|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 5, 2023 8:58:56 GMT -5
This thread might not survive long, maybe about eight hours. I thought of a good analogy. Now, this thread is not about political discussion, I'm not inviting political discussion. I will try to frame the analogy impersonally, impartially. But for 2 years and 8 months, in the USA, there has been a national discussion about what's real and what's not real, the 2020 presidential election. There are accounts about election fraud, and there are also accounts about there being no election fraud, not enough to change the outcome. Both can't be true. There is only one actual something that occurred. So one account is necessarily real, one account is necessarily imaginary. And there is ongoing national debate about which is real and which is imaginary. It is of such significance that we are now going to have it decided in courts, federal and state courts. I can't think of a more pressing example of the real and the imaginary.
Now, I hope we can all agree on that, both can't be actual, one is real, one is imaginary. And, I don't want to go any further. I don't even want any political discussion, period. This is just the cleanest, clearest example of the real and the imaginary.
The self exists as and in the brain-body. The self exists as neural connections between neurons. That's either correct, true, or it isn't. So, if true, the self operates from data in, data out. Info comes in via sensory nerves, activates certain groups of neurons, the self-circuits, they in turn send signals down the motor nerves, also called efferent nerves, to activate thinking, feeling or doing. So if you punch me in the nose, this sends a coded signal down the sensory nerves to my brain, the self-circuits. If the self is a passivist, a signal is sent to the body, just stand fast, "turn the other cheek". Or the brain says, that's a really big dude, he could squash you like a bug, best not retaliate. But it all takes place in the brain-mind-body, flesh and blood.
That's the model sdp lives by, paradigm. Others here consider that it's the case that All That Is operates-activates the brain-body. Source is the only actor. I don't see how both can be ~what actually takes place~. So the brain-mind-body interacting with an outside world is actual, or there is One-Wholeness animating the brain-body. One scenario is real, one scenario is imaginary. That's how sdp sees the question framed. For sdp, in any one person, the brain-circuits-mind-body mediates everything. This seems clear, simple. I know others here see things differently.
Please, no political discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Aug 5, 2023 9:34:18 GMT -5
This thread might not survive long, maybe about eight hours. I thought of a good analogy. Now, this thread is not about political discussion, I'm not inviting political discussion. I will try to frame the analogy impersonally, impartially. But for 2 years and 8 months, in the USA, there has been a national discussion about what's real and what's not real, the 2020 presidential election. There are accounts about election fraud, and there are also accounts about there being no election fraud, not enough to change the outcome. Both can't be true. There is only one actual something that occurred. So one account is necessarily real, one account is necessarily imaginary. And there is ongoing national debate about which is real and which is imaginary. It is of such significance that we are now going to have it decided in courts, federal and state courts. I can't think of a more pressing example of the real and the imaginary. Now, I hope we can all agree on that, both can't be actual, one is real, one is imaginary. And, I don't want to go any further. I don't even want any political discussion, period. This is just the cleanest, clearest example of the real and the imaginary. The self exists as and in the brain-body. The self exists as neural connections between neurons. That's either correct, true, or it isn't. So, if true, the self operates from data in, data out. Info comes in via sensory nerves, activates certain groups of neurons, the self-circuits, they in turn send signals down the motor nerves, also called efferent nerves, to activate thinking, feeling or doing. So if you punch me in the nose, this sends a coded signal down the sensory nerves to my brain, the self-circuits. If the self is a passivist, a signal is sent to the body, just stand fast, "turn the other cheek". Or the brain says, that's a really big dude, he could squash you like a bug, best not retaliate. But it all takes place in the brain-mind-body, flesh and blood. That's the model sdp lives by, paradigm. Others here consider that it's the case that All That Is operates-activates the brain-body. Source is the only actor. I don't see how both can be ~what actually takes place~. So the brain-mind-body interacting with an outside world is actual, or there is One-Wholeness animating the brain-body. One scenario is real, one scenario is imaginary. That's how sdp sees the question framed. For sdp, in any one person, the brain-circuits-mind-body mediates everything. This seems clear, simple. I know others here see things differently. Please, no political discussion. From the relative perspective: Psalm 18:13. Spouting off before listening to the facts is both shameful and foolish. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Aug 5, 2023 14:41:24 GMT -5
From the relative perspective: Psalm 18:13. Spouting off before listening to the facts is both shameful and foolish.  "listening to the facts" ... There are no objective facts. All these discussions I browsed this morning are like arguing Newton's physics against Einsten's. For the regular guy, in his regular "existence", Newton's is a practical approximation, while Einstein's is theoretical explanation that he doesn't understand, and that has no immediate impact on his "existence". The problem appears when the regular guy believes about himself to be more than that, and still wants to stick with Newton's physics. EDIT: Obviously, Einstein's isn't the ultimate physics either. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Aug 5, 2023 15:19:18 GMT -5
"listening to the facts" ... There are no objective facts Is that a fact? Lol. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Aug 5, 2023 15:41:20 GMT -5
"listening to the facts" ... There are no objective facts. Is that a fact? Lol. (I needed to fix the quotations in your post) My opinions and beliefs aren't facts. So, there is no contradiction in what I wrote. Check my signature disclaimer: - Although I don't always write it explicitly, it should be inferred that everything I post is "my belief", "my opinion" on that subject, at that moment.
