The Game of Metaphysical Chess

Chess

Illustration: Ninaeva (CC)

Are we all mindless beings, mere products of chance born to consume, grind out a living chasing fulfillment in “things and then die?” 1

Monotheism teaches that Man’s purpose is to worship a Jealous God, die a natural death and then off to Heaven or Hell. Man can do whatever he likes while he is here on earth and still go to heaven as long as he accepts the free gift of Salvation when God’s son was crucified on the cross.

Naturalism and Pantheism teaches Man’s purpose is to worship Mother Earth [an indifferent infinite impersonal God that encompasses all of reality], die a natural death. Man can do whatever he likes while he is here on earth because All is one, all is God, therefore in the end we All go back to the earth: heaven is not an issue.

Buddhism teaches Man’s purpose is to suffer: There is no God to worship. You can do whatever you like on this earth but if don’t pass the “good” test you are reborn [reincarnation] but not as the same person [similar but not identical to]. If you pass the “good” test and release your attachment to desire and the self then you are finally liberated from suffering and attain a Nirvana heaven.

Hinduism teaches that Man’s purpose is to worship a formless, limitless, all-inclusive, and eternal God, Brahman. You can do whatever you like on this earth but the actions of your soul while residing in your body require that it reap the consequences of those actions in the next life — the same soul in a different body. The Hindu soul is immortal therefore you don’t die you transmigrate. Your karma determines the kind of body your soul inhabits in the next life. If you pass the “good” test you attain Moksha, the soul’s liberation from the cycle of death and rebirth. 2

None of the Ism’s make any sense unless you are looking for a viable alternative to an existential view of the world; being and nothingness.

Metaphysical Chess

What if we were born and we are here to be pawns in a Metaphysical “chess” game between Gaea (mother-earth) and The Global Financial Elite (TGFE)? 3

Unlike the game of chess the pawns do not belong to either side. Gaea wants the pawns to see their purpose as caretakers of her garden &mdash Earth. TGFE, armed with the lost knowledge from the ancient world Atlantis, creates a world where human pawns see their purpose in Monotheism and therefore can do whatever they like while they go shopping for useless toxic “stuff.” 4

Read the entire article at The People’s Voice

, , ,

  • http://www.jaycob.co.nf/ Scruffy

    lol I was just writing about this sort of thing at the end of an idea I decided to jot down about renewable energy and self sufficient homes.

    “From common knowledge we can say that we’re the universe incarnate, and the process that lead to our existence seems to be trying for a ultimate being to house its experience of its self. Most of us don’t even like ourselves, meaning the universe doesn’t like us, meaning we very well might cease to exist if we can’t find a way to be happy, love each other, protect each other, and most of all work with each other to make those things easier to achieve. Our key to that seems to be our creativity as a species. There is a god, and you’re do its thinking for it. You’re a god, time lord, a miracle, and have been endowed with immense power and potential. It just appears as though you’re not because everyone else is too.”

    Also on the subject of Hinduism I heard today that chickens might be descendants of TRexs which would be kind of poetic and definitely jive with Hinduism if our reincarnations are actually our future generations.

  • Anarchy Pony

    The global financial elite are enslaved by the machines, Machines are death’s corporeal form incarnate. They give strength to those who wield them, and are making it impossible to survive without them, destroying the biosphere and ecological integrity, giving us many new kinds of diseases that in turn only they can treat, making us dependent on the systems of conformity, obedience and submission.
    Or whatever. 

    • http://www.jaycob.co.nf/ Scruffy

      I’ve never thought of machines that way before, but it’s us that corrupt the machines design to corrupt the people so we can exploit them. Eventually I hope we’ll be able to conquer the machines and enslave them without feeling bad because we haven’t programed them with a soul or the will to do anything but what we’ve asked of them :P

      I guess our big problem as a species is our feeling of being separate from each other.

