What Insights Have You Experienced?

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: What Insights Have You Experienced?

Post by Russell Parr »

movingalways wrote:
Russell wrote:Yes, but even the law of gravity requires consciousness to exist. Without thought, there is no demarcation of reality being made; anything beyond thought is necessarily undefined. Only reality as a whole.. infinite, unbounded, undelineated reality, can be said to exist without consciousness.
Gravity doesn't exist, consciousness doesn't exist, form doesn't exist and most certainly "reality as a whole" doesn't exist. Wisdom of emptiness ends the delusion of the existence of things.

When all is said and done, form or distinction is the only reality that can be known. While reasoning the concept of formlessness is necessary in order to realize emptiness of self (Zen's Ten Ox Herding Pictures comes to mind), in truth, there is never a moment in our consciousness when a distinction (appearance of a boundary) isn't being made.

So yes, consciousness is required to distinguish (think of) gravity.
I put it the way I did, to say that reality exists, mainly for the sake of emphasizing the point that thought must be present for any 'thing' to exist, without wiping out reality as a result. Reality is indeed nondualistic and thus the designation of 'existence' is ultimately inapplicable. Thanks for clarifying.

_____
ardy wrote:Not so, the no-self is the infinite and you make it 'become' for want of a better word. It is an indivisible part of you and it connects you to everything. There is no you in it but it is your existence that makes it 'become' for you.
If the Infinite is no-self then from where does this 'you' come from that makes it 'become'?
I have experienced emptiness and what a wonderful thing it is, when I first experienced it in the mid 90's I was overwhelmed by it and felt insignificant. As I got used to it I realised that it was I who created it within me, not that it was something outside of me (duality) that was creating me. Funny that I still am overawed by it although I am creating it.
Any notion of an "I" automatically implies duality. You can't create non-duality, it is simply the default state. Duality is created by and along with the occurance of consciousness within infinite causality.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: What Insights Have You Experienced?

Post by Russell Parr »

Cahoot wrote:Gravity itself does not require thought. Fall out of a big balloon basket and voila, gravity ... regardless of what you think or perceive or label. Your thought does not create the gravity, though it does contribute to perceiving gravity, to discovering the Law of Gravity, the Theories of Gravity, and the Properties of Gravity.

Same goes for truth.

When you think that what you perceive is truth, you are not perceiving truth just because you are perceiving what you perceive, or thinking about about what you perceive. What you perceive must be in accord with reality in order to be truth. If it’s a rope and you see a snake, what you see is delusion, not truth.

Whether or not you perceive truth, or give thought to truth with theories and laws, is not required for truth to be, for truth always is, though thinking about truth can occur, and often does in humans.
Gravity works without thought, and truth is always true when thought, but neither exist without thought. It all comes down to the nature of existence. Existence is dualistic, and thus finite. Reality is infinite, and all divisions in reality are perceived by and for evolved sensors alone for the sake of practicality. No sensors - no dividing of "gravity" from all other phenomena - no existence of gravity. Reality is like an infinite mesh of undefined phenomena, part of which is sense consciousness that is characterized by its ability to draw distinctions, or project duality, in its environment, despite the fundamentally non-dualistic state that underlies and binds all of reality.

To look at it another way, we humans, as conscious beings, live under a 'dominant paradigm' due to the fragments of reality we are caused to perceive, that are caused to stand out due to our reliance on finite sensations. Reality as a whole has is no dominant paradigm, no bias, because it is infinite. Nothing exists for it because it is busy 'being' and 'doing' all things for all time.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: What Insights Have You Experienced?

