|
Post by enigma on Sept 20, 2014 12:24:10 GMT -5
A world in which everything is perfect, in the most common definition of that term, isn't possible in relative experience. How do you know perfect without the experience of imperfect? Perfect compared to what? Life isn't about attaining a state in which nothing needs to change or improve, it's about movement; ongoing change. (The journey and not the destination) All feeling is a movement only. We notice joy only as it arises and falls, and so there cannot be as static state of joy, or sorrow, or perfection or anything else. All static states lead to stagnation. So as God in ZD's thought experiment, what sort of world would you create? I can't be sure that you're not talking 2 different contexts with the word perfect here, and it did cross my mind the same thing you said, 'all static states lead to stagnation,' so I wouldn't create a static world, but I dunno but what any world that anyone would create with maybe just a tad more cool and calmness -- once the world was put into motion, the lack of any quality control that the creator would desire would be evident. Looking at that way, it seems it's all just a total hodge-podge from the get-go, and if you believe what the Bible says, the world was created and was expected or declared (by man, claiming he knows God) good. I'm talking about perfect in the only context in which we can discuss it, and I'm questioning the possibility of a world that you would deem as permanently perfect. It sounds like that's no longer seen as possible, so that's a start. You may want a world with a tad more cool and calmness (or think you do) but what about others who are bored and want a world that's a tad more hot and exciting? How do you institute a quality control program under those circumstances? Assuming you see that you can't, what else would you do as God? I believe very little that the Bible says.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 20, 2014 12:28:20 GMT -5
As every perspective is unique there are as many methods for awakening, as there are people. That what is realized is the commonality between all people is enough to indicate that there's nothing special about it, and also why what sometimes worked for some peeps in the past seems to have worked for others in the present. The conditioning of every individual goes through an evolution, and when it is ready, awakening happens through that individuation. What a particular conditioning dynamic needs for that to happen is, as you suggest, as unique as the person. I say regardless of the dynamic, it always comes down to willingness. And as comes up naturally in the course of the discussion and has before, willingness is related to earnestness, and earnestness to sincerity. The questions of what that sincerity is about, where it's directed, and how it comes to be all relate back directly to attending the sense of being, self-inquiry, and the setting aside of imagination and ideas about what appears to us.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Sept 20, 2014 12:31:00 GMT -5
I can't be sure that you're not talking 2 different contexts with the word perfect here, and it did cross my mind the same thing you said, 'all static states lead to stagnation,' so I wouldn't create a static world, but I dunno but what any world that anyone would create with maybe just a tad more cool and calmness -- once the world was put into motion, the lack of any quality control that the creator would desire would be evident. Looking at that way, it seems it's all just a total hodge-podge from the get-go, and if you believe what the Bible says, the world was created and was expected or declared (by man, claiming he knows God) good. I'm talking about perfect in the only context in which we can discuss it, and I'm questioning the possibility of a world that you would deem as permanently perfect. It sounds like that's no longer seen as possible, so that's a start. You may want a world with a tad more cool and calmness (or think you do) but what about others who are bored and want a world that's a tad more hot and exciting? How do you institute a quality control program under those circumstances? Assuming you see that you can't, what else would you do as God? I believe very little that the Bible says. For starters, I questioned whatever I thought needed to be questioned, and I most certainly did - I grew up attending Sunday school and church every weekend, and as presented then, there was much I thought needed lots of inquiry. I don't think it's possible to create a perfect world - and besides, that's up to each individual's own definition. I'm careful about when you say in essence, that you assume a cool, calm world would be automagically boring, when you haven't even tried to imagine what that kind of world would really be like. You may just be throwing out the baby with the bath water there. I never said I wanted a world where there was no interest or excitement - cool and calm doesn't preclude those in my book.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 20, 2014 12:40:28 GMT -5
I don't think it's possible to create a perfect world That's precisely what ZD was inviting you to discover on your own by suggesting that inquiry. That's not he bottom of the realization though. That's just where logic and emotions wind up at the end of it. There's more to it. Much. Much more.