      • Anarchy Pony

        Machines’ very production demands the enslavement of vast swaths of any society that deems them worthwhile pursuits, and necessitates vast amounts of time, labor and resources, most of which, especially with more advanced machinery, requires incredibly  ecologically destructive extraction, and very pollutive manufacturing and refining practices. 
        The larger the scale, the more the destruction, even if mass industrialism wasn’t causing global warming through green house gas production, it still demands the enslavement of all lands, peoples, and resources in the name of its continual growth. Maybe that enslavement comes with some benefits(for humans and the few livestock and agricultural organisms we bring with us[in that they won't be driven extinct]), but I don’t believe they outweigh the overall costs, especially not proceeding into the future. 

        • tooCents

          We are carbon based machines, evolutionarily engineered by nature. Comment?

          • Anarchy Pony

            Crap cop out, next question.

          • tooCents

            How? 

          • Anarchy Pony

            It’s imposing machine views and comparisons on to life, insisting that life is machine like, but it is the other way around, life is not machine like, machines are life like. 

          • Andrew

             Ah, very good!  I like that observation.

          • tooCents

            It is an issue of semantics, I want to say. Or maybe not? Point is that, for me anyway, it depends on what we mean by machines.

          • Monkey See Monkey Do

            extremely insightful.

          • TreeFiddy

            I rather enjoyed your comment and do not see it as a cop-out…

            The main difference between the two, as far as I can tell, is that the machines we create do not (yet) have choice…they do are bidding and that is that. Our species, on the other hand, would seem to have some degree of choice. Unfortunately, we have made some rather poor decisions, and that is where I will partially agree with Pony…

            But speaking of choice…I do not see why we could not choose to change our destructive patterns of thought. Why can’t we live in a world where technological advances are still possible in a way that is green-friendly and which would simultaneously benefit everyone, everywhere, equally?     

            And if we are unable to make that leap for ourselves, then perhaps it will require the intervention of a third party. And no, I am not referring to non-earth entities…

            It seems feasible that we will have sparked an artificial intelligence within the next ten to fifteen years, and at that point we will finally have someone else who can hold the mirror up to our faces – forcing us to look, whether we want to or not – and demanding that we alter course.   

    • http://buzzcoastin.posterous.com BuzzCoastin

      McLuhan noted in the 60’s
      that humans had become the sexual reproductive organs of the machines
      “we ape our tools
      and then our tools ape us”

  • EarthGuy

    No more secrets.

    http://youtu.be/9l6VPpDublg

  • Ulysses1

    I don’t think any of the comments about religion were close to accurate; I’m not a believer in any of them, but at least ‘know your enemy’.

    • http://www.jaycob.co.nf/ Scruffy

      lol you shouldn’t make them your enemy. They’ll either come to their senses generation by generation, or kill each other off until there’s enough of us to become the majority. Fighting them only makes them want to fight back. Although Mormons kind of seem like they might have a chance by spreading their crazy like rats. (awful thing to say, but analogous none the less)

      • tooCents

        Heh, I can’t imagine Scruffy saying all that. Who knew?

        • http://www.jaycob.co.nf/ Scruffy

          Lol, Scruffy didn’t feel great about his comment.
          *Puts 2 fingers under his nose and does a nazi salute*

  • Just Listen

    There is a serious element of truth here, however I think that using the Gaia hypothesis to forward it is ill-conceived. The truth it speaks is of important to all human beings & as such a better vehicle is needed to diseminate it.
    I dont know what that is, but to grab hearts & minds you need a powerful yet simple method.
    Not only is Gaia little known to most it is also far from simple as soon as one moves away from it as purely symbolic of a way in which earth systems function.

  • Geoarltr

    Phewww that was close.  Almost got sucked down the old drain hole with that.  Should have known it was a trap when one theist was trying to make their case against all of the other theists.  Should have known it was a one way trip when “Atlantis” came on the table.  Sure is a good example of how easy it is to recruit an army.