Post by Pam Seeback »

Diebert: Nature is non-dual, Pam. Totality is, the absolute. It's really a detraction to say "every conscious being" unless we'd define everything as some instance of a conscious being. Although that would defy the purpose of the term but at least understanding wouldn't be lobotomized necessarily. The nature of self is to try to do just that, as to keep its illusion alive. The nature of this forum is to warn against it.
Point taken. I found this description of God written by David in response to Laird back in 2013 which better expresses what I am always intending to convey (hell is paved...:-), even though he too cannot help but use pronouns that suggest a sense of individuality in the All:
guest_of_logic wrote:
David, your self-serving misinterpretations of the Bible are deplorable. The Bible is the story of the relationship between a personal, creator God and His people, and Jesus clearly holds to this paradigm, and promises that he is the means by which his people will be saved, and granted entry into eternal life - *literal* eternal life, not your version of "I live eternally because when I die my causes continue". To portray Christ as some sort of enlightenment dude who we are all supposed to follow into our own little emulated personal enlightenments, with no thought for any relationship with a personal God, is a great disservice to the world.
David Quinn: As always, you have it arse backwards. The Infinite - the ALL - is the only truly personal God there can be. For the Infinite is literally your own self. It is literally your bones and blood, your thoughts and memories, your very soul. It cannot get any more personal than that.

The God you conceive of is a distinct being that lives somewhere else. In effect, he is an alien, with alien values, which makes him extremely impersonal. How could anyone in their right mind possibly begin to worship that?

In truth, Christianity is all about removing every aspect of the personal God from their lives. This is what they call "salvation". A life utterly free of God.
Diebert: As or "God consciousness" and "Infinite Aliveness", indeed such words represent misunderstanding and confusion. They cannot help but radiate ignorance: a self trying to create this sense of enlightened self, becoming or growing into "larger god selves" and so on. The ultimate wet dream of ego which sells. But this is even more true for "a focus of Infinite Aliveness" or anything lying "beyond selfhood". The danger is that the self is expanding the notion of itself. Focus and aliveness are examples of assigning extremely limited qualities to something that cannot posses those, least of all those. Even when it's just in language: their purposeful use betrays opposition to truth.
An enlightened self that is becoming or growing into "larger god selves" is in complete opposition to my understanding of God, I shudder at the idea. Perhaps herein lies the key to growing in wisdom, to be ever mindful of the difference between language that conveys even a hint of a dualistic All and language that does not.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: What Insights Have You Experienced?

Post by Cahoot »

Russell wrote:
Cahoot wrote:Gravity itself does not require thought. Fall out of a big balloon basket and voila, gravity ... regardless of what you think or perceive or label. Your thought does not create the gravity, though it does contribute to perceiving gravity, to discovering the Law of Gravity, the Theories of Gravity, and the Properties of Gravity.

Same goes for truth.

When you think that what you perceive is truth, you are not perceiving truth just because you are perceiving what you perceive, or thinking about about what you perceive. What you perceive must be in accord with reality in order to be truth. If it’s a rope and you see a snake, what you see is delusion, not truth.

Whether or not you perceive truth, or give thought to truth with theories and laws, is not required for truth to be, for truth always is, though thinking about truth can occur, and often does in humans.
Gravity works without thought, and truth is always true when thought, but neither exist without thought. It all comes down to the nature of existence. Existence is dualistic, and thus finite. Reality is infinite, and all divisions in reality are perceived by and for evolved sensors alone for the sake of practicality. No sensors - no dividing of "gravity" from all other phenomena - no existence of gravity. Reality is like an infinite mesh of undefined phenomena, part of which is sense consciousness that is characterized by its ability to draw distinctions, or project duality, in its environment, despite the fundamentally non-dualistic state that underlies and binds all of reality.

To look at it another way, we humans, as conscious beings, live under a 'dominant paradigm' due to the fragments of reality we are caused to perceive, that are caused to stand out due to our reliance on finite sensations. Reality as a whole has is no dominant paradigm, no bias, because it is infinite. Nothing exists for it because it is busy 'being' and 'doing' all things for all time.
Thought aids in the perception of gravity. Perceptions may be expressed as laws and theories that are true to the extent that they accord with reality, however thought is not required for this accord to exist, though thought aids in perception of the accord.

Existence of gravity and its workings does not require thought, though differentiation of gravity from the amorphous mass of chaos, via inference, is a way that gravity is known to exist. Because such knowing is an inference, the extent that the knowing accords with reality is subject to probability.

Impact is another way of knowing that gravity exists. We can infer that impact is a more certain way of knowing that gravity exists, and we can infer from conditions such as the height of the balloon the resulting effects of gravity upon existence.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: What Insights Have You Experienced?

