|
Post by enigma on Feb 21, 2015 11:44:13 GMT -5
The whole world aligns with intention in some way. It doesn't mean it's all conscious. What I said is that it all has consciousness i.e. nothing is just neutral, dead matter. The rice is responsive, the plants are responsive, water is responsive, the car is responsive. It's all alive in a way that belies our conditioning. I know what you said. I'm saying it's an erroneous conclusion based on evidence that shows the connection between consciousness and matter (the universe is formed in consciousness), but this doesn't mean the matter is conscious.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 21, 2015 11:56:40 GMT -5
What I said is that it all has consciousness i.e. nothing is just neutral, dead matter. The rice is responsive, the plants are responsive, water is responsive, the car is responsive. It's all alive in a way that belies our conditioning. I know what you said. I'm saying it's an erroneous conclusion based on evidence that shows the connection between consciousness and matter (the universe is formed in consciousness), but this doesn't mean the matter is conscious. I'm not arguing that matter is conscious. I am saying that all things have consciousness. I can't prove that's true, I can only offer you evidence such as Emoto's experiments and meditation experiments.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 21, 2015 12:14:10 GMT -5
He is the one directing intention, yes, but the rice is still responding to the intention. The whole world aligns with intention in some way. It doesn't mean it's all conscious. Everyzork knows that rice is too conservative and that if ya' wanna talk to food you gotta' just go banana's.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 21, 2015 12:15:27 GMT -5
It's the misconceived version of LOA. He seems to be suggesting that you can create your own loving reality by characterizing what appears to you, regardless of the appearance, as "love". Oh, is that what he's saying? I never woulda guessed. (** muttley snicker **)
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 21, 2015 12:20:10 GMT -5
If you don't notice that the rock is conscious is it because you don't notice that it is conscious or is it because the rock isn't conscious ... Yes that's the question we've been debating here. Well, it's a different question to begin with. Stuffing love inside of things is like packing a suitcase up with all our peace joy and ease ... it don't make it lighter, just easier to admire.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 21, 2015 12:25:32 GMT -5
What I said is that it all has consciousness i.e. nothing is just neutral, dead matter. The rice is responsive, the plants are responsive, water is responsive, the car is responsive. It's all alive in a way that belies our conditioning. I know what you said. I'm saying it's an erroneous conclusion based on evidence that shows the connection between consciousness and matter (the universe is formed in consciousness), but this doesn't mean the matter is conscious. If ego is defined in terms of simple possession ("that's mine d@mnit!") then this dwad of being/having consciousness amounts to assigning an ego to every object that's perceived.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 21, 2015 12:38:00 GMT -5
Yea it sounds like an absurd question. Perhaps there won't be any answer other than a "no", but it is an interesting subject for me. Btw, not strictly related but if you haven't watched this "Overview" video, I recommend it (19 min). I guess you belong to the 'cogito ergo sum' camp. Ever thought about moving over to the 'sum ergo cogito' camp?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 21, 2015 16:14:04 GMT -5
I know what you said. I'm saying it's an erroneous conclusion based on evidence that shows the connection between consciousness and matter (the universe is formed in consciousness), but this doesn't mean the matter is conscious. I'm not arguing that matter is conscious. I am saying that all things have consciousness. I can't prove that's true, I can only offer you evidence such as Emoto's experiments and meditation experiments. I know what you're saying, Andrew.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 21, 2015 16:15:35 GMT -5
The whole world aligns with intention in some way. It doesn't mean it's all conscious. Everyzork knows that rice is too conservative and that if ya' wanna talk to food you gotta' just go banana's. It's the partying fruit!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 21, 2015 16:23:24 GMT -5
Yes that's the question we've been debating here. Well, it's a different question to begin with. Stuffing love inside of things is like packing a suitcase up with all our peace joy and ease ... it don't make it lighter, just easier to admire. Yes, I didn't (and don't) know what to with the idea of love milling around inside of objects, and I'm sure something else was intended, but it seems like it can go nowhere but bad. How much does a pound of love weigh?....And don't say 'No weigh!'
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 21, 2015 16:38:31 GMT -5
I know what you said. I'm saying it's an erroneous conclusion based on evidence that shows the connection between consciousness and matter (the universe is formed in consciousness), but this doesn't mean the matter is conscious. If ego is defined in terms of simple possession ("that's mine d@mnit!") then this dwad of being/having consciousness amounts to assigning an ego to every object that's perceived. I look at being consciousness as being an appearance in/as consciousness, which every thing and non-thing is. The idea of being conscious seems to be an arbitrary labeling of responsiveness. It's easy to put that label on complex creatures, but more difficult with simple ones, and not at all for inanimate objects, like rocks and cars. So I can play along with the labeling when the distinction is persons vs cars, but I'll only play along so far.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 21, 2015 16:40:37 GMT -5
Yea it sounds like an absurd question. Perhaps there won't be any answer other than a "no", but it is an interesting subject for me. Btw, not strictly related but if you haven't watched this "Overview" video, I recommend it (19 min). I guess you belong to the 'cogito ergo sum' camp. Ever thought about moving over to the 'sum ergo cogito' camp? Hey Reefs, I was just cogitoing about you.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 21, 2015 16:48:17 GMT -5
Stuffing love inside of things is like packing a suitcase up with all our peace joy and ease ... it don't make it lighter, just easier to admire. Yes, I didn't (and don't) know what to with the idea of love milling around inside of objects, and I'm sure something else was intended, but it seems like it can go nowhere but bad. How much does a pound of love weigh?....And don't say 'No weigh!'
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 21, 2015 16:49:50 GMT -5
I'm not arguing that matter is conscious. I am saying that all things have consciousness. I can't prove that's true, I can only offer you evidence such as Emoto's experiments and meditation experiments. I know what you're saying, Andrew. Oh know! That's a violation of the uncertainty dogma! You kant know anything! Shame on you!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 21, 2015 16:51:57 GMT -5
If ego is defined in terms of simple possession ("that's mine d@mnit!") then this dwad of being/having consciousness amounts to assigning an ego to every object that's perceived. I look at being consciousness as being an appearance in/as consciousness, which every thing and non-thing is. The idea of being conscious seems to be an arbitrary labeling of responsiveness. It's easy to put that label on complex creatures, but more difficult with simple ones, and not at all for inanimate objects, like rocks and cars. So I can play along with the labeling when the distinction is persons vs cars, but I'll only play along so far. Hey whatever man, just don't ask Andy's car if it exists, ok?
|
|