|
Post by Reefs on Feb 22, 2020 2:55:55 GMT -5
I think it probably began with the likes of David Icke, who is very multi-layered in his talks. At root, he sees Awareness/Oneness as 'the truth'. But then he goes from that into politics and conspiracy ideas etc. So he mixed the idea of 'awakening' with the idea of seeing clearly how our world is organized. He even had a book/talk which focused on the idea of a 'sleeping lion that awakens'. 10-15 years ago, it was a quite small leap from Icke to Alex Jones, who had millions of followers at his peak, and out of that QAnon emerged, whose followers are largely republican and talk a LOT of being 'awake' (I also note that many declare themselves to be Christian). Amidst all that, we have the likes of Jo Rogan, who has surrounded himself with society's 'interesting' people, including many conspiracy theorists. Among his thousands of comments on his page, over time, I saw the word 'awake' gradually shift to 'woke'. And Jo's fans include many lefties that believe that a small but hegemonic group have marginalized many groups of people. Over a period of time, there was a divergence in his followers between the 'awake/woke left' and the 'awake/woke right'. Rogan is actually a Sanders fan, much to the dismay of his right wing followers. So both sides use it, and use it against each other mockingly and aggressively, and I cringe at both sides use of it, because I know that it did once relate to a core spiritual truth (to be fair, I think both sides are right about some things, though the right....as a collective personality type....resonate with me far less) Finally got time to reply to the rest of your post. Well, it’s interesting that you mention David and Alex here. Might as well throw in Rush. To me, at some point, they all were instrumental in changing my filters of perception re: politics in general. David is probably the most esoteric one, Rush the most mainstream and Alex somewhere in-between. About a decade ago, I found them to be quite interesting. I had to stop listening to their podcasts/shows though, because, while from an intellectual perspective it has been mostly rather stimulating, from an emotional/vibrational perspective, it turned out to be rather detrimental in the long run. Just think about it, where would you place these guys on the emotional scale? I’d place them all somewhere around #19. So, when listening to that kind of stuff, at some point, the old A-H admonishment "Do you want to be right, or do you want to feel good?" always came to mind. Because, while being right and feeling good can be one and the same, it very often is not. And people mostly are not aware of this and seem to choose being right over feeling good way more often, only to discover that it was a miserable choice. Also, when reading/listening to some of the stuff these guys dig up, I often have to ask myself "Do I really need to know this?". And for quite a while now, the obvious answer for me is "Probably not". Because I still remember a time when I had zero exposure to any kind of news or politics. And I never felt like missing out on anything during that time. In fact, it was a time mostly spent in flow because there was so much less clutter to deal with. So from my perspective, what politics and especially social media is doing these days is only adding to the clutterization of people's minds and attention so that they get less done than they actually could (see Satch’s post after he got banned). Because it's hard to build momentum when your focus is shifting all over the place all the time and your average attention span keeps shrinking year after year. Not sure if you've heard about this, but Steve Jobs, who once considered the computer to be a bicycle for the mind, at the same time severely limited screen exposure of his kids. He basically kept them away from that stuff as much as possible because he knew what it does to the mind, creativity and general well-being of an individual. Notice also that David and Rush now struggle with severe health issues after decades of a life of public resistance (Rush: cancer, David: MS?). And there’s this correlation between state of mind/being and state of health again. So, being part of the resistance (as Alex calls it) really seems to be a bit of a boomerang in the long run for the individual. A bit like black magic and spell casting maybe. You may achieve your objective, but it comes with a hefty price tag. And you may not live to enjoy the manifestation of it. Simply because the process goes counter LOA (aka 'the laws of the universe'). So in that sense, I fully share the sentiment expressed in your last paragraph. And I might add that by trying to simplify their message, these guys on both ends of the spectrum got stuck on certain buzz/trigger words and so, sadly, they have become a caricature of their original selves. Now having said all of that, I hope you can see the parallels to what's going on on these forums. And maybe you can better understand why I put certain inviolable rules in place re: food fights etc. Because I've seen what it does to people's minds and lives after a while. I don't want to use the word maturity here because it does have some negative connotations, but posting here and staying an active member of this community now does require a