Post by Cahoot »

movingalways wrote:
Diebert: Nature is non-dual, Pam. Totality is, the absolute. It's really a detraction to say "every conscious being" unless we'd define everything as some instance of a conscious being. Although that would defy the purpose of the term but at least understanding wouldn't be lobotomized necessarily. The nature of self is to try to do just that, as to keep its illusion alive. The nature of this forum is to warn against it.
Point taken. I found this description of God written by David in response to Laird back in 2013 which better expresses what I am always intending to convey (hell is paved...:-), even though he too cannot help but use pronouns that suggest a sense of individuality in the All:
guest_of_logic wrote:
David, your self-serving misinterpretations of the Bible are deplorable. The Bible is the story of the relationship between a personal, creator God and His people, and Jesus clearly holds to this paradigm, and promises that he is the means by which his people will be saved, and granted entry into eternal life - *literal* eternal life, not your version of "I live eternally because when I die my causes continue". To portray Christ as some sort of enlightenment dude who we are all supposed to follow into our own little emulated personal enlightenments, with no thought for any relationship with a personal God, is a great disservice to the world.
David Quinn: As always, you have it arse backwards. The Infinite - the ALL - is the only truly personal God there can be. For the Infinite is literally your own self. It is literally your bones and blood, your thoughts and memories, your very soul. It cannot get any more personal than that.

The God you conceive of is a distinct being that lives somewhere else. In effect, he is an alien, with alien values, which makes him extremely impersonal. How could anyone in their right mind possibly begin to worship that?

In truth, Christianity is all about removing every aspect of the personal God from their lives. This is what they call "salvation". A life utterly free of God.
Diebert: As or "God consciousness" and "Infinite Aliveness", indeed such words represent misunderstanding and confusion. They cannot help but radiate ignorance: a self trying to create this sense of enlightened self, becoming or growing into "larger god selves" and so on. The ultimate wet dream of ego which sells. But this is even more true for "a focus of Infinite Aliveness" or anything lying "beyond selfhood". The danger is that the self is expanding the notion of itself. Focus and aliveness are examples of assigning extremely limited qualities to something that cannot posses those, least of all those. Even when it's just in language: their purposeful use betrays opposition to truth.
An enlightened self that is becoming or growing into "larger god selves" is in complete opposition to my understanding of God, I shudder at the idea. Perhaps herein lies the key to growing in wisdom, to be ever mindful of the difference between language that conveys even a hint of a dualistic All and language that does not.
Awakening gods aspire to be human.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: What Insights Have You Experienced?

Post by Russell Parr »

Cahoot wrote:Thought aids in the perception of gravity. Perceptions may be expressed as laws and theories that are true to the extent that they accord with reality, however thought is not required for this accord to exist, though thought aids in perception of the accord.
Scientific theory and laws, like that of gravity, have little to do with existence in the absolute sense. Theories and laws are built upon empirical evidence which always carries a degree of uncertainty. The nature of existence in the absolute sense is a metaphysical inquiry, not scientific.
Existence of gravity and its workings does not require thought, though differentiation of gravity from the amorphous mass of chaos, via inference, is a way that gravity is known to exist.
All things are known through differentiation. This is the very first and main step in perceiving existence. Any further inquiry into the workings and causes of things becomes a scientific matter, leaving the realm of absolute certainty.
Because such knowing is an inference, the extent that the knowing accords with reality is subject to probability.
Yes, and within this probability is inherent uncertainty. Absolute truths, that are always 100% in accord with reality, are logical abstractions based on definitions. It ignores the realm of observational evidence.

Also, it would behoove you to address the dualistic nature of existence and how it contrasts with reality as a whole as non-dualistic.
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: What Insights Have You Experienced?

Post by ardy »

Russell wrote:
movingalways wrote:
Russell wrote:Yes, but even the law of gravity requires consciousness to exist. Without thought, there is no demarcation of reality being made; anything beyond thought is necessarily undefined. Only reality as a whole.. infinite, unbounded, undelineated reality, can be said to exist without consciousness.
Gravity doesn't exist, consciousness doesn't exist, form doesn't exist and most certainly "reality as a whole" doesn't exist. Wisdom of emptiness ends the delusion of the existence of things.

