propose a serious idea on the creation of a myth or being that that nearly all men believe.
The notion of god is a creation caused by our primitive minds. At some point, we used the idea of god to explain the seemingly incomprehensible. We saw patterns in the chaotic and our minds found (led us to believe) that an active hand was behind those patterns. Can we really blame these early forefathers of ours for this seemingly logical conclusion? Now, I would argue that the identification of this pattern was in an era where the earliest forms of society were formed: small tribes.
Now, being that the small tribes saw how much effort it took to just take down a T-rex (I know) they started to think that each unexplainable pattern was caused by a pair of active hands. The idea behind this eventually develops into a polytheistic view of the world. For our discussion, I will call the active hands our primitive ancestors developed “Governors.â€
As our society becomes more and more complex, as each man is able to accomplish more and more individually, the powers or control of these Governors expands. Hence, the Governor of Rain becomes the Governor of Water, the Governor of the Sun becomes the Governor of the Moon, the Governor of Earth, becomes the Governor of Heaven… and so on, and so on, until the notion of one all powerful Governor is developed. At this stage, the notion of a singular Governor exists; however, surely not all the tribes of Earth developed this precise notion… especially since some tribes developed more slowly and their notion of the Governors is influenced by their environment. So, I think that the notion of god existed before the smart nerd
However, here’s where the smart nerd could come in: as our tribes start to become more and more complex we start to develop a notion of survival (different from our survival instinct). We begin to notice that the chief hunters have traits that are favorable to the tribe by LINEAGE. The children of the hunters, the physically superior men, are also the good hunters. The tribe wants strong children so the idea that these superior men breed for the survival of the tribe becomes important. How do you argue against the survival of your tribe?
So, the smart nerd DEVELOPS the notion of the Governors into a RELIGION. While the notion of god existed before the nerd’s need for survival, the notion of an organized method to pay tribute to these Governors is created by the nerd. Now, the nerd represents man at his purest form: he is a weak animal—no claws, no sharp teeth, no fur to protect against the environment, etc. The nerd must use his wit to land a woman (he is smart enough to sneak into the alpha male’s hut and sleep with the alpha-male’s woman, but not strong enough to take this woman for himself. However, to ensure his own survival, he makes sure that one man cannot envy another’s woman, he invents the institution of marriage as sacred and romantic gesture (how else do we fool women into sleeping with the nerd), and he makes it so that certain acts will cause the Governors to be angry. Through the development of RELIGION the nerd is able to finally have a say about the tribes direction. The nerd becomes a focal point of society. He develops a class system (approved by the Governors of course) and develops hunters, leaders (nerds), holy men (more nerds), followers (average men), etc. Many more rules come as a consequence of the nerd that ensure what is most important: the survival of the tribe.
Nick - Thanks for half supporting me… But I have a bit of a problem with intuitive knowledge.
Dictionary def: “instinctive knowing - without the use of rational processes”
or encyclopaedic:
“The distinction used by the Greeks implied the superiority of intellectual intuitions over information received by the senses. Christian thinkers made a distinction between intuitive and discursive knowledge: God and angels know directly (intuitively) what men reach by reasoning.”
Which one are you referring to…?
Dear Tentative, I do yoga, I like to stretch…
I’m assuming knowledge gained via our senses is real and also that mind can effect external objects at a distance just for the purpose of arguement: (though you can substitute ‘believe’ for ‘know’ if you’re being picky ) S-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g commencing now…
*We as thinking beings have extrapolated the existance of a divine all-powerful being via comparison with prior known externals. (ie: Joe’s stronger than me, but I’m stronger than Fred, → it’s reasonable to assume something exists which is stronger than Joe, ad infinitum)
*There exists no totally independent external evidence of this thought-construct’s actual existance.
→ God exists (presently) only within our minds, as a concept/idea.
*God exists (presently) only within our minds, as a concept/idea
*A mind is the sum of it’s supported ideas/memories/thought processes.