minimum of self-awareness, of being aware of what one is posting and the intentions behind it. I've seen Enigma actually post a very thoughtful post on Gab recently, about the current dynamics on both forums, basically about this kind of self-awareness. Unfortunately, as far as I am aware, he didn't seem to get any response at all. @ Enigma, if you are reading this, I think this is probably what's changed here. In the past, most of the activity on this forum was directed towards bringing members to this kind of self-awareness. You call it ‘becoming conscious’. Some, rightly so I might say now, called it mere psychoanalysis. And I think you used to spend most of your time with this kind of activity. I sorta ruled that out now with the new rules because 1) it's an unnecessarily dirty business and 2) the results are more than questionable (to both the individuals involved as well as the forum as a whole). In other words, the kind of awareness you tried to create in peeps in the past has now become the basic requirement for participation on ST. Which, as I realize now, after comparing what you post on Gab with what you post on ST, must have somewhat robbed you of your favorite pastime or calling. Not sure if that is actually the case (I'm just speculating here), but if it is, then I don't have a solution to your dilemma. I'm sorry.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 22, 2020 7:00:23 GMT -5
I think it probably began with the likes of David Icke, who is very multi-layered in his talks. At root, he sees Awareness/Oneness as 'the truth'. But then he goes from that into politics and conspiracy ideas etc. So he mixed the idea of 'awakening' with the idea of seeing clearly how our world is organized. He even had a book/talk which focused on the idea of a 'sleeping lion that awakens'. 10-15 years ago, it was a quite small leap from Icke to Alex Jones, who had millions of followers at his peak, and out of that QAnon emerged, whose followers are largely republican and talk a LOT of being 'awake' (I also note that many declare themselves to be Christian). Amidst all that, we have the likes of Jo Rogan, who has surrounded himself with society's 'interesting' people, including many conspiracy theorists. Among his thousands of comments on his page, over time, I saw the word 'awake' gradually shift to 'woke'. And Jo's fans include many lefties that believe that a small but hegemonic group have marginalized many groups of people. Over a period of time, there was a divergence in his followers between the 'awake/woke left' and the 'awake/woke right'. Rogan is actually a Sanders fan, much to the dismay of his right wing followers. So both sides use it, and use it against each other mockingly and aggressively, and I cringe at both sides use of it, because I know that it did once relate to a core spiritual truth (to be fair, I think both sides are right about some things, though the right....as a collective personality type....resonate with me far less) Finally got time to reply to the rest of your post. Well, it’s interesting that you mention David and Alex here. Might as well throw in Rush. To me, at some point, they all were instrumental in changing my filters of perception re: politics in general. David is probably the most esoteric one, Rush the most mainstream and Alex somewhere in-between. About a decade ago, I found them to be quite interesting. I had to stop listening to their podcasts/shows though, because, while from an intellectual perspective it has been mostly rather stimulating, from an emotional/vibrational perspective, it turned out to be rather detrimental in the long run. Just think about it, where would you place these guys on the emotional scale? I’d place them all somewhere around #19. So, when listening to that kind of stuff, at some point, the old A-H admonishment "Do you want to be right, or do you want to feel good?" always came to mind. Because, while being right and feeling good can be one and the same, it very often is not. And people mostly are not aware of this and seem to choose being right over feeling good way more often, only to discover that it was a miserable choice. Also, when reading/listening to some of the stuff these guys dig up, I often have to ask myself "Do I really need to know this?". And for quite a while now, the obvious answer for me is "Probably not". Because I still remember a time when I had zero exposure to any kind of news or politics. And I never felt like missing out on anything during that time. In fact, it was a time mostly spent in flow because there was so much less clutter to deal with. So from my perspective, what politics and especially social media is doing these days is only adding to the clutterization of people's minds and attention so that they get less done than they actually could (see Satch’s post after he got banned). Because it's hard to build momentum when your focus is shifting all over the place all the time and your average attention span keeps shrinking year after year. Not sure if you've heard about this, but Steve Jobs, who once considered the computer to be a bicycle for the mind, at the same time severely limited screen exposure of his kids. He basically kept them away from that stuff as much as possible because he knew what it does to the mind, creativity and general