|
Post by enigma on Mar 25, 2014 22:49:18 GMT -5
Oh, is that what you said? Hehe. I agree. In fact, I'd say it's equally true that opposites attract. The 'like' is not to be taken literally. The 'like' refers to vibration and therefore includes opposites as well. Oh, okay, so both polarities of a dichotomy have the same vibration?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 25, 2014 23:00:40 GMT -5
You misinterpreted what Reefs was saying, and moved it in a self serving direction. Then misinterpreted his clarification in the same way and for the same reason. Keep your eye out for the giraffe. I'd say his stories are getting a little out of hand. We can generally tell what's going on unconsciously by watching the projections. Lately, he's been talking more about the 'club' covering up after the mask has fallen or the stories have been exposed, so he's unconsciously feeling a bit cornered. So the stories get a little wilder and wackier.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 25, 2014 23:32:18 GMT -5
Yup. "Like attracts like" is far too simplistic to equate to "the interconnected whole". That's because you take 'like' literally. I think we've discussed that before. The context here is one-liners. Attraction and repulsion are only one facet of interconnectedness. The "interconnected whole" also includes phenomena like symbiosis, the butterfly effect, improbable dumb luck and the "whole is greater than the sum of the parts" ... among many others. You might be able to explain all of these in terms of LOA but it's obscure from the one-liner.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 25, 2014 23:39:47 GMT -5
You misunderstood my original post. Then I clarified. Which you misunderstood again. It's a wild giraffe party. Self-contradiction leads to a sort of broken-clock phenomena, a.k.a. the Andrew effect: if you state two opposites one of them won't be wrong, so repetitively quote the one that people agree with and remain silent about the one they rejected.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 26, 2014 1:18:58 GMT -5
The 'like' is not to be taken literally. The 'like' refers to vibration and therefore includes opposites as well. Oh, okay, so both polarities of a dichotomy have the same vibration? Yes. Appearances can be deceiving.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 26, 2014 1:42:11 GMT -5
That's because you take 'like' literally. I think we've discussed that before. The context here is one-liners. Attraction and repulsion are only one facet of interconnectedness. The "interconnected whole" also includes phenomena like symbiosis, the butterfly effect, improbable dumb luck and the "whole is greater than the sum of the parts" ... among many others. You might be able to explain all of these in terms of LOA but it's obscure from the one-liner. I don't quite follow your drift here. You seem to be mixing contexts. The original context was Tzu's infamous last paragraph which was about recognizing the interconnected relationships between what is happening. And what is happening is that 'like attracts like'.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 26, 2014 1:48:29 GMT -5
Self-contradiction leads to a sort of broken-clock phenomena, a.k.a. the Andrew effect: if you state two opposites one of them won't be wrong, so repetitively quote the one that people agree with and remain silent about the one they rejected. Yes, that's what politicians do. They usually don't lie, they only deceive (usually by leaving out some parts of the story).
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 26, 2014 2:24:41 GMT -5
Self-contradiction leads to a sort of broken-clock phenomena, a.k.a. the Andrew effect: if you state two opposites one of them won't be wrong, so repetitively quote the one that people agree with and remain silent about the one they rejected. Yes, that's what politicians do. They usually don't lie, they only deceive (usually by leaving out some parts of the story). ... the tactic embodies one of the most colorful logical fallacies. edit -- ... just realized .. it's the positionless position!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 26, 2014 2:25:03 GMT -5
The context here is one-liners. Attraction and repulsion are only one facet of interconnectedness. The "interconnected whole" also includes phenomena like symbiosis, the butterfly effect, improbable dumb luck and the "whole is greater than the sum of the parts" ... among many others. You might be able to explain all of these in terms of LOA but it's obscure from the one-liner. I don't quite follow your drift here. You seem to be mixing contexts. The original context was Tzu's infamous last paragraph which was about recognizing the interconnected relationships between what is happening. And what is happening is that 'like attracts like'. If you say so.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 26, 2014 5:11:40 GMT -5
Yes, that's what politicians do. They usually don't lie, they only deceive (usually by leaving out some parts of the story). ... the tactic embodies one of the most colorful logical fallacies. edit -- ... just realized .. it's the positionless position! 'If-by-whiskey'?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 26, 2014 5:12:30 GMT -5
I don't quite follow your drift here. You seem to be mixing contexts. The original context was Tzu's infamous last paragraph which was about recognizing the interconnected relationships between what is happening. And what is happening is that 'like attracts like'. If you say so.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 26, 2014 5:18:16 GMT -5