When I post quotes it is because they make a point I agree with to some degree, and not as an argument, nor because I've learned something from them.
|
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Aug 5, 2023 16:03:25 GMT -5
(I needed to fix the quotations in your post) My opinions and beliefs aren't facts. So, there is no contradiction in what I wrote. Check my signature disclaimer: - Although I don't always write it explicitly, it should be inferred that everything I post is "my belief", "my opinion" on that subject, at that moment.
When I post quotes it is because they make a point I agree with to some degree, and not as an argument, nor because I've learned something from them.
Had to fix my quote? Is that a fact? Lol. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Aug 5, 2023 20:10:22 GMT -5
(I needed to fix the quotations in your post) My opinions and beliefs aren't facts. So, there is no contradiction in what I wrote. Check my signature disclaimer: - Although I don't always write it explicitly, it should be inferred that everything I post is "my belief", "my opinion" on that subject, at that moment.
When I post quotes it is because they make a point I agree with to some degree, and not as an argument, nor because I've learned something from them.
Had to fix my quote? Is that a fact? Lol. If that's what you can ... |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Aug 5, 2023 20:20:08 GMT -5
Had to fix my quote? Is that a fact? Lol. If that's what you can ... Do you require the last word? |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Aug 5, 2023 22:36:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 6, 2023 1:44:26 GMT -5
This thread might not survive long, maybe about eight hours. I thought of a good analogy. Now, this thread is not about political discussion, I'm not inviting political discussion. I will try to frame the analogy impersonally, impartially. But for 2 years and 8 months, in the USA, there has been a national discussion about what's real and what's not real, the 2020 presidential election. There are accounts about election fraud, and there are also accounts about there being no election fraud, not enough to change the outcome. Both can't be true. There is only one actual something that occurred. So one account is necessarily real, one account is necessarily imaginary. And there is ongoing national debate about which is real and which is imaginary. It is of such significance that we are now going to have it decided in courts, federal and state courts. I can't think of a more pressing example of the real and the imaginary. Now, I hope we can all agree on that, both can't be actual, one is real, one is imaginary. And, I don't want to go any further. I don't even want any political discussion, period. This is just the cleanest, clearest example of the real and the imaginary. The self exists as and in the brain-body. The self exists as neural connections between neurons. That's either correct, true, or it isn't. So, if true, the self operates from data in, data out. Info comes in via sensory nerves, activates certain groups of neurons, the self-circuits, they in turn send signals down the motor nerves, also called efferent nerves, to activate thinking, feeling or doing. So if you punch me in the nose, this sends a coded signal down the sensory nerves to my brain, the self-circuits. If the self is a passivist, a signal is sent to the body, just stand fast, "turn the other cheek". Or the brain says, that's a really big dude, he could squash you like a bug, best not retaliate. But it all takes place in the brain-mind-body, flesh and blood. That's the model sdp lives by, paradigm. Others here consider that it's the case that All That Is operates-activates the brain-body. Source is the only actor. I don't see how both can be ~what actually takes place~. So the brain-mind-body interacting with an outside world is actual, or there is One-Wholeness animating the brain-body. One scenario is real, one scenario is imaginary. That's how sdp sees the question framed. For sdp, in any one person, the brain-circuits-mind-body mediates everything. This seems clear, simple. I know others here see things differently. Please, no political discussion. The pain of a punch in the nose is as "real" as it gets. The model of the hand, the nose, face and the body is, to say the least incredibly useful .. but not "real" in that same sense. As far as "truth", in the relative sense is concerned, there is nothing controversial about what you've written. But the existential truth, is non-relative. It takes the entirety of eternity and all of creation to conspire to the pain of a broken nose. That is the existential truth. A shadow of putting the existential truth in these terms is something you've posted in the past ".. to bake an apple pie ..." or "... to hammer a nail ...". But even those presentations are from a dualstic-thingness perspective. You have to think. Bigger. Much .. Bigger ... And much more fluidly. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 6, 2023 2:07:48 GMT -5