well-being of an individual. Notice also that David and Rush now struggle with severe health issues after decades of a life of public resistance (Rush: cancer, David: MS?). And there’s this correlation between state of mind/being and state of health again. So, being part of the resistance (as Alex calls it) really seems to be a bit of a boomerang in the long run for the individual. A bit like black magic and spell casting maybe. You may achieve your objective, but it comes with a hefty price tag. And you may not live to enjoy the manifestation of it. Simply because the process goes counter LOA (aka 'the laws of the universe'). So in that sense, I fully share the sentiment expressed in your last paragraph. And I might add that by trying to simplify their message, these guys on both ends of the spectrum got stuck on certain buzz/trigger words and so, sadly, they have become a caricature of their original selves. Now having said all of that, I hope you can see the parallels to what's going on on these forums. And maybe you can better understand why I put certain inviolable rules in place re: food fights etc. Because I've seen what it does to people's minds and lives after a while. I don't want to use the word maturity here because it does have some negative connotations, but posting here and staying an active member of this community now does require a minimum of self-awareness, of being aware of what one is posting and the intentions behind it. I've seen Enigma actually post a very thoughtful post on Gab recently, about the current dynamics on both forums, basically about this kind of self-awareness. Unfortunately, as far as I am aware, he didn't seem to get any response at all. @ Enigma, if you are reading this, I think this is probably what's changed here. In the past, most of the activity on this forum was directed towards bringing members to this kind of self-awareness. You call it ‘becoming conscious’. Some, rightly so I might say now, called it mere psychoanalysis. And I think you used to spend most of your time with this kind of activity. I sorta ruled that out now with the new rules because 1) it's an unnecessarily dirty business and 2) the results are more than questionable (to both the individuals involved as well as the forum as a whole). In other words, the kind of awareness you tried to create in peeps in the past has now become the basic requirement for participation on ST. Which, as I realize now, after comparing what you post on Gab with what you post on ST, must have somewhat robbed you of your favorite pastime or calling. Not sure if that is actually the case (I'm just speculating here), but if it is, then I don't have a solution to your dilemma. I'm sorry. Appreciate the thought that went into this post. I've drifted over to Gab in last couple of days, and I looked closely at why. It basically boils down to the fact that I spent several months on twitter last year, quite strongly advocating for a politician that I liked (rare for me to like a politician!). But it's brutal on twitter...the insults, accusations, lies, projections, strawmen...the constant barrage of judgement. But I was part of a group that I liked, and that came with a sense of community, so that was cool. My favoured politician lost, and I quite quickly worked through the emotion of that, and released the attachment. I've moved away from twitter. So this point, I'm just appreciating relatively gentle and easy conversation/relationship...which oddly, I can get a bit at gab right now. I don't agree with the 'I can't know....' thing, but regardless of that, as spiritually orientated folks, the core spiritual values are there. I'm obviously happy to talk here too, but I just don't have a lot to contribute to 'quality discussion' about samadhi or Ramana etc. Perhaps the forum will attract folks that do. If it doesn't I suspect that non-duality is culturally a bit dead in the water. Browsing through the forum at 2011 the other day, it's fascinating to see how the energy of interest has changed....as the world has changed. In terms of vibration, you're right, that if the conspiracy/truth/political stuff can be bypassed, then it is better. But equally, effort to avoid it, is poor vibration. I see a balance here. There can be a time for a bit of effort, but when that effort creates too much conflict, or is futile....you might as well go with the flow. So my interest ebbs and recedes. I had to do what I had to do last year...there was no avoiding it, but now I am enjoying being involved in creative projects, and my vibration/emotion scale is better. For now. Who knows in 6 months......! I don't know much about Rush, but Jones and Icke could very probably do with the vibrational rest. But they are in deep, and life will only spit them out when life is ready. Certainly it can be strongly argued that social media is a tool being used to keep folks divided, scared and distracted, but then again, I see good things about it too. Perhaps there's a balance to be found there too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2020 8:15:38 GMT -5
Figs is still mad at you. Or something. Oh, and she thinks Reefs and Sharon are the same person. Let's hear the truth. Please show me a more perfect example of her not really capable of applying her own 'not knowing' principle.