When all is said and done, form or distinction is the only reality that can be known. While reasoning the concept of formlessness is necessary in order to realize emptiness of self (Zen's Ten Ox Herding Pictures comes to mind), in truth, there is never a moment in our consciousness when a distinction (appearance of a boundary) isn't being made.

So yes, consciousness is required to distinguish (think of) gravity.
I put it the way I did, to say that reality exists, mainly for the sake of emphasizing the point that thought must be present for any 'thing' to exist, without wiping out reality as a result. Reality is indeed nondualistic and thus the designation of 'existence' is ultimately inapplicable. Thanks for clarifying.

_____
ardy wrote:Not so, the no-self is the infinite and you make it 'become' for want of a better word. It is an indivisible part of you and it connects you to everything. There is no you in it but it is your existence that makes it 'become' for you.
If the Infinite is no-self then from where does this 'you' come from that makes it 'become'?
I have experienced emptiness and what a wonderful thing it is, when I first experienced it in the mid 90's I was overwhelmed by it and felt insignificant. As I got used to it I realised that it was I who created it within me, not that it was something outside of me (duality) that was creating me. Funny that I still am overawed by it although I am creating it.
Any notion of an "I" automatically implies duality. You can't create non-duality, it is simply the default state. Duality is created by and along with the occurance of consciousness within infinite causality.
If you don't have an I give yourself an uppercut and see if there is no I. The duality you talk about is lost in the infinite and I am a vehicle producing the infinite moment by moment.

As soon as you open your mouth you cannot avoid duality, that is why the infinite is ineffable. So in one way you are right for me to state the infinite is rolling out of me moment by moment is duality.

What I am trying to explain cannot be explained and therefore any effort is always going to fall short.

If you see yourself immersed in the infinite then what is this thing that is producing thoughts, actions and re-actions to the infinite around you? As I read many years ago, if you think you understand the infinite but are not enlightened then you may as well do nothing as the infinite is everything and what have you to offer?

I am NOT enlightened, all I am trying to do is explain my understanding of what happened to me and what experiences I have had.

For you or I to turn around and say it is like this or that is not right. We all do it here but it's not right.

Your understanding is your understanding ONLY after you have experienced some aspects of IT! To fully understand it you need to be fully enlightened.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: What Insights Have You Experienced?

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Russell wrote:The nature of existence in the absolute sense is a metaphysical inquiry, not scientific.
Thank God for you Russell. That is logic.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: What Insights Have You Experienced?

Post by Cahoot »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:
Russell wrote:The nature of existence in the absolute sense is a metaphysical inquiry, not scientific.
Thank God for you Russell. That is logic.
Do you also think that reality requires what it precedes in order to exist?
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: What Insights Have You Experienced?

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Cahoot wrote: Do you also think that reality requires what it precedes in order to exist?
In reply to the sentence, isn't "what it precedes" also reality?


This is a completely irrelevant question, but I just saw that the song 'gangnam style' has 2.4 billion views on YouTube, I was dumbfounded, I didn't even know such numbers were heard of even for viral videos. Do you ever think it's possible that the search for wisdom or philosophy in general will ever be at the height of popularity? Logically, it is an infinitely more worthwhile subject, even if such a video contained a single wise quote. Can you imagine a YouTube video discussing various philosophies with 2 billion+ views? Imagine that world. What would it take for such a radical shift in mainstream values? Just a curious thought.
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Sat Sep 26, 2015 11:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: What Insights Have You Experienced?

Post by Cahoot »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:
Cahoot wrote: Do you also think that reality requires what it precedes in order to exist?
In reply to the sentence, isn't "what is precedes" also reality?


This is a completely irrelevant question, but I just saw that the song 'gangnam style' has 2.4 billion views on YouTube, I was dumbfounded, I didn't even know such numbers were heard of even for viral videos. Do you ever think it's possible that the search for wisdom or philosophy in general will ever be at the height of popularity? Logically, it is an infinitely more worthwhile subject, even if such a video contained a single wise quote. Can you imagine a YouTube video discussing various philosophies with 2 billion+ views? Imagine that world. What would it take for such a radical shift in mainstream values? Just a curious thought.
Thought precedes the video. Is the video required for the existence of thought, or is it just required for the existence of thought about the video?
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: What Insights Have You Experienced?