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 20, 2014 13:03:42 GMT -5
I'm talking about perfect in the only context in which we can discuss it, and I'm questioning the possibility of a world that you would deem as permanently perfect. It sounds like that's no longer seen as possible, so that's a start. You may want a world with a tad more cool and calmness (or think you do) but what about others who are bored and want a world that's a tad more hot and exciting? How do you institute a quality control program under those circumstances? Assuming you see that you can't, what else would you do as God? I believe very little that the Bible says. For starters, I questioned whatever I thought needed to be questioned, and I most certainly did - I grew up attending Sunday school and church every weekend, and as presented then, there was much I thought needed lots of inquiry. I don't think it's possible to create a perfect world - and besides, that's up to each individual's own definition. I'm careful about when you say in essence, that you assume a cool, calm world would be automagically boring, when you haven't even tried to imagine what that kind of world would really be like. You may just be throwing out the baby with the bath water there. I never said I wanted a world where there was no interest or excitement - cool and calm doesn't preclude those in my book. Seeing The perfection of 'this' as a whole, includes rather than excludes the judging of individuated circumstances and happenings of the physical world, to possibly be better or different than what they are. For example; it's very possible to work to affect change of surface, worldly circumstances/appearances, while a fundamental seeing of the "perfection" of it all, abides alongside that. I associate the seeing of 'perfection' with a fundamental bullet-proof sense of abiding Peace.... A sense of Peace/well-being that abides regardless of what may be appearing on the surface....regardless of physical, worldly circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Sept 20, 2014 13:40:43 GMT -5
For starters, I questioned whatever I thought needed to be questioned, and I most certainly did - I grew up attending Sunday school and church every weekend, and as presented then, there was much I thought needed lots of inquiry. I don't think it's possible to create a perfect world - and besides, that's up to each individual's own definition. I'm careful about when you say in essence, that you assume a cool, calm world would be automagically boring, when you haven't even tried to imagine what that kind of world would really be like. You may just be throwing out the baby with the bath water there. I never said I wanted a world where there was no interest or excitement - cool and calm doesn't preclude those in my book. Seeing The perfection of 'this' as a whole, includes rather than excludes the judging of individuated circumstances and happenings of the physical world, to possibly be better or different than what they are. For example; it's very possible to work to affect change of surface, worldly circumstances/appearances, while a fundamental seeing of the "perfection" of it all, abides alongside that. I associate the seeing of 'perfection' with a fundamental bullet-proof sense of abiding Peace.... A sense of Peace/well-being that abides regardless of what may be appearing on the surface....regardless of physical, worldly circumstances. It's so easy to say 'it's all perfect', but.. if it's 'all perfect', the endless suffering ceases.. yes, i know i will be ridiculed for not being 'enlightened' enough to realize it's 'all perfect', but.. i'm not interested in the hyperminding needed to get to that level of self-deception.. The 'abiding peace' is revealed to be an illusion as soon as the experiencer decides to change others.. 'abiding peace' is at peace with what 'is', as it 'is'..
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 20, 2014 14:11:38 GMT -5
It's so easy to say 'it's all perfect', but.. if it's 'all perfect', the endless suffering ceases.. yes, i know i will be ridiculed for not being 'enlightened' enough to realize it's 'all perfect', but.. i'm not interested in the hyperminding needed to get to that level of self-deception.. While I would absolutely agree that talking about subtleties of experience does invoke a certain degree of minding, I think the sense itself that "all is perfect" stands apart from that. Saying 'it's all perfect' is indeed different from experiencing 'it's all fundamentally perfect.' No, I'm not going to ridicule you for explaining things a different way or for suggesting that it's not all perfect. We all see things and experience 'this' in unique and varying ways, and to ridicule anyone's description of their experience would essentially be to ridicule the uniqueness of individuated perception. Fact is,the moment we begin to talk about experience, offering a glimpse into the way it seems to be 'here', individuated perspective enters in. That depends upon what you mean by 'change others.' Indeed, a need to change others so that I can feel at peace, would reveal the absence of a fundamental abiding peace. Do you have a reference for a foundational sense of all being well and fine, despite the fact that life's circumstances may not be what you necessarily would have consciously chosen? Let's say I lose my ability to walk...these are not circumstances that I'd have consciously chosen, and yet, despite the physical circumstances, I have no beef with life itself. There is a foundational sense of being at Peace, that cannot be touched or shaken by surface happenings .