"listening to the facts" ... There are no objective facts Is that a fact? Lol. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 6, 2023 15:44:24 GMT -5
This thread might not survive long, maybe about eight hours. I thought of a good analogy. Now, this thread is not about political discussion, I'm not inviting political discussion. I will try to frame the analogy impersonally, impartially. But for 2 years and 8 months, in the USA, there has been a national discussion about what's real and what's not real, the 2020 presidential election. There are accounts about election fraud, and there are also accounts about there being no election fraud, not enough to change the outcome. Both can't be true. There is only one actual something that occurred. So one account is necessarily real, one account is necessarily imaginary. And there is ongoing national debate about which is real and which is imaginary. It is of such significance that we are now going to have it decided in courts, federal and state courts. I can't think of a more pressing example of the real and the imaginary. Now, I hope we can all agree on that, both can't be actual, one is real, one is imaginary. And, I don't want to go any further. I don't even want any political discussion, period. This is just the cleanest, clearest example of the real and the imaginary. The self exists as and in the brain-body. The self exists as neural connections between neurons. That's either correct, true, or it isn't. So, if true, the self operates from data in, data out. Info comes in via sensory nerves, activates certain groups of neurons, the self-circuits, they in turn send signals down the motor nerves, also called efferent nerves, to activate thinking, feeling or doing. So if you punch me in the nose, this sends a coded signal down the sensory nerves to my brain, the self-circuits. If the self is a passivist, a signal is sent to the body, just stand fast, "turn the other cheek". Or the brain says, that's a really big dude, he could squash you like a bug, best not retaliate. But it all takes place in the brain-mind-body, flesh and blood. That's the model sdp lives by, paradigm. Others here consider that it's the case that All That Is operates-activates the brain-body. Source is the only actor. I don't see how both can be ~what actually takes place~. So the brain-mind-body interacting with an outside world is actual, or there is One-Wholeness animating the brain-body. One scenario is real, one scenario is imaginary. That's how sdp sees the question framed. For sdp, in any one person, the brain-circuits-mind-body mediates everything. This seems clear, simple. I know others here see things differently. Please, no political discussion. I'd like to run another model by you....not so different to yours, but just another way of looking ay it. Okay, so let's say that 'essence' and 'neuron self' together, actually make up a single cohesive self/individual. And it's not quite that the 'neuron self' is false, it's more that it's just the functional protective aspect of the single cohesive self. The neuron self, at its finest, enables us to drive cars, do tax returns, problem solve, be logical. And in this model, the goal is still for essence to be dominant, but to allow the 'neuron self' to have its place in our world. Rather than see it as something to be destroyed or eliminated, it is then honoured for the functional aspect and role that it plays in our lives. So then, if there's purification work, it's to work on the emotional reactivity, the attachments, the need to be separate....rather than actually getting rid of the 'neuron self' altogether. As said, it's more about becoming 'cohesive' than it is 'true'. Thoughts on this model? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 6, 2023 16:12:32 GMT -5
This thread might not survive long, maybe about eight hours. I thought of a good analogy. Now, this thread is not about political discussion, I'm not inviting political discussion. I will try to frame the analogy impersonally, impartially. But for 2 years and 8 months, in the USA, there has been a national discussion about what's real and what's not real, the 2020 presidential election. There are accounts about election fraud, and there are also accounts about there being no election fraud, not enough to change the outcome. Both can't be true. There is only one actual something that occurred. So one account is necessarily real, one account is necessarily imaginary. And there is ongoing national debate about which is real and which is imaginary. It is of such significance that we are now going to have it decided in courts, federal and state courts. I can't think of a more pressing example of the real and