GENIUS FORUMS

First they ignore you,
then they laugh at you,
then they fight you,
then you win.

Gandhi

Great thread - thank you all for lifting this heart.

First they ignore you,
then they laugh at you,
then they fight you,
then you win.

That's not what happened Tomas.
there was knowing Pam was 'around and about'.
she was cloistered in a queer language style, largely of Jufa's making.
A request was made for her to make her style understandable.
In her generosity she accomodated that request.
Dialectic or intense conversation was engaged.
A grander version of Pam was called forth.

There is no pam,
only beautiful expression.

Lots of mistaken ideas about causality here. Causality is essentially the same as non-duality. The parts of a whole must necessarily cause each other, but the whole cannot cause the parts, or vice versa. The whole is the 'law' of causation; the parts are the causes and effects.

That's not what happened Tomas.
there was knowing Pam was 'around and about'.
she was cloistered in a queer language style, largely of Jufa's making.
A request was made for her to make her style understandable.
In her generosity she accomodated that request.
Dialectic or intense conversation was engaged.
A grander version of Pam was called forth.

There is no pam,
only beautiful expression.

Dennis, this is not WHAT happened, it is you projecting your causes and conditions to suit the story of Pam according to the story of Dennis. This board is full of such layered projections, most of which are honestly believed to be spoken in name of the wisdom of causality. I say that most here have misunderstood what it is to be one with "the law of causality" [see David's "fox" post]. Being one with the law of causality is an individual, united relationship of Thinker and thought. Only I know Pam. Only you know Dennis. Only David knows David, etc.

This is to be pure of heart, to acknowledge this truth to oneself, that knowing is a singular infinity.

The intellect wants a reason; spirit knows not why it is spirit.

Nevertheless there was a change in style, of expression.
a possibility for expression of expression emerged.
astonishing.

Lots of mistaken ideas about causality here. Causality is essentially the same as non-duality.

Causality arises in the human mind because of belief in a beginning, a reason [duality]. "Non dual", by its very definition, is without a beginning, without a reason, therefore, is not causal.

The parts of a whole must necessarily cause each other, but the whole cannot cause the parts, or vice versa. The whole is the 'law' of causation; the parts are the causes and effects.

The infinite is not a "whole of parts." The infinite is every thing of Itself.

The infinite is not dependent on the human mind to be the infinite, therefore, the infinite knows not of the things of reason. The human mind, however, is dependent on the infinite, and of its ignorance, projects its insistence on "finding a reason" on that which knows not of finding nor of reason.

What are the options?

Fixed point + no causality.

Fixed point + causality.

No fixed point + causality.

Pam wrote:The infinite is not a "whole of parts." The infinite is every thing of Itself.

It is legitimate to view it either way.

The infinite is not dependent on the human mind to be the infinite, therefore, the infinite knows not of the things of reason. The human mind, however, is dependent on the infinite, and of its ignorance, projects its insistence on "finding a reason" on that which knows not of finding nor of reason.

Pam, I do find that you express yourself intelligently and consistently, although you have said that it "matters not" to you. I mention it because it is a good thing, and I do not wish you to take my remarks as criticism when they are not intended as such.

What seems to be the recurrent theme in what you express at GF is again put forth in the first sentence of this quote. The Infinite is not dependent on the human mind, a statement with which I agree. Your conclusion is where I think you and I diverge: "therefore, the Infinite knows not of the things of reason."

You present nothing that supports this, and I submit there is a vast amount of evidence to the contrary. The nature of the Infinite is not what one simply defines it to be. The nature of the Infinite is revealed through the collective group Consciousness, which is an evolving consciousness. Philosophers like to believe they transcend particular eras; to the extent that they do, the result is always reason. Always. There cannot be any proper spiritual development in any individual without it. You seem to be saying men invented words. I am saying IN THE BEGINNING was the Word. The Word most definitely knows of the things of reason.

The Big Cuz:

I am saying IN THE BEGINNING was the Word. The Word most definitely knows of the things of reason.

John 1:1-2

The WORD in Greek is logos where we derive the word logic. There is, most certainly, a code, matrix, and mathematically encrypted language of the atomic structure and DNA. It is literally the thought (logos or logic) of the mind of the one.

The code or language however is infinite and has no end point. This is very frustrating for the scientific community. It is encrypted in innocence and decoded with wisdom/clarity. Its source code is infinite - that will make most scientists want to pop bubble wrap - LOL.

Movingalways knows it can only be 'understood' (not even a good word for it) or 'realized' by the unconditioned mind. This mind allows the answer to surface and then - reverse engineers the equation if we face a challenge that requires an answer. Every answer, no matter it be the God particle or superposition is within you. It can only come from you and may only be experienced by you.