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Feb 23, 2020 10:07:17 GMT -5
Oh, and she thinks Reefs and Sharon are the same person. Let's hear the truth. Please show me a more perfect example of her not really capable of applying her own 'not knowing' principle. Hello, Sharon. How's Bakk. You removed that wolf profile of yours. Reminds me of your friend. By the way, you removed your slogan 1Kings 10 :14. It got something to do with 666. Just asking. 😉
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Feb 23, 2020 10:43:52 GMT -5
Please show me a more perfect example of her not really capable of applying her own 'not knowing' principle. Yes, there's much to know. But figs has evidence.. emails, a Seth group, the Dub Step thread, BBC gorilla vids... but the tyrant Reefs has stifled the investigation Figgles made me convince Reefs a s/he. Sharon is Reefs. I came also thinking that perhaps Sharon is Bakk. I miss Bakk who deleted herself. So, if what I suspect Reefs is Bakk. There's that possibility s/he is whynot. So, what's wrong with that? Actors /actresses do that all the time, playing different roles.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2020 12:22:18 GMT -5
Please show me a more perfect example of her not really capable of applying her own 'not knowing' principle. Yes, there's much to know. But figs has evidence.. emails, a Seth group, the Dub Step thread, BBC gorilla vids... but the tyrant Reefs has stifled the investigation There was an investigation under Peter's moderation though Faye didn't believe what was said to her.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2020 13:25:22 GMT -5
There was an investigation under Peter's moderation though Faye didn't believe what was said to her. oh, sorry, I didn't know, I wasn't being serious, I thought it was funny No need to apologise. It is funny. It's quite ridiculous really. It's amazing that it's gone on for so many years.. though I don't think anyone really cares enough to keep on explaining the obvious to her.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 23, 2020 21:30:19 GMT -5
I always am. Who goes around thinking they're wrong about something? hehe Figs is still mad at you. Or something. Like I said, mostly a massive #19 over there.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 23, 2020 22:02:27 GMT -5
There was an investigation under Peter's moderation though Faye didn't believe what was said to her. oh, sorry, I didn't know, I wasn't being serious, I thought it was funny On the face of it, it certainly does sound like a textbook case of loserthink. However, as much fun and games all of this may seem to you, there’s actually a more serious side to this. I don't know how to best approach this topic without running the risk of being called a jerk again, but I think there's something you (and probably most others here) may be unaware of but need to know about Figgles and here notorious picture painting and story weaving. It will put all of this into perspective. Several years ago, in the middle of a nasty food fight, when Laughter and I caught her in serious contradictions and glaring logical inconsistencies again, we actually had to question if her memory was functioning properly. And at that point, she flat-out confessed that she was suffering from a severe neurological illness that at times (not always!) also affects her cognitive abibilites (mainly memory and speech, I think). So, if you don’t believe me, Laughter can confirm this. Another thing Laughter most likely can confirm is that she mentioned at times having a glass of wine next to her computer while posting on these forums. So, I want you to keep that in mind next time you feel like making fun of her. Because, knowing the actual background story, it’s not all that funny. And knowing this larger context about her situation, maybe the things she regularly says and does will make a bit more sense now. It certainly did to me. I tried to discuss that with her on several occasions, since she maintains that everyone should be ready and willing to be challenged on anything at all times. But every time I bring up this subject of health, I’m being called a jerk and the discussion ends right there. And maybe I am by doing that, I don't know. It's not my intention though. Because I used to be rather close with Figgles in the beginning of our online friendship. And I still feel that closeness. I still consider her a friend. Same with Enigma. Now, what has been happening may all go counter to that, but to me that's just temporary stuff happening on the surface. As I was quoting A-H the other day, relationships are forever. So in that sense, I'm certainly willing to make the best of it as circumstances allow. And sometimes, it's best to just disengage and let things be for a while. That’s why, at this point, I have nothing left to say other than to sincerely wish her all the best. You see, people will believe what they want to believe. There's nothing you can do about it. As Sharon already mentioned, Peter cleared that up years ago. And AFAIK, she’s the only one who’d actually believe that anyway (for reasons that should be obvious). People usually say, seeing is believing, but – as this wacky theory shows - the opposite, i.e. believing is seeing, is actually equally true. I'm not sure about your motivations behind posting this, and not wanting to run the risk of engaging in loserthink myself, I better not start speculating, but in case you just wanted to put it out there so that we can address it head-on and then be done with it once and for all, then I have to say that this is not how this works. We've already done that. The ball is in Figgles' court now. Whatever I am going to say (or not say), or whatever Sharon is going to say (or not say), or even Peter or ZD, is not going to have any effect unless Figgles decides so. So at this point, it's entirely up to Figgles to be done with it (or not). As A-H keep saying, you can't create in someone else's reality. That's all I can say about that. And one last thing. While in theory one might argue that what we are engaging with here is just words on a screen, that is not actually so. There are real people with real stories and real feelings behind it no matter how far detached they profess to be in these discussions. Something to keep in mind as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2020 22:27:43 GMT -5