*A mind can cause effects external to it, at a distance, without as yet perceivable connection.
→ The purely internal idea of God,being part of mind, can produce effects external to the mind that supports it.
*A tulpa is defined as a purely willed object/being, having no perceivable external existence prior to its creation in the mind of a thinking being as idea.
*A tulpa is defined as able to effect things external to the mind which created it.
*God exists (presently) only within our minds, as a concept/idea.
*The purely internal idea of God, can produce effect external to the mind that supports it.
→ God can be defined as a tulpa.
Or am I calling a spade a trowel…?
Dear Peeshaw,
I’d need you to define what you mean by the above terms before I could comment with any feeling of confidence.
Dear Thirst,
Nice theory , Always bring some food to the picnic I say.
Here’s a refining of smart nerd - just for you…
The “My Dad’s better than your Dad theory of divinity”
One day, in the primitive village, X’s dad, does something heroic, let’s say he saves the Chiefs daughter from a bear. He’s really lucky, he got the bear in the eye first spear-hurl while it was distracted, the bear whirled round, lost its footing (paw-ing maybe), fell, and brained itself on a boulder. Dad quickly finished it off by bashing the broken spear-head into the bear’s brain with a rock. This story becomes a family fireside favourite, much embelished with time, and the kids hear it time and time again.
Generations pass, and because of the relative isolation of the village, and its low (but not inbred) population. Dad’s bear story becomes not just the pride and property of a single family, but of the whole village’s storyculture through inter-marriage. With passing time the real details have been lost and the feat has become legendary and epic - there were a whole truckload of bears, he killed them with his bare hands, slept with the daughter of the chief and fathered a supernatural son, lightning leapt from his eyes and started a fire, which was brought into the village and kept ever burning… etc. etc. The killing is ritually reinacted every annerversay… It passes into the soul of the village…
More generations pass, the population increases, meets/overlaps with other expanding tribal territories. Storycultures collide. The elders start meeting, negotiating. X.'s Dad story pops up one drunken night. So does theirs -Y.'s dad - equally exaggerated. The Chief (who’s directly descendent from X. - indeed derives his whole power from it) get’s a bit miffed. Later, in secret, he tells the principal story keeper to beef-up his tale. More powers, more unexplained events, more bells and whistles at the annual dance etc… “Work the villagers up into a frenzy”, he says - “we’ll show those Y bastards that our dad is better than theirs…”
Things get heated at the next great meeting of tribes as the storytellers and the ritual re-enactments get wilder and wilder… Someone chucks a chicken wing and…
Boom-bang-boom - first religious war.
Ps: Please call me Tab, TR reminds me of Lara Croft → Angelina Jolie → disrupted thought process…
If he did that he would die. The ‘prehistoric’ (10000 BC?) world may have been a pretty rough place, but I do not support the theory that people then were ‘Nerds’ - that is something out of the modern world. Those people were no less intelligent than people today, perhaps even sharpened to be more intelligent, having to start inventing all of those things we now take for granted.
The biggest question I can recognise, is why would someone do such a thing? I think the answer is available if we are able to get away from civilisation, away from all of the comforts of technology and fast food, away from squaking neighbours and rapping adolescents, into a more natural environment where you have to put the food on the table and find a safe place to sleep.
Once you have protected yourself against the elements, and found the raw basics of survival, food, water, shelter; having found safety from danger and perhaps a family, a social group, some likeminded peers who may be the people you care deeply for and by whom you feel cared for in return; you may achieve a level of competence or status that you feel is useful and deserving of respect in society and found a means of self-expression, you will probably want to pursue intellectual avenues and probe the reaches of human understanding. Then, and only when life has become comfortable, you may consider the development of a consistent and nourishing philosophy or connect with some “greater power” or God.
But when using the word ‘Nerd’ - I meant it in the superbright-computer-nerd vein… ie: a (primitve) man who, whilst physically weak, was a very smart individual indeed…
Sorry Bob - I thought you were metaphorically having a quiet chat and a pint with Peesaw in the snug by the fire.