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Well, ignoring the fact that you just swapped "reality" for "thought" and we're now having another discussion:

First question, definitely not.

Second question, I can't definitively answer as the question it isn't specific enough, perhaps the writers of the video were thinking about it before the actual video. But I'm sure you were only concerned with the answer to the first question.

It seems that your original question was, in other words, does reality depend upon the forms of reality for it to exist? (forms being a whole list of things, including thought?)

Is that close to what you meant?
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: What Insights Have You Experienced?

Post by Cahoot »

Seeker of Wisdom wrote:Second question, I can't definitively answer as the question it isn't specific enough, perhaps the writers of the video were thinking about it before the actual video. But I'm sure you were only concerned with the answer to the first question.
The answer to the second question is yes. The video is required for the existence of thought about the video.

The video that exists as thought before the physical video, exists as a thought form of energy. Will it exactly match the physical form of energy which is the video? No.

Consider that energy is ubiquitous and yet can only be perceived as form, which is not ubiquitous. The forms of energy are thought form, voice form, and physical form. The forms of energy can transform into one another. Thought form of video can transform into physical form of video, physical form of video can transform into thought form of video.

*

btw, on another topic, though philosophically one could make the case that there is only one topic, I didn’t bother watching the video you mentioned. I inferred from the voice form of energy used in the transmission of the video’s existence, that it’s a gangsta video, and I recognize the high probability, which can be supported by logic if one were so inclined to make the logical case rather than make assertions that one thinks are true, that based not only in agreed-upon word definitions, but based upon accord with realty, most of gangsta, if not the very principles that underlie the attraction to gangsta, is puerile crap. ;)

As a discriminating man, I find that I must not choose to waste my precious time watching it.

Perhaps you could offer a rational, other than the 50,000 fly rational, why anyone should? :D

*

Certainly, a philosophy of light hearted-fun, as depicted in the following video (not sure of the genre), when transformed into physical energy, is ultimately based on a surrender to the inevitablity of the final breathe, and this surrender is bliss not based on ignorance, but on wisdom. Though as a separate issue, one can logically and truthfully say that cows are ignorant. They are bound by incarnation, and thus only have the capacity of cow. Though it is said that lesser beings such as physically incarnated cows have aspired to enlightenment, which means their path would by necessity be a cow path, and not a human path. A cow path just may include reasoning, though. Based on experiments with animals, we can say that reasoning exists. Animals just have a lesser capacity to access the reasoning that is. Humans have a great capacity. Do humans have the greatest capacity to access the reasoning, that is?

The video is appropriate at this time of year in the US of A. It’s band music. And, if the news is to be believed, the world is marching in one fashion or another.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHNSmlZ9Rwo
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: What Insights Have You Experienced?

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Of course the video is crap, no one ever suggested otherwise, that was part of the point.
Cahoot wrote: Will it exactly match the physical form of energy which is the video? No
Okay but neither does thought about the video after the video, it wasn't a specific enough question. Anyway, I'm not sure what you're getting at with the following in regards to Russell's quote.
Cahoot wrote:Consider that energy is ubiquitous and yet can only be perceived as form, which is not ubiquitous. The forms of energy are thought form, voice form, and physical form. The forms of energy can transform into one another. Thought form of video can transform into physical form of video, physical form of video can transform into thought form of video.

It might be easier just to ask you: Do you also think that reality requires what it precedes in order to exist?
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: What Insights Have You Experienced?

Post by ardy »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Of course the video is crap, no one ever suggested otherwise, that was part of the point.
Cahoot wrote: Will it exactly match the physical form of energy which is the video? No
Okay but neither does thought about the video after the video, it wasn't a specific enough question. Anyway, I'm not sure what you're getting at with the following in regards to Russell's quote.
Cahoot wrote:Consider that energy is ubiquitous and yet can only be perceived as form, which is not ubiquitous. The forms of energy are thought form, voice form, and physical form. The forms of energy can transform into one another. Thought form of video can transform into physical form of video, physical form of video can transform into thought form of video.

