|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2014 5:47:53 GMT -5
I rather think he means live force or something. ...I could go with that....but I prefer 'energy' because there is an actual movement to it. Its a constant service in action. Its constantly manifesting itself. fix your post! (red part) Again, I don't see how service fits in there. Service implies not only purpose but also a hierarchy. Who is serving who and for what? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 15, 2014 6:10:08 GMT -5
Both Alice's and a human's choices are explainable (or at the very least, describable). The former are programmed choices, the latter are a mix of conditioning and 'free choices'. 'Free choice' is volition, right? In the context of human beings or people, we have to say they are volitional. Even Enigma has no problem with this context. You don't see yourself as a human being or a person, you see yourself as prior to that, therefore you would say that 'you' are not volitional (because the issue of volition and non-volition doesn't apply). You don't know that. That's pure speculation. ALICE could say essentially the same. The difference between Alice and a human is observable and recognizable i.e humans have access to a kind of inspiration and intelligence and spontaneous decision making and freedom that Alice does not. It really doesn't make a difference what Alice says on the subject, I would say that what we recognize to be true in this matter is fine enough, though I acknowledge that that doesn't make it proof. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 15, 2014 6:10:53 GMT -5
Ah you conveniently missed out what I said at the end i.e. perhaps they wouldn't be machine any more. Classic. The point was that you think spontaneity can be programmed. Which is absurd. Your disclaimer at the end changes nothing. It does. I would say is possible that something can be programmed in such way that it essentially transcends its own programming. But then it wouldn't be a robot. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 15, 2014 6:12:04 GMT -5
Regardless of explainability, it reveals that humans make 'free choices' in a way that machines do not. Simples. You are not listening. You are just repeating your favorite belief again. It's classic fundamentalism. What I am saying is undeniable though isn't it. Humans are able to make free choices in a particular way that machines cannot  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 15, 2014 6:17:10 GMT -5
Life force doesn't NOT work for me...I could go with that....but I prefer 'energy' because there is an actual movement to it. Its a constant service in action. Its constantly manifesting itself. fix your post! (red part) Again, I don't see how service fits in there. Service implies not only purpose but also a hierarchy. Who is serving who and for what? There is no purpose or hierarchy to this service. Literally, none at all. It is Life serving itself, and this service is love. It can manifest in a billion ways. In the case of many humans, there is service to ego i.e humans behave in egocentric ways. However, when illusions have been seen through and understandings have changed blah blah blah this service will no longer manifest egocentrically. Its not really appropriate for me to state what it is in service to...I could say 'oneness' or 'the whole' or 'the one', but they would just be pointers. Best probably to say that the service manifests non-egocentrically. Whatever way, the love is there both before and after and is present within all behaviour, no matter how ugly it looks. The love doesn't just suddenly come out of nowhere when illusions have been seen through. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Sept 15, 2014 8:41:56 GMT -5
[quote source="/post/209737/t hread" timestamp="1410723767" author=" andrew"]I agree. I imagine that, theoretically, technology could be such that machines could be programmed to be spontaneous, intelligent and free in the way that humans are. But then....perhaps they wouldn't be machines any more. If you are programmed you are NOT free and NOT spontaneous by definition.  [/quote] Thus, those with decoder rings can tell the difference between a programmed human and a free human being, if I may be so bold. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Sept 15, 2014 8:47:37 GMT -5
Yeah, and that seems to be a common approach around here: Experience through a filter of biased observation, write a few stories about it, integrate the stories into the memory of the experience with a confirmation bias, and then call it face value observing 'what is' from a still mind. Sounds like hyper-minding. Refuge in the clarity of ambiguity. Clearly, confusion is accepted at face value, but when pointed out, hyper-minding ensues in the ego's attempt to obfuscate. Aaaah, to live another day. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 15, 2014 9:42:30 GMT -5
One of the basic tenets of Figandrewism is that one can somehow bypass duality in the imagination process. Right, but it takes some insight to see past the appeal to emotion embodied in what figgles wrote there. The causal reader is going to miss the nuance altogether. Yes, the killjoy maneuver. Absolutely. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 15, 2014 9:44:36 GMT -5