Your fondness for giraffes cannot change what 'is'.. Reefer stated: " his [Tzu] last paragraph is exactly what A-H teach" in reference to this "last paragraph" by Tzu: " When the still mind sees what is actually happening, the ease with which the experiencer recognizes the interconnected relationships of what is happening, then the deeds that manifest peace and harmony are truly effortless".. the rest of the ensuing drama is damage control by the club, trying cover-up for each others' inability to follow the club's scripture.. That's right, I was only referring to your last paragraph. You initially thought, however, that I was agreeing with your entire post since you saw your last paragraph as just a summary of you entire post. But I clarified even before I agreed with your last paragraph that your last paragraph actually contradicts the rest of your post. And I clarified that again later. Which you then turned into "Reefer wants to recant". So, that's where the giraffe stampede went out of control. It's drama creation by the anti-club crusader. Plain and simple. Can you stop spinning for moment and just pay attention? i was never under the impression that you agreed with anything other than the 'last paragraph'. the issue is that the last paragraph represents "exactly" what AH teaches., the issue is not your disagreement with the rest of the post from which the 'last paragraph' was quoted, unless you're trying to create a diversion from revealing how much fluff and woo-woo is packed into the AH hype.. I completely get the 'vibration' description, 'like attracts like' has too much other baggage associated with it from the EM model and the social/personality model.. what i sense you are trying to convey is that similar vibrations become coherent/resonant, increasing the probability for a stable and harmonious 'change'.. It is my understanding that vibration is the result of the principle of self-organization, order emerging from chaos,, and, emergent order is also random occurrences, until such random order arranges itself into what we call consciousness, it has become self-aware.. consciousness, has the unique ability to modulate vibration, to manifest its reality, and it does.. in direct proportion to the experiencer's clarity that it will.. it is the attachments/beliefs/knowings that bind the experiencer to manifesting their past in their reality of variations on that theme.. until you let it all go, you are stuck to it..
|
|
|
Post by amit on Mar 26, 2014 6:00:14 GMT -5
How does self improvement fit in with non duality? (that sounds like an oxymoron to me) One (supposed) problem after another. Then some (supposed) remedy, after another. Isn't that just swapping one story (guy with a problem needing fixed) with another story (guy who solved problem). Rinse and repeat. I doubt if there are many different descriptions of what self improvement means. On the other hand there are many different descriptions which use the label Non-duality. So for clarity lets state the description I am using. It is the idea, that despite the very convincing appearances of difference, All is, without exception, One. Relating this description to self improvement, if self improvement was achieved it could in no way increase connection to this Oneness (this is not meant to indicate the existence of some entity but merely that despite difference All is One) for it would already be Oneness appearing as lacking the improvement sort because there is already no distance between seeker and sought. In that story, self improvement, or any other practice that suggests distance between seeker and sought, is irrelevant to Non-duality. amit
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Mar 26, 2014 7:08:42 GMT -5
How does self improvement fit in with non duality? (that sounds like an oxymoron to me) One (supposed) problem after another. Then some (supposed) remedy, after another. Isn't that just swapping one story (guy with a problem needing fixed) with another story (guy who solved problem). Rinse and repeat. I doubt if there are many different descriptions of what self improvement means. On the other hand there are many different descriptions which use the label Non-duality. So for clarity lets state the description I am using. It is the idea, that despite the very convincing appearances of difference, All is, without exception, One. Relating this description to self improvement, if self improvement was achieved it could in no way increase connection to this Oneness (this is not meant to indicate the existence of some entity but merely that despite difference All is One) for it would already be Oneness appearing as lacking the improvement sort because there is already no distance between seeker and sought. In that story, self improvement, or any other practice that suggests distance between seeker and sought, is irrelevant to Non-duality.amit Yes, I agree amit. I have seen it said here that self-improvement is heading off in the wrong direction, that it's reinforcing the sense of self and, therefore, the sense of separation. As long as it's understood that self-improvement is irrelevant to non-duality, self-improvement falls into the same category as feeding the body. Useful, practical. Turning away from self-improvement because it's contrary to non-duality is giving it way too much importance.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 26, 2014 9:46:23 GMT -5
Oh, okay, so both polarities of a dichotomy have the same vibration? Yes. Appearances can be deceiving. It actually makes sense since I see opposite polarities being created together.
|
|