It might be easier just to ask you: Do you also think that reality requires what it precedes in order to exist?
Seeker: I loved the video after watching it to see what interested 2bn humans. It was the first music video that made me laugh out loud and is worth it for that alone. His dancing is amazing for a fat bastard!

You can run your metaphysics until it comes out of your ears you are never going to get a logical answer to a question that refers to 'what was before, this and this and this and this' it is stupid to waste cycles on it. We live in a finite world (we think) but it ain't and it doesn't matter how much we rationalise it we will never understand true permanence, or the infinite, or full enlightenment, or godhood or any of the other things that are outside of our existence.

We are born we grow, we reproduce, we die. That is all nature wants from us. Our chase to find out about the infinite is an engrossing subject as if gives hints of eternity. That is not us or any other life on this planet or this planet or this sun or this galaxy, in fact a good question would be, is there an infinite or an eternity. Now that would shut you up for a couple of lifetimes and still take you nowhere....
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: What Insights Have You Experienced?

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

ardy wrote:You can run your metaphysics until it comes out of your ears you are never going to get a logical answer to a question that refers to 'what was before, this and this and this and this' it is stupid to waste cycles on it
If you're referring to the 'reality precedes' question, that was Cahoot's, I was attempting to gauge what he meant with it by asking him. So far I don't think he been clear enough for it to make much sense either.

I was also interested to see what interested 2 billion humans. As for the rest of what you wrote, you seem to have a relatively immature viewpoint regarding philosophy, or at least didn't express yourself very clearly. Some of what you said also seems to contradict itself, such as "We are born we grow, we reproduce, we die. That is all nature wants from us." followed by asserting that isn't all that's in store for us here: " for a couple of lifetimes and still take you nowhere...." unless part of it was sarcastic or you just weren't specific with the first statement.

You seem to have a lack of interest in using your full potential for logical discernment and expression, a sort of
ardy wrote:it ain't and it doesn't matter
attitude. Feel free to clarify and show me otherwise.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: What Insights Have You Experienced?

Post by Cahoot »

seeker wrote:This is a completely irrelevant question, but I just saw that the song 'gangnam style' has 2.4 billion views on YouTube, I was dumbfounded, I didn't even know such numbers were heard of even for viral videos. Do you ever think it's possible that the search for wisdom or philosophy in general will ever be at the height of popularity? Logically, it is an infinitely more worthwhile subject, even if such a video contained a single wise quote. Can you imagine a YouTube video discussing various philosophies with 2 billion+ views? Imagine that world. What would it take for such a radical shift in mainstream values? Just a curious thought.
I watched a couple minutes of it. Anything interesting at the end?

The work of William Deming with the Japanese has the potential to help understanding of how energy of such mass appeal could take physical form, though odds of the potential manifesting are uncertain.
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: What Insights Have You Experienced?

Post by Bobo »

Cahoot wrote: Consider that energy is ubiquitous and yet can only be perceived as form, which is not ubiquitous. The forms of energy are thought form, voice form, and physical form. The forms of energy can transform into one another. Thought form of video can transform into physical form of video, physical form of video can transform into thought form of video.
Have you ever read the secret by any chance? It's about a secret of every successful person on history of earth, the law of attraction states that thinking creates reality, so positive thinking attracts positive things like money, love and success.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: What Insights Have You Experienced?

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

Edit
Last edited by SeekerOfWisdom on Fri Oct 23, 2015 2:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: What Insights Have You Experienced?

Post by ardy »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:
Cahoot wrote:I watched a couple minutes of it. Anything interesting at the end?