I agree, with you that usually only until someone achieves a modicum of calmness in life can they begin a campaign of serious abstract thought. Though I would also say that some of the most startling breakthroughs/insights (right or wrong) can come during periods of utmost stress. I remeber reading that neural networks (sorry - I’m an ex-biologist and lapsed C. of E. - so I’m hopelessly irreligious) become suddenly and unexpectedly creative whilst under severe stress/pain/anguish - this is apparently true for both human neural networks, AND virtual neural networks pattened from the human on computers*… (I’ll look up the reference if you so wish) So I can equally imagine the underdog of some antiquated tribe, having been beaten to within an inch of his life one final time, crawling into the woods and either thinking “Why me - I’m brighter than these alphas - why me…? What did I do…? Why am I so unlucky…? It’s like someone is punishing me… Or something…” etc.
Perhaps irrelevent, but the only friend I have who made a complete U-turn viz-a-viz religion, had a vision (well more of an aural-‘vision’ if that’s possible) whilst he was pretty close to the end of his tether, back-packing through the USA, he never told me what the voice said to him but it produced a complete change in his lifestyle. He went from hellraiser to the leader of a youth group at his local church back home, in a matter of months, and eventually married a girl from the same church… They now live very quietly and have a new baby on the way.
I’ve modified my thinking from the ‘nerd’ version - to the ‘Dad’ version outlined above… What do you think…? I must admit I know little about you beyond the few posts I’ve read - I stick mainly to babbling and foray now and then into the natural science/philosophy forums. A big whoops in advance if you think I’m attempting to trample any belief system you value.
The whole crux of my thinking on the subject is that:
a) God exists - but doesn’t allow himself to be ‘seen’ by his creatures in any absolutely irrefutable form - in fear (I know that’s an ambiguous choice of adjective) of compromizing their progress toward [insert goal here] - see ‘homework hypothisis’ from smartnerd.
and/or
b) God never existed - A human invented the concept, and it got out of hand.
What do I know - it could well be both. They’re not mutually exclusive. I go for option b personally because it seems simpler, and more…words fail me - it seems the more we learn about the workings of the universe, the less amount of God is required to explain it - so more… energy-efficient, if you follow…?
*how to stress a computer - they have them play games, train the network on the rule system, just like a baby, and when it gets good, they start loading the odds against it in increasingly difficult/overwhealming scenarios…
Of course there is a lot to say for insights that come to us under duress, I believe that Mystics are often driven out of comfortable positions with dogma and forced by compassion into communion with God - at least that is my experience and that of other mystics I have spoken to. They are forced to give up their rational wisdom, which fails completely, and confront God with the irrationality of existence - and suddenly there is a hurricane (as in Job), or a mountain (as with Elijah) in which they experience the wisdom of God and become ‘new creatures’ with a new outlook.
I believe that Theism is essentially of Mystical origin, not born out of philosophy, but instead philosophy is born out of mystical experience. The development of a Religion requires the fufillment of existential needs before it can proceed, but at it’s genesis there must be an experience that overcomes the affected person. It is the Unknown and Unfathomable by rational standards, it is the disclosed secret when we speak of it spiritually.
The concepts created of ‘God’ are man-made I’m sure, but the cause seems to me to be very real. It truly is a strength for those who are bowled over by it and it gives them a new direction for their lives, but I am always left wondering whether people think they have understood what they were confronted with, or whether they accept that it is nothing more (and nothing less) than experience - albeit influential in their lives.
Sorry I missed this. I meant: “without the use of rational processes”
I’d like to post something to help contrast the difference between the two:
I believe that this potential function exists in our potential. I believe we are a “seed” of what we can become as Man’s conscious evolution.
An acorn somehow contains what is necessary for it to become an oak. In the same way, I believe a human being is born with a latent understanding of its potential. It is not the same as normal mechanical instinct that you are aware of but instead it is instinctual to our psychology. I call this intuitive knowledge which man had always had. The difference is that some have had it more than others which is why there was such a gap in understanding.