Appreciate ya bro

Bo1 wrote:Movingalways knows it can only be 'understood' (not even a good word for it) or 'realized' by the unconditioned mind. This mind allows the answer to surface and then - reverse engineers the equation if we face a challenge that requires an answer. Every answer, no matter it be the God particle or superposition is within you. It can only come from you and may only be experienced by you.

This is similar to what some scientists have described when they "'discover" a connection or formulation that is new in the context upon which they are focused. They say they are "remembering" it.

Movingalways knows it can only be 'understood' (not even a good word for it) or 'realized' by the unconditioned mind.

But in what form does an unconditioned mind exist? Where is one found? If all experiences a mind encounters serve to "condition" it, one would be left with an unconditioned mind only in a mind devoid of experience, including education.

cousinbasil wrote:

Bo1 wrote:Movingalways knows it can only be 'understood' (not even a good word for it) or 'realized' by the unconditioned mind. This mind allows the answer to surface and then - reverse engineers the equation if we face a challenge that requires an answer. Every answer, no matter it be the God particle or superposition is within you. It can only come from you and may only be experienced by you.

Cousin:
This is similar to what some scientists have described when they "'discover" a connection or formulation that is new in the context upon which they are focused. They say they are "remembering" it.

Yes, because the same fundamental language is what and who you are. The universe and consciousness are identical because they are the same thing.

Movingalways knows it can only be 'understood' (not even a good word for it) or 'realized' by the unconditioned mind.

Cousin:
But in what form does an unconditioned mind exist? Where is one found? If all experiences a mind encounters serve to "condition" it, one would be left with an unconditioned mind only in a mind devoid of experience, including education.

It means; your memory is a form of reference. Memory can never take the place of the moment and so, we approach or experience in a "eyes wide open" perceptual allowance. We allow our experience to 'be' without attempting to stuff it into our preconceived format.

We use the five senses by being immersed in the moment and remain void of conceptual formatting. This permits us to raise the bar of limitations on our experiential reality. We leave ourselves open for the ineffable and only then does it manifest because we do not explain it away with our being to smart to permit the hokiness of the miraculous in our life.

There are no limitations in a universe in eternal momentum being propelled by infinite energy(do the math). The only limits that exist are the ones applied by us. Everything and anything becomes possible. We narrow down our field of perception by applying limits and this is often confused with the boundless reality that we "move and live and have our very being in." The narrowing of our experience creates a beginning point and an end point. These points are actually arbitrary and reality transcends these 'points' of process and conceptual framework.

We use the five senses

Mind would be of the senses wouldn't it?
thus six senses.
it makes sense of things.
intelligibility as a sensor getting around in a World.
the thing about mind is it can be tricked and it can wise up to itself.
it's the darndest thing.

Atoms are reckless and selfish.

the quarks are to blame.

I blame The Ringmaker - the one gravity that controls them all.

Jamesh wrote:I blame The Ringmaker - the one gravity that controls them all.

Naw, it's Comet Elenin, the brown dwarf star. It's been gathering its electrical charge these past 9,000+ years. It will be discharging all that stored energy shortly. It's what set off the earthquake on Japan.

It's even on the Swiss 10-franc note. Really.

The inner planets are depicted with this 'orb' circling from an elliptical orbit.
Here > http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.net/for ... ?id=249855

Tomas wrote: It's even on the Swiss 10-franc note. Really.

The inner planets are depicted with this 'orb' circling from an elliptical orbit.
Here > http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.net/for ... ?id=249855

Funny how 99% of the internet writings on it ignore that the picture was made by Leonhard Euler (1707 –1783), whose "accomplishments include determining with great accuracy the orbits of comets and other celestial bodies" and described the image actually depicted Haley's' comet which appeared in 1759.

Took me three minutes to find out. I guess it's for most folks out there a matter of wanting something to remain mysterious and symbolic for great upheavals to come.

[I guess it's for most folks out there a matter of wanting something to remain mysterious and symbolic for great upheavals to come.]

There are some good ideas about that general topic in this book review:

http://reason.com/archives/2011/08/02/a ... f-the-mind

Mr. Shermer marshals an impressive array of evidence from game theory, neuroscience and evolutionary psychology. A human ancestor hears a rustle in the grass. Is it the wind or a lion? If he assumes it's the wind and the rustling turns out to be a lion, then he's not an ancestor anymore. Since early man had only a split second to make such decisions, Mr. Shermer says, we are descendants of ancestors whose "default position is to assume that all patterns are real; that is, assume that all rustles in the grass are dangerous predators and not the wind."