the imaginary. Now, I hope we can all agree on that, both can't be actual, one is real, one is imaginary. And, I don't want to go any further. I don't even want any political discussion, period. This is just the cleanest, clearest example of the real and the imaginary. The self exists as and in the brain-body. The self exists as neural connections between neurons. That's either correct, true, or it isn't. So, if true, the self operates from data in, data out. Info comes in via sensory nerves, activates certain groups of neurons, the self-circuits, they in turn send signals down the motor nerves, also called efferent nerves, to activate thinking, feeling or doing. So if you punch me in the nose, this sends a coded signal down the sensory nerves to my brain, the self-circuits. If the self is a passivist, a signal is sent to the body, just stand fast, "turn the other cheek". Or the brain says, that's a really big dude, he could squash you like a bug, best not retaliate. But it all takes place in the brain-mind-body, flesh and blood. That's the model sdp lives by, paradigm. Others here consider that it's the case that All That Is operates-activates the brain-body. Source is the only actor. I don't see how both can be ~what actually takes place~. So the brain-mind-body interacting with an outside world is actual, or there is One-Wholeness animating the brain-body. One scenario is real, one scenario is imaginary. That's how sdp sees the question framed. For sdp, in any one person, the brain-circuits-mind-body mediates everything. This seems clear, simple. I know others here see things differently. Please, no political discussion. I'd like to run another model by you....not so different to yours, but just another way of looking ay it. Okay, so let's say that 'essence' and 'neuron self' together, actually make up a single cohesive self/individual. And it's not quite that the 'neuron self' is false, it's more that it's just the functional protective aspect of the single cohesive self. The neuron self, at its finest, enables us to drive cars, do tax returns, problem solve, be logical. And in this model, the goal is still for essence to be dominant, but to allow the 'neuron self' to have its place in our world. Rather than see it as something to be destroyed or eliminated, it is then honoured for the functional aspect and role that it plays in our lives. So then, if there's purification work, it's to work on the emotional reactivity, the attachments, the need to be separate....rather than actually getting rid of the 'neuron self' altogether. As said, it's more about becoming 'cohesive' than it is 'true'. Thoughts on this model? This is actually partially correct, essentially accurate. Personality, the 'neuron self' (it's the connections between neurons), actually begins developing as a means to protect essence, which is in actuality, a baby. That's its true function. For a lot of wordy reasons, in Beelzebub's Tales, Beelzebub says that Earth is the only place in the whole Megalocosmos where things have gone wacky-topsy-turvy. For three-brained-beings everywhere else, the physical body lives until one develops a soul. So what you describe should be the way it works, basically. Touche, most excellent andrew. On Earth, for a lot of wordy reasons, the sense of identity shifts from essence to the neuron self, about age six. Ideally, and everywhere else in the universe, there is this partnership, we never forget who-we-are, we never forget our essence. Are you sure you haven't been reading Beelzebub's Tales?  Just a little further in response. Gurdjieff said there is no organic ~place~ in the body for negative emotions, IOW, they are unnatural. The other centers have a polarity, naturally, but the emotional center does not have a negative pole, we are not born with the necessity of negative emotions. They are learned, they belong to the neuron self. So, you are correct again. But of course...well, everything is based on energy, saving and transforming energy. The body does not manufacture enough energy to both grow essence and maintain the neuron self. So we have to choose *who we are*. We can't-be-both. Jesus put it this way, you can't serve God and mammon (money, riches, self-attachments), both, simultaneously. IOW, you have to choose, what-you-value. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Aug 7, 2023 11:28:06 GMT -5