Our inductive reason can reach logical conclusions but to understand them in the living psychological sense requires touching the source of this knowledge which exists dormant within ourselves. You could reach the same conclusion from inductive reason that you can through deductive reasoning but this conclusion would be “understood” differently from perspective. This is why a “real” person strives to become capable of both.
I may be wrong here and it is just a hunch but it seems that the symbol of the “Seal of Solomon” or Star of David expresses this unity of perception as one of its many meanings.
So there are those that through inductive reason or just manipulation have created God concepts but the knowledge of human potential that knows God has always been a part of man in the psychological sense just as is our genetic code but as a seed and is beyond our comprehension.
As Jalal al-Din Rumi once said, “There is counterfeit gold because real gold exists.”
in·spi·ra·tion Audio pronunciation of “inspiration” ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nsp-rshn)
n.
Stimulation of the mind or emotions to a high level of feeling or activity.
The condition of being so stimulated.
An agency, such as a person or work of art, that moves the intellect or emotions or prompts action or invention.
Something, such as a sudden creative act or idea, that is inspired.
The quality of inspiring or exalting: a painting full of inspiration.
*** 5. Divine guidance or influence exerted directly on the mind and soul of humankind. ***
The act of drawing in, especially the inhalation of air into the lungs.
And
high Audio pronunciation of “higher” ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h)
adj. high·er, high·est
Far or farther from a reference point: was too high in the offensive zone to take a shot.
Being at or near the peak or culminating stage: the high tourist season; high summer.
Advanced in development or complexity: high forms of animal life; higher mathematics.
Greater than usual or expected, as in quantity, magnitude, cost, or degree: “A high price has to be paid for the happy marriage with the four healthy children†(Doris Lessing).
By inspired i mean simply inluenced by external entities (in a way perhaps not so external being that these entities could be said to, through their influence, make up aspects of our own individual personalities).
And by higher knowledge i refer to the secrets of transmutation , what some have refered to as the “philosphers stone”, and so forth. The fertility mysteries that are encrypted within the mythos of most world religions. The knowledge of the nuptuals between spirit and matter and the sacred mysteries of atonement and transcendence.
Nick
I agree with what i think you are saying, but im left to wonder if im actually on the same page. I believe we mean the same by inspiration and instinctual/intuitional knowledge. Perhaps wer’e just coming from different though similar perspectives.
I especially apreciate youre use of the gold begats fools-gold approach. And I am again left to wonder if your thinking what i think your thinking… Something you havent come out and said ,within this string at least. By this i am refering to the use of the word/phrase “real” person. And by this are you implying there are “fake” persons? if so than to what extent or in what sense are these persons not “real”. Again the use of the gold/counterfeit gold makes me wonder how far you will go(have gone) with this line of thought.
“There is counterfeit gold because real gold exists.”
aka:
“There is/are counterfeit God/Gods because real God exists.” … yes…?
Anyway:
So as far as I understand you - there are 3 types of knowledge:
*that which is resolved via inductive thinking.
*that which is resolved via deductivethinking.
*intuitive knowledge, the seed of which is innate. Nick
or *intuitive knowledge, the seed of which is implanted by an external force. Peesaw
assuming I got what you both were saying… I think both you and Peesaw are on different pages in that nick says internal and peesaw says external, though the effect seems to be ultimately the same.
Which is good - because I can save my typing callouses and answer you both with my version…
I believe Nick’s more on the right path in that intuitive knowledge has its origins in the internal.
Perhaps we should twist intuitive knowledge to become instinctive knowledge.
We and other animals have ‘instinctive knowledge-guided’ behaviors genetically hardwired in.
Perhaps the instinctive knowledge of the existance of a higher being is just an artifact of the urge to imprint, so important for the survival of the new-born, to firmly fix and target the face, form and voice of its primary care-giver…
Newborns imprint on their mothers and fathers - both representing authority and a greater power than they themselves can match.