Yeah, one might even conclude that getting irretrievably lost in mind is the goal.  Well, if I recall correctly, didn't somebody actually state this as the goal directly at one point? Was that, perhaps, figgles and Andy that wrote that??  Andy. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 15, 2014 9:47:52 GMT -5
"Programmed to be spontaneous"...Hehe....he..he. I actually gave some leeway to that and took the word "programmed" to refer to something quite a bit broader in scope. Think back to the dialog with Top on the subject from the summer ... I did too at first, but it suddenly gave me the giggles. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 15, 2014 10:12:56 GMT -5
Why would it have to apply to everyone? someone doesn't want to see that they are seeing things the way they want to see them instead of how they are, then they won't see it. That would apply to anyone who wants to see what they want to see. The key word though, is IF. Thing is, there's no longer any drive here to see things a certain way. The absence of the need to have life show up a certain way, actually begets a life experience where there is no beef with the way it's showing up...a sense that whatever is showing up, is perfectly fine. Funny how that works, eh? If everything is seen to be just fine, where would the desire to see things a certain way arise from? that said, I still do see value in purposefully turning attention towards a perspective where wholeness and beauty and perfection can easily be seen. Fwiw, This is what Abe-Hicks advocate...a conscious re-direction of focus towards alignment with Source. To align with Source is to see okayness in everything. Once the perspective has been donned, there is no longer any 'trying to see' involved. The perspective/vantage point directs the way things are seen. A problematic experience that requires fixing, is seen from a vantage point that is out of alignment with Source. I'd agree that a 'desire to see wholeness and beauty' arises out of a vantage point where wholeness and beauty are not presently being seen...and that the desire to see things differently may have one sticking a smiley face on the surface of things in order to try to deny the problems they are seeing, but if that's the case, there's been no actual shift in vantage point. It would be akin to 'pretending,' and the fact of that would quickly reveal itself likely through one becoming even more aware of the problematic nature of expereince, when he finally grew weary of the pretense. and what would that be? A Broken, bad expereince that needs fixing...imperfection....wrongness? From a vantage point where the need to see things a certain way have fallen away, wholeness and perfection IS what's seen.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 15, 2014 10:13:52 GMT -5
The love you're describing is not always present. Sometimes what is present is anger, fear, judgment, etc, but you imagine this stuff is sourced in love so that you can say that love is always present. As I said, your love comes and goes, and is therefore conditional. I rather think he means live force or something. He sees love as inherent in the impersonal context, which I have no problem with, and then applies that to the personal context and declares it as the foundation of hate. I say impersonal Love is simply blocked from view by the personal, which is not the same as making Love the source of hate. Yes, life force would have been fine. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 15, 2014 10:17:56 GMT -5
"Programmed to be spontaneous"...Hehe....he..he. It's absurd. Maybe that's the sign to slowly leave the discussion... There have been lots of those signs. |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 15, 2014 10:35:40 GMT -5
Thing is, I nor anyone else on this forum can make you feel anything, (head constriction, headless or happy for that matter). If you think "I" made your head constrict, you are assigning me a power I do not actually possess and in the process denying the powers of your own perceptions. Let me rephrase this as well, as the grasp that you presently have of it is in the personal again. I am 100% certain that you are not free to write a post that I would only be able to read headless.
That's not any better actually. What you are saying there is that your 'headlessness' depends upon the kind of post I write. ...You are saying that I only write one kind of post, and you cannot read those kinds of post without involvement of yer head. You are still assigning your headlessness or head-fulness, to me and the content/nature of my posts. Can you imagine a point where you could read a post written by someone whom you now regard to be completely unconscious and neck deep in delusion, and still be 'head free'? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2014 10:36:06 GMT -5
You don't know that. That's pure speculation. ALICE could say essentially the same. The difference between Alice and a human is observable and recognizable i.e humans have access to a kind of inspiration and intelligence and spontaneous decision making and freedom that Alice does not. It really doesn't make a difference what Alice says on the subject, I would say that what we recognize to be true in this matter is fine enough, though I acknowledge that that doesn't make it proof. It does make all the difference because at face value, your situation and the situation of ALICE are one and the same. |
|
[/quote]