The work of William Deming with the Japanese has the potential to help understanding of how energy of such mass appeal could take physical form, though odds of the potential manifesting are uncertain.
I only watched a couple minutes of it also. I doubt it. It seems that the hyper popularity of the video is indicative of mainstream modern values and interests which do not in any way hold (even the idea of) truth in high regard. While there are still many religious practitioners, such as Buddhists and even Christians, Hindus and the Islamic who do hold at least the idea of seeking truth in high regard, however misguided their ideas may be, it seems that the rise of technology, and particularly popular television shows, music and films as the main source of entertainment, especially with younger generations, will continue to spread all over the world. It seems that we are undeniably headed toward an age of complete and total immersion in this way of life. And that is exactly what it is, a way of life. It is common for millions now to do little else but watch television. While I don't think social interaction will actually decline, the communal and familial aspect of it is declining in the first world, and it seems this is directly related. For a small example, even when witnessing younger people checkout at a supermarket there is little interaction, if any, with the cashier. Yet whenever I see older generations do the same they are considerably more interactive, more friendly, you'll even hear them invite a stranger over for dinner. Which brings to mind an old customary greeting in Asia which was to ask each person you encounter if they had eaten rice that day, and if the answer was no, to give them food. Barriers are springing forth and being strengthened between people, both physically, financially and psychologically. For an example of this, just look at an apartment building, hundreds of people living within meters of each other yet never even meeting. Whether I am correct about this decline or not, and such patterns have simply always existed, it is wholly irrelevant, since the situation is very real.

The odd thing is that, while this age holds the gaining of wealth and comfortable living in such high regard, they don't seem to understand the benefits of community trust and even sharing. For example, even in business relationships between friends there are so many emotional factors such as jealousy or feelings of distrust that so often are a negative impact on the gaining of wealth. It demonstrates the complete lack of logic in this coming age since it is almost certain that if everyone adopted an attitude of wisdom, trust, empathy and sharing, there would be no poor, suicide rates would decline hugely, and financial anxiety would effectively disappear. Of course, it probably wouldn't work out the same if you were an individual attempting this.

I should point out that, perhaps because of some wisdom that I have read and embodied, the outcome of the situation troubles me little, and I don't feel very strongly about it at all, which might be considered a little hypocritical if I were advocating change as a necessity, but I am not, though it is still true that if given the choice any logical person would choose the latter world.
I read an overview of William Deming and his writings.
SOW: It is obvious that you take yourself seriously and I can sympathise with this view but don't agree with it. The universe is to be played with and whether Deming is critical or not is of limited importance although he defined the stupidity of American manufacturers.

What is important is that you know how to play with the universe whilst you are here. Whilst either suckling, learning, fucking and dying you enjoy yourself is the only plan worth emphasising.

We, all here, enjoy the discussions and putting our POV, it makes no difference however as our POV is irrelevant in the grand scheme. We are all playing in it but most of us do not recognise it.

I would love to end with a cliché but my limited brain won't allow me to write it! Gangnam Style!
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: What Insights Have You Experienced?

Post by Cahoot »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:
Cahoot wrote:I watched a couple minutes of it. Anything interesting at the end?

The work of William Deming with the Japanese has the potential to help understanding of how energy of such mass appeal could take physical form, though odds of the potential manifesting are uncertain.
I only watched a couple minutes of it also. I doubt it. It seems that the hyper popularity of the video is indicative of mainstream modern values and interests which do not in any way hold (even the idea of) truth in high regard. While there are still many religious practitioners, such as Buddhists and even Christians, Hindus and the Islamic who do hold at least the idea of seeking truth in high regard, however misguided their ideas may be, it seems that the rise of technology, and particularly popular television shows, music and films as the main source of entertainment, especially with younger generations, will continue to spread all over the world. It seems that we are undeniably headed toward an age of complete and total immersion in this way of life. And that is exactly what it is, a way of life. It is common for millions now to do little else but watch television. While I don't think social interaction will actually decline, the communal and familial aspect of it is declining in the first world, and it seems this is directly related. For a small example, even when witnessing younger people checkout at a supermarket there is little interaction, if any, with the cashier. Yet whenever I see older generations do the same they are considerably more interactive, more friendly, you'll even hear them invite a stranger over for dinner. Which brings to mind an old customary greeting in Asia which was to ask each person you encounter if they had eaten rice that day, and if the answer was no, to give them food. Barriers are springing forth and being strengthened between people, both physically, financially and psychologically. For an example of this, just look at an apartment building, hundreds of people living within meters of each other yet never even meeting. Whether I am correct about this decline or not, and such patterns have simply always existed, it is wholly irrelevant, since the situation is very real.