Toddlers imprint on older children, capable of actions/behaviors they themselves cannot accomplish as yet.
Teenagers imprint on filmstars/rockstars - who could be seen as a kind of Super-teenager, youthful, but at the same time wiser and cooler, for want of a better word.
Later lifers become more thoughtful, imprinting on the creators of ideas they feel are right…
As the individual grows into and becomes more comfortable with their own identity - they find it harder and harder to find a suitable human target to imprint upon, though the instinct is still blindly active within them to associate themselves with a greater power than their own.
Having no physical target, the instinct to imprint drives them to invent a being of power much greater than whatever level the human society has achieved at the given time.
This fits with God’s seeming 'evolution 'over time - form simple rain/fertillity gods, to pantheons of elemental gods, to one God - within which is contained all power, including the ability to transcend time and space. Our technology/scientific knowledge grows - and so our concept of God increases in power, to stay ahead of the game and still fulfil our instictive (innate) urge to imprint.
Evolutionarily speaking - of what benefit would an instictive urge to believe in Gods and afterlives be…?
Well - of little benefit to the individual, but if you put the ‘God-urge’ DNA strand into a dominant gene form - so that it is inherited by the entire group/pack, then it would benefit the individuals contained within the effected group thusly: (off the top of my head - the baby’s about to wake up…!)
*Stablized society - giving a group a super-alpha-male figure - will help to curb the worst actions of the physical alpha male through imposition of moral law by those weaker (but ordained to power by the god of the tribe) but more level headed…
*Better fighter caste - a warrior promised heaven and instinctively believing will fight better and with less regard for his own safety, than a fighter concerned more with saving his own skin. A suicidal killer is the hardest to defend oneself from…
I’ll think of some more later.
In short - if we can agree that humans are biologically a pack-orientated species, rather than a species of selfish individual, then a genetically hard-wired instinct/innate ‘knowledge’ promoting a God-concept will be beneficial to pack structure/its members, as a whole, and therefore be conserved in our inheritable genome as the group thrives, despite the losses of a few of its number.
I’m not sure if we mean the same by inspiration and instinctual/intuitional knowledge. I’ll clarify in my later post to TR and hopefully that will clear it up.
This idea of “real” person has to do with what all the ancient traditions initiating with a conscious source called the results of “awakening” in one way or another.
There is an old Arabic expression: “He has everything in him but the kernel.” This means it looks, act, talks, etc., like a man but there is nothing inside. This is how we are. We are always acting a part but we are never there or present ourselves simply from our own internal division as a “plurality” and the lack of conscious presence able to bring it together as “one”. We do not experience life simultaneously with the whole of ourselves but in parts. It is not that the person is a fake, but that the essence of man, his wholeness, is not present to allow the man to be real. Instead we become mechanical men. The living kernel that can begin to appreciate it is what is called “life” in the spiritual sense. This is what I believe Jesus meant when he said to let the dead bury their dead, The dead cannot be conscious of themselves and just react in accordance with their mechanics and imagination.
A bit rushed now but hope to be back later or tomorrow.
it seems to me you are determined to hold on to the idea that God was invented by man for what reasons i know not. I have always marvelled at how modern man is so inclined to assume that intelligence/knowledge is a by-product of some random evolution which occured by chance. How so many would more easily believe in chaos as the ultimate cause of existence rather than order… Chance rather than God. I never understood what solace man took in such a way of thinking beside being relieved of the burden of moral responsibillity. Then i realized that the pride of some men is puffed up and that they are empowered by the idea that there is no actual purpose or reason for anything at all. The modern concept that “God is dead”(or merely a figment of our imagination) seems to me to derive from the general vanity of the human condition. That and general laziness and lack of true discipline which our modern technological conveniences have afforded us. When i look at the world around me, at the stars and their courses through the heavens, at the moon and is affect on the waters, at the sun and its life giving rays, at the cycle of life in this delicate ecosystem we call earth, i see how all these things have come together within us (humanity) and i see designe. It seems to me so obvious the intelligence which resides within and between all things which is the source of all things which has developed in mankind the whereabouts to “know”. To some existence and being have no purpose, to me existential being is the intended purpose. In nature we see that like kind begats like kind. I do not believe it is natural to assume intelligence was (singularly) begat by the lack thereof. You say man invents reason and purpose(i.e God, the illusion thereof), i say man is the reason the purpose of Gods invention(the reality thereof).
