|
Post by enigma on Feb 22, 2015 11:06:23 GMT -5
I wonder if his car nags him about his driving. That would truly be.......a back seat driver......... Literally, the back seat!
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 22, 2015 11:09:59 GMT -5
That would truly be.......a back seat driver......... Literally, the back seat!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 22, 2015 14:31:23 GMT -5
Where do you think his ONSTAR would send him if he typed in "home"? "Turn left at the next mauve light unless you stop in the intersection first ..." I wonder if his car nags him about his driving. "It's time for an oil change unless it isn't."
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 22, 2015 14:34:37 GMT -5
I guess you belong to the 'cogito ergo sum' camp. Ever thought about moving over to the 'sum ergo cogito' camp? You are talking about a big thing here (thanks). I wouldn't think of any of the camps if someone (in this case, you) did not point them out. I am used to running after 'doing', is there any doing there? The "camps" are a great example of an "appearance".
|
|
|
Post by zin on Feb 22, 2015 16:59:18 GMT -5
I haven't decided yet. Some things 'act' on other things, yes, but if the thing that is being acted upon was dead there wouldn't be any change. You wrote to Andrew "The whole world aligns with intention in some way. It doesn't mean it's all conscious." What does it mean then? What is the explanation of "in some way" there? Is there a third thing which arranges the relation of two things?? (I am new to these ideas) Yes. ZD likes to say the universe is alive. I say the universe is consciousness, which is really the same thing. The reason I don't say the universe is alive is because it may imply it is conscious rather than consciousness, and there is a difference. In the largest context, nothing in the universe is conscious. rather, it's an expression of consciousness. ZD also thinks I overuse the dream metaphor (hehe) but as it's something we've all experienced, it can be useful to demonstrate some illusions. Nothing in our dreams is conscious, (it's all appearances in mind) but everything is consciousness (The person's consciousness, in that context). When we interact with other peeps in our dreams, we can influence them in spite of the fact that they are not conscious entities. We might even have a dialog with our dream car. So how is this possible if the objects in our dreams are not conscious? Obviously, it's because the influencer and the influenced are the same consciousness. I think you're tiptoeing around the idea of manifestation, but there's no need. Manifestation is an actuality, not because things are conscious, or because there's a 'third entity' filling manifestation orders, but because everything is appearance in the same consciousness.It doesn't really mean that the person can manifest. It means that everything in consciousness is part of a singular movement, and separation is just an illusion. Thanks for the explanations... I don't have much idea about manifestation. So you are saying it is an actuality but we don't know whose manifestation it is?? Or are you saying 'it is manifestation of consciousness'? Why would it deal with billions of things like that?
|
|
|
Post by zin on Feb 22, 2015 17:03:29 GMT -5
You are talking about a big thing here (thanks). I wouldn't think of any of the camps if someone (in this case, you) did not point them out. I am used to running after 'doing', is there any doing there? You could run between the two camps, I spose.
|
|
|
Post by zin on Feb 22, 2015 17:05:51 GMT -5
You are talking about a big thing here (thanks). I wouldn't think of any of the camps if someone (in this case, you) did not point them out. I am used to running after 'doing', is there any doing there? The "camps" are a great example of an "appearance". They may be, but the mentioning of the second one did have some mind stilling effect.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 22, 2015 17:13:33 GMT -5
The "camps" are a great example of an "appearance". They may be, but the mentioning of the second one did have some mind stilling effect. Yeah, dialogs with Reefs can do that ... and if they don't, they're never not an opportunity for it that some sometimes find obscured.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 22, 2015 19:33:49 GMT -5
Yes. ZD likes to say the universe is alive. I say the universe is consciousness, which is really the same thing. The reason I don't say the universe is alive is because it may imply it is conscious rather than consciousness, and there is a difference. In the largest context, nothing in the universe is conscious. rather, it's an expression of consciousness. ZD also thinks I overuse the dream metaphor (hehe) but as it's something we've all experienced, it can be useful to demonstrate some illusions. Nothing in our dreams is conscious, (it's all appearances in mind) but everything is consciousness (The person's consciousness, in that context). When we interact with other peeps in our dreams, we can influence them in spite of the fact that they are not conscious entities. We might even have a dialog with our dream car. So how is this possible if the objects in our dreams are not conscious? Obviously, it's because the influencer and the influenced are the same consciousness. I think you're tiptoeing around the idea of manifestation, but there's no need. Manifestation is an actuality, not because things are conscious, or because there's a 'third entity' filling manifestation orders, but because everything is appearance in the same consciousness.It doesn't really mean that the person can manifest. It means that everything in consciousness is part of a singular movement, and separation is just an illusion. Thanks for the explanations... I don't have much idea about manifestation. So you are saying it is an actuality but we don't know whose manifestation it is?? Or are you saying 'it is manifestation of consciousness'? Why would it deal with billions of things like that? I'm saying everything is an appearance in the same singular consciousness, and so everything is integrated into what amounts to a singular movement. It's this singularity that expresses as patterns of synchronicity and manifestation and intuition and psychic insight and what we call the influence of the collective consciousness and the like. It's also what results in the stability of those appearances.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 22, 2015 23:41:24 GMT -5
I know what you're saying, Andrew. We get the notion that it's all consciousness, which makes consciousness a noun, and the other notion that it's all conscious, where conscious is an adjective, so if one was to describe 'it' then the word 'conscious' is probably more apt. If we get fundamental where 'it knows it is', we'd be stretching the imagination to say a stone knows that it is a stone, but do people really know that they are people, or do they only believe that to so? If it is mere belief, then we can fairly say that no form is conscious, and conclude that sentience is a property more fundamental than form (and the senses of animate life-forms), in which case, the word 'consciousness' is more apt.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 23, 2015 0:53:23 GMT -5
I know what you're saying, Andrew. We get the notion that it's all consciousness, which makes consciousness a noun, and the other notion that it's all conscious, where conscious is an adjective, so if one was to describe 'it' then the word 'conscious' is probably more apt. If we get fundamental where 'it knows it is', we'd be stretching the imagination to say a stone knows that it is a stone, but do people really know that they are people, or do they only believe that to so? If it is mere belief, then we can fairly say that no form is conscious, and conclude that sentience is a property more fundamental than form (and the senses of animate life-forms), in which case, the word 'consciousness' is more apt. Okay, insanity threshold reached for today. See y'all manana....