The odd thing is that, while this age holds the gaining of wealth and comfortable living in such high regard, they don't seem to understand the benefits of community trust and even sharing. For example, even in business relationships between friends there are so many emotional factors such as jealousy or feelings of distrust that so often are a negative impact on the gaining of wealth. It demonstrates the complete lack of logic in this coming age since it is almost certain that if everyone adopted an attitude of wisdom, trust, empathy and sharing, there would be no poor, suicide rates would decline hugely, and financial anxiety would effectively disappear. Of course, it probably wouldn't work out the same if you were an individual attempting this.

I should point out that, perhaps because of some wisdom that I have read and embodied, the outcome of the situation troubles me little, and I don't feel very strongly about it at all, which might be considered a little hypocritical if I were advocating change as a necessity, but I am not, though it is still true that if given the choice any logical person would choose the latter world.
I read an overview of William Deming and his writings.
I agree with a lot of that. It's the best of the times and the worst of times, but there's never been times like these times.
seeker wrote: I read an overview of William Deming and his writings.
A lot of art, culture, and paradigm shift is reactionary, and it only happens when it must. Social evolution. For instance, Dada and surrealism were reactionary. The evolution of visual art was so reactionary that it led to solid white canvases. The rise of Christianity was likely reactionary. Reaction is a natural balancing effect. Principles of balance indicate that eventually culture tilts to the spiritual, usually as a reaction to hard times, and the form this reaction takes (physical energy) depends on conditions, such as the capacity of the participants.

One could say that Japan’s economic rise guided by Deming was a reactionary spiritual movement born of hard times, and the rise was caused by focused attention upon intent.

The popularity of the dancing video is likely reactionary.
Last edited by Cahoot on Sun Sep 27, 2015 11:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: What Insights Have You Experienced?

Post by Cahoot »

Bobo wrote:
Cahoot wrote: Consider that energy is ubiquitous and yet can only be perceived as form, which is not ubiquitous. The forms of energy are thought form, voice form, and physical form. The forms of energy can transform into one another. Thought form of video can transform into physical form of video, physical form of video can transform into thought form of video.
Have you ever read the secret by any chance? It's about a secret of every successful person on history of earth, the law of attraction states that thinking creates reality, so positive thinking attracts positive things like money, love and success.
I heard of it a couple of years ago but gave it no more attention than what I heard.

I have noticed that man has more control of energy when thought form transforms to voice form, than when voice form transforms to physical form. Control in the framework of these words relates to intent and physical phenomena (which involves movement, motive force, etc.)
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: What Insights Have You Experienced?

Post by Cahoot »

ardy wrote: I would love to end with a cliché but my limited brain won't allow me to write it! Gangnam Style!
I don't recall giving much attention to peer pressure. Turns out that I was once an unknowing cause of the phenomenon, and yet it exists.

Peerless. A = A. Having no equal other than oneself.

Realization of this, paradoxically, coincides with the appearance of equanimity (though paradoxes are merely logical fallacies).
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: What Insights Have You Experienced?

Post by Russell Parr »

Cahoot wrote:Do you also think that reality requires what it precedes in order to exist?
Once again, "Existence" doesn't apply to reality because it is infinite. Existence requires contrast, and you can't provide any contrasts to the Infinite because it necessarily includes whatever you might try to contrast it with. How many times has this been explained to you?

It seems that philosophy can only run so deep for you. Before it gets to the root, the bottom of things, you can't help but turn it into a scientific inquiry. This is a sign of attachment to the material world in which 'existence' has a more permanent meaning and feel to it. The ego loves such a thing.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: What Insights Have You Experienced?

Post by Russell Parr »

ardy wrote:If you see yourself immersed in the infinite then what is this thing that is producing thoughts, actions and re-actions to the infinite around you?
It appears to be a body with a brain.
As I read many years ago, if you think you understand the infinite but are not enlightened then you may as well do nothing as the infinite is everything and what have you to offer?
The Infinite being everything has no impedance on the validity of shared insights.
I am NOT enlightened, all I am trying to do is explain my understanding of what happened to me and what experiences I have had.

For you or I to turn around and say it is like this or that is not right. We all do it here but it's not right.
What if I am right?
Your understanding is your understanding ONLY after you have experienced some aspects of IT! To fully understand it you need to be fully enlightened.
Which is why we should continue to probe for the answers. Do you think there's any chance for enlightenment for yourself?
Locked