I'd like to run another model by you....not so different to yours, but just another way of looking ay it. Okay, so let's say that 'essence' and 'neuron self' together, actually make up a single cohesive self/individual. And it's not quite that the 'neuron self' is false, it's more that it's just the functional protective aspect of the single cohesive self. The neuron self, at its finest, enables us to drive cars, do tax returns, problem solve, be logical. And in this model, the goal is still for essence to be dominant, but to allow the 'neuron self' to have its place in our world. Rather than see it as something to be destroyed or eliminated, it is then honoured for the functional aspect and role that it plays in our lives. So then, if there's purification work, it's to work on the emotional reactivity, the attachments, the need to be separate....rather than actually getting rid of the 'neuron self' altogether. As said, it's more about becoming 'cohesive' than it is 'true'. Thoughts on this model? This is actually partially correct, essentially accurate. Personality, the 'neuron self' (it's the connections between neurons), actually begins developing as a means to protect essence, which is in actuality, a baby. That's its true function. For a lot of wordy reasons, in Beelzebub's Tales, Beelzebub says that Earth is the only place in the whole Megalocosmos where things have gone wacky-topsy-turvy. For three-brained-beings everywhere else, the physical body lives until one develops a soul. So what you describe should be the way it works, basically. Touche, most excellent andrew. On Earth, for a lot of wordy reasons, the sense of identity shifts from essence to the neuron self, about age six. Ideally, and everywhere else in the universe, there is this partnership, we never forget who-we-are, we never forget our essence. Are you sure you haven't been reading Beelzebub's Tales? Just a little further in response. Gurdjieff said there is no organic ~place~ in the body for negative emotions, IOW, they are unnatural. The other centers have a polarity, naturally, but the emotional center does not have a negative pole, we are not born with the necessity of negative emotions. They are learned, they belong to the neuron self. So, you are correct again. But of course...well, everything is based on energy, saving and transforming energy. The body does not manufacture enough energy to both grow essence and maintain the neuron self. So we have to choose *who we are*. We can't-be-both. Jesus put it this way, you can't serve God and mammon (money, riches, self-attachments), both, simultaneously. IOW, you have to choose, what-you-value. Cool. No, never read that, though it seems to share some similarities with Bashar's view of things (the bolded in particular). I agree with Gurdi there too. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Aug 7, 2023 14:10:58 GMT -5
This is actually partially correct, essentially accurate. Personality, the 'neuron self' (it's the connections between neurons), actually begins developing as a means to protect essence, which is in actuality, a baby. That's its true function. For a lot of wordy reasons, in Beelzebub's Tales, Beelzebub says that Earth is the only place in the whole Megalocosmos where things have gone wacky-topsy-turvy. For three-brained-beings everywhere else, the physical body lives until one develops a soul. So what you describe should be the way it works, basically. Touche, most excellent andrew. On Earth, for a lot of wordy reasons, the sense of identity shifts from essence to the neuron self, about age six. Ideally, and everywhere else in the universe, there is this partnership, we never forget who-we-are, we never forget our essence. Are you sure you haven't been reading Beelzebub's Tales? Just a little further in response. Gurdjieff said there is no organic ~place~ in the body for negative emotions, IOW, they are unnatural. The other centers have a polarity, naturally, but the emotional center does not have a negative pole, we are not born with the necessity of negative emotions. They are learned, they belong to the neuron self. So, you are correct again. But of course...well, everything is based on energy, saving and transforming energy. The body does not manufacture enough energy to both grow essence and maintain the neuron self. So we have to choose *who we are*. We can't-be-both. Jesus put it this way, you can't serve God and mammon (money, riches, self-attachments), both, simultaneously. IOW, you have to choose, what-you-value. Cool. No, never read that, though it seems to share some similarities with Bashar's view of things (the bolded in particular). I agree with Gurdi there too. As I understand this "forgetfulness", characteristic to this time / space / probability point of the physical reality, is what determined most of us to choose to incarnate here now. Not knowing what is the problem we have to solve, makes it more difficult, and requires us to stretch develop our intuition, to firstly figure out the problem. Nobody forced us to incarnate here now, we knew what to expect, and we believed we'll be able to handle it. If we can't, at least we'll learn a lesson in humility. EDIT: This is why the question isn't "who/what am I?", but "what do I have to do here and now?", and each one has to figure it out intuitively, on his own. |
|
"listening to the facts" ... There are no objective facts.