|
|
|
Post by zin on Feb 23, 2015 3:54:28 GMT -5
But the video isn't about the moral behavior of the film crew. Where do you draw the line? What if the camera man's wife cheats on him? Does that make the film worthless too? (hope the threshold thing has recovered by now ) ... The comment I read was something like this (I did search for it later but couldn't find it, among several thousand comments -- it may be deleted, too): They left the dog in the cold, under rain, and moved on... From this I thought maybe they used the dog in some way for their goal and then at some point left it at a place from where it was difficult/impossible for the dog to return to its usual surroundings. ...This may be too much story writing on my part but in this case imo the filming is worthless. If you will still ask about the end result, it becomes 'ordinary' (for me).
|
|
|
Post by zin on Feb 23, 2015 4:30:03 GMT -5
Thanks for the explanations... I don't have much idea about manifestation. So you are saying it is an actuality but we don't know whose manifestation it is?? Or are you saying 'it is manifestation of consciousness'? Why would it deal with billions of things like that? I'm saying everything is an appearance in the same singular consciousness, and so everything is integrated into what amounts to a singular movement. It's this singularity that expresses as patterns of synchronicity and manifestation and intuition and psychic insight and what we call the influence of the collective consciousness and the like. It's also what results in the stability of those appearances. Once I had noticed how a night dream I was seeing stopped/ended: everything, the sensations (of being in a large public building, in the dream) and my 'sense of myself' (in the dream) just dissolved, got lost, in somewhere like my -actual- solar plexus. I wondered then, am I myself like that, too; something that just got formed in some vague place and will dissolve similarly. I don't know the answer, I don't remember whether night dream characters question themselves, make self-inquiry, etc.. But we have the physical bodies.. dream bodies are different. (maybe you will say *all* are appearances)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 23, 2015 9:40:15 GMT -5
But the video isn't about the moral behavior of the film crew. Where do you draw the line? What if the camera man's wife cheats on him? Does that make the film worthless too? (hope the threshold thing has recovered by now ) ... The comment I read was something like this (I did search for it later but couldn't find it, among several thousand comments -- it may be deleted, too): They left the dog in the cold, under rain, and moved on... From this I thought maybe they used the dog in some way for their goal and then at some point left it at a place from where it was difficult/impossible for the dog to return to its usual surroundings. ...This may be too much story writing on my part but in this case imo the filming is worthless. If you will still ask about the end result, it becomes 'ordinary' (for me). From my new normalized insanity threshold, that all sounds reasonable to me. Hehe
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 23, 2015 9:50:36 GMT -5
I'm saying everything is an appearance in the same singular consciousness, and so everything is integrated into what amounts to a singular movement. It's this singularity that expresses as patterns of synchronicity and manifestation and intuition and psychic insight and what we call the influence of the collective consciousness and the like. It's also what results in the stability of those appearances. Once I had noticed how a night dream I was seeing stopped/ended: everything, the sensations (of being in a large public building, in the dream) and my 'sense of myself' (in the dream) just dissolved, got lost, in somewhere like my -actual- solar plexus. I wondered then, am I myself like that, too; something that just got formed in some vague place and will dissolve similarly. I don't know the answer, I don't remember whether night dream characters question themselves, make self-inquiry, etc.. But we have the physical bodies.. dream bodies are different. (maybe you will say *all* are appearances) Dream bodies are different. The dream state is different from the waking state. The content is formed individually rather than 'collectively'. Nightly dreams appear in your individuated consciousness, while the waking dream appears in the 'collective' consciousness, but they are aspects of the same consciousness.
|
|