oh, sorry, I didn't know, I wasn't being serious, I thought it was funny On the face of it, it certainly does sound like a textbook case of loserthink. However, as much fun and games all of this may seem to you, there’s actually a more serious side to this. I don't know how to best approach this topic without running the risk of being called a jerk again, but I think there's something you (and probably most others here) may be unaware of but need to know about Figgles and here notorious picture painting and story weaving. It will put all of this into perspective. Several years ago, in the middle of a nasty food fight, when Laughter and I caught her in serious contradictions and glaring logical inconsistencies again, we actually had to question if her memory was functioning properly. And at that point, she flat-out confessed that she was suffering from a severe neurological illness that at times (not always!) also affects her cognitive abibilites (mainly memory and speech, I think). So, if you don’t believe me, Laughter can confirm this. Another thing Laughter most likely can confirm is that she mentioned at times having a glass of wine next to her computer while posting on these forums. So, I want you to keep that in mind next time you feel like making fun of her. Because, knowing the actual background story, it’s not all that funny. And knowing this larger context about her situation, maybe the things she regularly says and does will make a bit more sense now. It certainly did to me. I tried to discuss that with her on several occasions, since she maintains that everyone should be ready and willing to be challenged on anything at all times. But every time I bring up this subject of health, I’m being called a jerk and the discussion ends right there. And maybe I am by doing that, I don't know. It's not my intention though. Because I used to be rather close with Figgles in the beginning of our online friendship. And I still feel that closeness. I still consider her a friend. Same with Enigma. Now, what has been happening may all go counter to that, but to me that's just temporary stuff happening on the surface. As I was quoting A-H the other day, relationships are forever. So in that sense, I'm certainly willing to make the best of it as circumstances allow. And sometimes, it's best to just disengage and let things be for a while. That’s why, at this point, I have nothing left to say other than to sincerely wish her all the best. You see, people will believe what they want to believe. There's nothing you can do about it. As Sharon already mentioned, Peter cleared that up years ago. And AFAIK, she’s the only one who’d actually believe that anyway (for reasons that should be obvious). People usually say, seeing is believing, but – as this wacky theory shows - the opposite, i.e. believing is seeing, is actually equally true.
I'm not sure about your motivations behind posting this, and not wanting to run the risk of engaging in loserthink myself, I better not start speculating, but in case you just wanted to put it out there so that we can address it head-on and then be done with it once and for all, then I have to say that this is not how this works. We've already done that. The ball is in Figgles' court now. Whatever I am going to say (or not say), or whatever Sharon is going to say (or not say), or even Peter or ZD, is not going to have any effect unless Figgles decides so. So at this point, it's entirely up to Figgles to be done with it (or not). As A-H keep saying, you can't create in someone else's reality. That's all I can say about that. That's pretty interesting! You believe this? Actually this is coming from Law of attraction, eh? Actually you can't choose believe something which is not your reality. Do you see that?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 23, 2020 22:28:52 GMT -5
oh, sorry, I didn't know, I wasn't being serious, I thought it was funny On the face of it, it certainly does sound like a textbook case of loserthink. However, as much fun and games all of this may seem to you, there’s actually a more serious side to this. I don't know how to best approach this topic without running the risk of being called a jerk again, but I think there's something you (and probably most others here) may be unaware of but need to know about Figgles and here notorious picture painting and story weaving. It will put all of this into perspective. Several years ago, in the middle of a nasty food fight, when Laughter and I caught her in serious contradictions and glaring logical inconsistencies again, we actually had to question if her memory was functioning properly. And at that point, she flat-out confessed that she was suffering from a severe neurological illness that at times (not always!) also affects her cognitive abibilites (mainly memory and speech, I think). So, if you don’t believe me, Laughter can confirm this. Another thing Laughter most likely can confirm is that she mentioned at times having a glass of wine next to her computer while posting on these forums. So, I want you to keep that in mind next time you feel like making fun of her. Because, knowing the actual