Nick_A
You are thinking what i thought you were thinking but perhaps you have not taken it as far as I. I believe that there is a type of human somewheres classified as shades. THese are the undead in the sense that they appear human, but in fact are devoid of spiritual life, to which i believe jesus refers when speaking of letting the dead bury the dead. In the book of jude these beings are called “wandering stars, for whom it is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever”. Those who are “before of old ordained to this condemnation”. Clouds without rain, waves of the sea foaming up their own shame. Trees rooted up and twice dead (as they will die in the flesh, and are dead in the spirit). In the occult world these people are called “human chalices” and are used in ritual magick to house otherwise dissembodied daemons/spirits. The kenite lineage, those who are in the way of cain; born of the seed of the serpent. In the book of genesis they are first refered to as the nephilim(fallen ones, giants). Are you aware of that which i speak? I have come to know them as the pre-adamic race.
Its not really that simple. External/internal is not an either/or proposition.
This is not either external or internal. Take for example a block of wood saturated with water as it floats on in the sea. The water is in it yet it is in the water. The external is in the internal while the internal is in the external.
Be careful here. They are not the same. Instinctive knowledge is built on as creatures adapt to their earthly environment. Man as organic life does this also. But man being dual natured, that is, having not only an earthly origin but a higher origin as well, has a type of knowledge that is not built upon but “re-membered”. Rather than being built upon, this knowledge is of consciousness and became hidden in the subconscious. Where instinct is the beginning of a mechanical process, intuition, in the sense being used, is the result of a devolved process. Where instinct is attached to evolution, conscious intuition is the result of a devolution of consciousness. “The stages of imprinting” you describe is a mechanical process that doesn’t require consciousness. Any appreciation of “God” in this way is just the unconscious trying to fathom consciousness which cannot be done regardless of how enticing the imagination resulting becomes.
Evolution for man is conscious. His place in organic life has already reached its highest level of mechanical evolution and now only adapts as does the rest of organic life.
Its not mechanical belief that aids in conscious evolution but the simultaneous conscious experience of the earth and the relationship of man with higher consciousness. The highest level of consciousness that exists beyond time and space, beyond our comprehension and in which everything else exists as relative levels of being is known for want of a better name as “God”
This inner knowing or intuition allows us to begin to become aware that something exists for us in the realm of consciousness that is beyond the normal confines of the cycles of organic life on earth.
Society is the result of two influences. There are the normal mechanical influences of life and the influences that originated with higher consciousness. They blend and produce what we consider “normal” influences that balance our two natures. Society continues in this way preserving the balance that leads to our ability to kill one day and love on the next.
Man is not so limited and can allow himself to fall under higher influences if the desire is there and the help comes to keep it on course and not fall back into imagination.
Our animal nature I agree is like this. However, the God concept is the result of this intuitive knowledge entering into our animal nature resulting in this compromise that the seeker so inclined feels as insufficient leading to the “search” which may either lead somewhere or nowhere depending upon circumstances.
I know what you mean as far as these “dead” that are truly in darkness. It does seems as though Jesus was resurrecting quite a few of these spiritually dead that were not hopelessly dead. The context in which "let the dead bury their dead implies to me people without understanding rather than completely hopeless.
I don’t get the impression that the disciples father is hopeless but maybe I’m wrong. Who knows?
You are right that I haven’t delved into the Kenite lineage. My interest has primarily been in the question of universal purpose, the purpose of life on earth, and of human life in particular.
But I have a bit of a problem with 
) S-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g commencing now…