Mr. Shermer also delves into the neuroscience of "the believing brain." For example, he cites research suggesting that people with high levels of the feel-good neurochemical dopamine "are more likely to find significance in coincidences and pick out meaning and patterns where there are none." Even for folks with normal chemical levels, there's a neurological upside to pattern-finding: When we come across information that confirms what we already believe, we get a rewarding jolt of dopamine.

Jamesh wrote:[I guess it's for most folks out there a matter of wanting something to remain mysterious and symbolic for great upheavals to come.]

There are some good ideas about that general topic in this book review:

http://reason.com/archives/2011/08/02/a ... f-the-mind

Mr. Shermer marshals an impressive array of evidence from game theory, neuroscience and evolutionary psychology. A human ancestor hears a rustle in the grass. Is it the wind or a lion? If he assumes it's the wind and the rustling turns out to be a lion, then he's not an ancestor anymore. Since early man had only a split second to make such decisions, Mr. Shermer says, we are descendants of ancestors whose "default position is to assume that all patterns are real; that is, assume that all rustles in the grass are dangerous predators and not the wind."

Mr. Shermer also delves into the neuroscience of "the believing brain." For example, he cites research suggesting that people with high levels of the feel-good neurochemical dopamine "are more likely to find significance in coincidences and pick out meaning and patterns where there are none." Even for folks with normal chemical levels, there's a neurological upside to pattern-finding: When we come across information that confirms what we already believe, we get a rewarding jolt of dopamine.

Hey good old Jimz. While I'm familiar with those theories and certainly can vouch for them experimentally, what still surprises me is that the same sensitivity for coincedence and correlation appears to suppress in these cases any desire to check things out. As if all rustles in the grass will always be dangerous predators and never something to hunt for or discover. Caution and heigthened senses are one thing: dumb reflexes and hostility to thought or analysis (another type of hunt?) is another one.

So to use the lion analogy a bit further: it's perhaps not people wanting it to mean something but perhaps more like some fear that it might not mean anything at all. The symbol of a comet on some obsolete money bill (and are value papers not mystical and mysterious in their ever-shifting meaning?) or the timing of its orbit and all other stories surrounding the coming year: is it not the need for a sign, a negative one, a sign of some occulted "brown star" born hope, a sign of the "end of time". Like a hidden deathwish: we might prefer time to end or at least to be somewhat interupted, any shift at all as it's something modern society increasingly does not allow! The fear is not of death, or disasters: the greater fear is not having anything like that at all, at least in the space of meanings. Just the ticking of clocks....

From the book of a 'critical thinker' - cough.

Readers who have enjoyed Mr. Shermer's earlier books, such as Why People Believe Weird Things,* will relish the pages devoted to puncturing many of the conspiratorial beliefs that lurk in our popular culture, from those about UFO cover-ups to the 9/11-was-an-inside-job lunacy.

Right - we refuse to believe in anything that might make us seem silly. We disregard all hard evidence (like a building tumbling to the ground all on its own) because we would look funny. We distance our self from anything that a fundy might believe because we would appear as being on the wrong side of the argument.

That being - we ignore facts and evidence because we want to appear as smart and cheeky not like the simple minded who actually contemplate stupid things like motive, opportunity, means, and evidence/facts. The gullible are looking for patterns where we, who are the smart ones, choose to ignore them because we might end up agreeing with a fundy at some point.

Snap out of it.

Dennis Mahar wrote:

We use the five senses

Mind would be of the senses wouldn't it?
thus six senses.
it makes sense of things.
intelligibility as a sensor getting around in a World.
the thing about mind is it can be tricked and it can wise up to itself.
it's the darndest thing.

If you lose all five senses, are you still conscious?

Therefore, mind transcends the feedback loop.

Mind is activity isn't it?
depends on object for existence.
no senses, no object, no mind.

Beingof1 wrote: We disregard all hard evidence (like a building tumbling to the ground all on its own) because we would look funny. We distance our self from anything that a fundy might believe because we would appear as being on the wrong side of the argument.

Indeed you are, disregarding the only available verifiable evidence so far suggesting in detail how this event in most likelihood has happened. The fact that it's odd or weird or unlikely in our eyes does not mean anything but another feeling or opinion. The world is full of black swans. Miracles happen all the time: just not all at once :)

Beingof1 wrote:If you lose all five senses, are you still conscious?

WIth each sense less, another bit of mind goes unless another sense heightens instead. But does it make sense?