    • Eric Winston

      If you read any of Robert Singer’s other articles (his purporting of 9/11 being a “Metaphysical Catechism (Test) of the Earth” is a doozy), then you’ll notice the same pattern.
      His perspectives about humanity and the Earth going forward are worthwhile, but his logic regarding how we got here lacks sincere development and objectivity. Of course, there’s no benefit in venturing down the rabbit hole of transcendence unless you have conviction in reality.

  • Sirius Fnord

    If one considers a human as an ad hoc input output multi sensory electromagnet, then if that human were to be enraged for example, would that rage energy have a frequency value? If so then would that emission or rage frequency interact with other human multi sensory electromagnets affecting their in in/output. If so then is it feasible that it may also affect other sensory electromagnetic receptors e.g plants, animals, planets, stars etc. If this is possible then if one were to build up a particular type of frequency emission from humans and amplify that frequency by connecting it in series through as many humans as possible e.g a movement, belief system, fear, joy, consumerism, greed etc. Then how would that  collective amplified frequency emission in turn affect the aforementioned non human sensory electromagnetic receptors and what bio feedback would the humans receive. Considering the extent to which humans are involved in reality quantifying and shaping, then one would assume how we feel and act matters not just individually but also collectively and that we receive back a true reflection of what we churn out. e.g if the majority of people in a country feel a sense of woe about similar things say to do with money, then how does that affect the environmental circumstances we live in, eg does it rain more when lots of people are sad.  I have only a feeling but at the end of the day feelings are an interpretation of said sensory input and output.

    Just a thought anyway

    • Eric Winston

      The most insightful comment I’ve read here, and it’s even better than the excerpt of the article.
      I’ll just add that we don’t need ANY religion/belief system/faith (all forms of bondage to an illusion) . . . only wisdom, and with wisdom comes the conviction in reality.
      Wisdom knows that inputs are just outputs, and when we react (producing outputs) we are unnecessarily distinguishing between the ins and outs, as both are flip sides of the same coin.

    • Eric Winston

      The most insightful comment I’ve read here, and it’s even better than the excerpt of the article.
      I’ll just add that we don’t need ANY religion/belief system/faith (all forms of bondage to an illusion) . . . only wisdom, and with wisdom comes the conviction in reality.
      Wisdom knows that inputs are just outputs, and when we react (producing outputs) we are unnecessarily distinguishing between the ins and outs, as both are flip sides of the same coin.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Gury/526644665 John Gury

    Absurdly stupid summaries of world religions and a ridiculous statement of monotheism.  

    • Steve

       Really, what’s so absurd? I thought they were good and funny,

      • Jbar

        What’s absurd? As a Jew, the oldest monotheistic religion, I have not seen or heard a thing about sons or crosses, they don’t exist. We have to ask G-d to forgive sins against G-d, but other people have to forgive our sins against them. Judaism is all about your behavior in this world. We aren’t about being saved, and there’s no “hell.”

        Get your facts right, monotheism is not synonymous with christianity.

        • Steve

           Good point but actually monotheism is to most people the same as Christianity. And as far as being saved … according to the Bible you will see the light any day now.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Gury/526644665 John Gury


        Buddhism teaches Man’s purpose is to suffer: ”  ORLY. 
        “Hinduism teaches that Man’s purpose is to worship a formless, limitless, all-inclusive, and eternal God, Brahman. ”  Uhh huh, What is up with all those multi-armed, multi eyed gods and goddesses? i guess they are not part of Hinduism and are really Buddhist, Sikh or Jain. 

  • Blah

    almost took it seriously until that part: “the lost knowledge from the ancient world Atlantis”… 

  • Mr NoBody

    Wow, what a n utter gross misrepresentation
    of Buddhism.

    It’s really amusing how many non-Buddhists claim
    to understand it, and yet, clearly do not.

  • Steve

    “Absurdly stupid summaries of world religions and a ridiculous statement of monotheism.” What is so absurd about the summaries? I thought they were good and funny.

21