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 20, 2014 19:09:15 GMT -5
I'm talking about perfect in the only context in which we can discuss it, and I'm questioning the possibility of a world that you would deem as permanently perfect. It sounds like that's no longer seen as possible, so that's a start. You may want a world with a tad more cool and calmness (or think you do) but what about others who are bored and want a world that's a tad more hot and exciting? How do you institute a quality control program under those circumstances? Assuming you see that you can't, what else would you do as God? I believe very little that the Bible says. For starters, I questioned whatever I thought needed to be questioned, and I most certainly did - I grew up attending Sunday school and church every weekend, and as presented then, there was much I thought needed lots of inquiry. I don't think it's possible to create a perfect world - and besides, that's up to each individual's own definition. I'm careful about when you say in essence, that you assume a cool, calm world would be automagically boring, when you haven't even tried to imagine what that kind of world would really be like. You may just be throwing out the baby with the bath water there. I never said I wanted a world where there was no interest or excitement - cool and calm doesn't preclude those in my book. All I'm doing is trying to get at what you think a creator could do differently. Lets make a score card for God. We agree perfect is not possible. Are we agreed that quality control is not practical given different preferences for life experience?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2014 19:11:54 GMT -5
A little help with the DWAD acronym. Thank you
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Sept 20, 2014 19:27:48 GMT -5
A little help with the DWAD acronym. Thank you Distinction Without A Difference... DWAD
|
|
|
Post by silver on Sept 20, 2014 19:28:59 GMT -5
For starters, I questioned whatever I thought needed to be questioned, and I most certainly did - I grew up attending Sunday school and church every weekend, and as presented then, there was much I thought needed lots of inquiry. I don't think it's possible to create a perfect world - and besides, that's up to each individual's own definition. I'm careful about when you say in essence, that you assume a cool, calm world would be automagically boring, when you haven't even tried to imagine what that kind of world would really be like. You may just be throwing out the baby with the bath water there. I never said I wanted a world where there was no interest or excitement - cool and calm doesn't preclude those in my book. All I'm doing is trying to get at what you think a creator could do differently. Lets make a score card for God. We agree perfect is not possible. Are we agreed that quality control is not practical given different preferences for life experience? Yup, no qc. .....and then what?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 20, 2014 20:25:50 GMT -5
All I'm doing is trying to get at what you think a creator could do differently. Lets make a score card for God. We agree perfect is not possible. Are we agreed that quality control is not practical given different preferences for life experience? Yup, no qc. .....and then what? Well, that's the feedback I'm trying to get from you. What would God do to make it closer to perfect?
|
|
|
Post by earnest on Sept 20, 2014 23:12:33 GMT -5
Yup, no qc. .....and then what? Well, that's the feedback I'm trying to get from you. What would God do to make it closer to perfect? After giving this some considerable thought,..
|
|
|
Post by silver on Sept 20, 2014 23:16:32 GMT -5
Yup, no qc. .....and then what? Well, that's the feedback I'm trying to get from you. What would God do to make it closer to perfect? I thought you'd pick up on the joke, but I was wrong. (psst - remember steve's thread 'and then what?')
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 21, 2014 9:38:09 GMT -5
Silver: As a crude way to get a sense of what is meant by the claim that the universe is perfect just as it is (which doesn't mean that one can't work for peace or try to educate people or, if necessary, kill killers), here's a fun little thought experiment that might give a glimpse of what is being pointed to: For just a moment, put yourself in God's place (SOI if the word "God" is too offensive). Imagine that you had the power to create a universe in which to live, and then imagine that you had to live in that universe for infinity (because you would be every creature that inhabited that universe). What kind of universe would you create? If you consider in depth all of the implications of this creative choice, then this very world (with all of its beauty, horror, love, joy, pain, and pleasure) is the world that I suspect you would voluntarily choose to create. Please don't jump to any immediate conclusions about this idea; just silently contemplate why you might choose to do this. Most people imagine that heaven is a wonderful place where nothing bad ever happens (no suffering, no death, no disease, etc). This idea proves that they lack both imagination as well as insight into the matter. One moment of deep insight would show them that heaven is already present. It's just not the heaven that they usually imagine. If they could get the heaven that they imagine they want, they would soon recognize it as hell. Even 72 virgins or streets paved with gold would soon pale in comparison to THIS. Someone once asked ZMSS if he wanted to go to heaven. He replied, "No. I want to go to hell because that's where all of the interesting people will be." Everyone laughed, but I don't think that he was joking. The world that IS is the world we have created, apart from imagining it differently than it 'is'....
IF i were given the task of creating a Universe, i would copy this one.. put the raw material for existence (energy) in place, give it freewill to manifest its evolution, and let it reveal itself to itself.. allowing its destiny to change with each choice it makes.. i would let creation discover itself..
It's not 'perfect', it just 'is'.. perfection is a localized belief about what 'is'.. Why is it so hard to see the simple truth of these statements? Why is it that our world doesn't seem to be the best of all possible worlds, above described? Why do we look out and see a nasty world? It's this free will thing, opposing wills conflict, invariably. And certain people impose their will upon others, they try to limit other's will by imposing their own will. If SOI tried to install governing, safe-limits to eliminate pain and suffering (the excellent film The Giver is about a utopian world trying to deal with these issues), then life becomes just a video game where we can just push the start-over button. Then we would really learn nothing from experience. sdp
|
|