background story, it’s not all that funny. And knowing this larger context about her situation, maybe the things she regularly says and does will make a bit more sense now. It certainly did to me. I tried to discuss that with her on several occasions, since she maintains that everyone should be ready and willing to be challenged on anything at all times. But every time I bring up this subject of health, I’m being called a jerk and the discussion ends right there. And maybe I am by doing that, I don't know. It's not my intention though. Because I used to be rather close with Figgles in the beginning of our online friendship. And I still feel that closeness. I still consider her a friend. Same with Enigma. Now, what has been happening may all go counter to that, but to me that's just temporary stuff happening on the surface. As I was quoting A-H the other day, relationships are forever. So in that sense, I'm certainly willing to make the best of it as circumstances allow. And sometimes, it's best to just disengage and let things be for a while. That’s why, at this point, I have nothing left to say other than to sincerely wish her all the best. You see, people will believe what they want to believe. There's nothing you can do about it. As Sharon already mentioned, Peter cleared that up years ago. And AFAIK, she’s the only one who’d actually believe that anyway (for reasons that should be obvious). People usually say, seeing is believing, but – as this wacky theory shows - the opposite, i.e. believing is seeing, is actually equally true. I'm not sure about your motivations behind posting this, and not wanting to run the risk of engaging in loserthink myself, I better not start speculating, but in case you just wanted to put it out there so that we can address it head-on and then be done with it once and for all, then I have to say that this is not how this works. We've already done that. The ball is in Figgles' court now. Whatever I am going to say (or not say), or whatever Sharon is going to say (or not say), or even Peter or ZD, is not going to have any effect unless Figgles decides so. So at this point, it's entirely up to Figgles to be done with it (or not). As A-H keep saying, you can't create in someone else's reality. That's all I can say about that. And one last thing. While in theory one might argue that what we are engaging with here is just words on a screen, that is not actually so. There are real people with real stories and real feelings behind it no matter how far detached they profess to be in these discussions. Something to keep in mind as well. fwiw my 2 cents are that her idea of Shreefs isn't because of any cogitative disability other than a profound stubbornness coupled with an intense, negative, focused interest in the two different personalities.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 23, 2020 22:36:34 GMT -5
fwiw my 2 cents are that her idea of Shreefs isn't because of any cogitative disability other than a profound stubbornness coupled with an intense, negative, focused interest in the two different personalities. The memory issue is a real factor in conversations though, that can be proven objectively by the archives. Lapses in memory regularly get filled in with imagination. I'm pretty sure you and Engima could write an entire book about that. But whatever it is in this case, all we can do is mind-reading (which is a form of loserthink, hehe). I don't know about you, but at this point, I feel that some aspects of this just don't need to be explored any further, especially in public. Not everything that can be said also needs to be said. I'm sure you understand.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 23, 2020 22:40:45 GMT -5
People usually say, seeing is believing, but – as this wacky theory shows - the opposite, i.e. believing is seeing, is actually equally true.
That's pretty interesting! You believe this? Actually this is coming from Law of attraction, eh? Actually you can't choose believe something which is not your reality. Do you see that? No. You know I believe in co-creation and a shared reality. So to me, there's no contradiction here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2020 22:43:58 GMT -5
That's pretty interesting! You believe this? Actually this is coming from Law of attraction, eh? Actually you can't choose believe something which is not your reality. Do you see that? No. You know I believe in co-creation and a shared reality. So to me, there's no contradiction here. I don't believe in co-creation and shared reality. But that doesn't matter here I think.So you say anything you could create in your reality by simply believing? believing something as if it is real creates that reality for you?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 23, 2020 22:50:42 GMT -5
No. You know I believe in co-creation and a shared reality. So to me, there's no contradiction here. I don't believe in co-creation and shared reality. But that doesn't matter here I think.So you say anything you could create in your reality by simply believing? believing something as if it is real creates that reality for you? LOA, co-creation or solipsism - these are all just mental overlays over THIS. In the context of non-duality, none of that matters. From the impersonal perspective, there's just no need and no use for such theories. There's no need for any kind of ontology at all. But since comparing ontologies is all we are doing here most of the time, shared reality, co-creation and LOA is what makes most sense to me and comes closest to what can be realized directly, non-conceptually. So, while ultimately, none of that matters at all, it's the best I can offer in terms of concepts you are allowed to lick and chew on (within certain limits), hehe.
|
|