|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 15, 2014 10:37:59 GMT -5
I said that the love is present amidst anger, fear, judgement etc. It has to be present, its the energy of life itself. We are always in service, and service is love in action. It doesn't come and go. The Love you are describing sounds conditional. Then why do you call it love and not life force instead? Sometimes I'm wondering if you come here just to create confusion. Because, his point IS ...that Love IS the energy of life itself. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2014 10:40:04 GMT -5
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. So, the bot can transcend its programmer? Can you make something that is just a program (i.e. dead) into something that is spontaneous (i.e. alive)? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2014 10:40:46 GMT -5
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  Do you have volition? |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 15, 2014 10:42:37 GMT -5
That's not only TMT, but it's personalized TMT. What you replied to was absent reference to the personalities involved and focused only on the ideas. Is that worse than regular TMT? hehe, yes, we need to start adding letters; WTMT (way too much thinking), SLTMT (sh*t load of Too much thinking), BWTMT (ban worthy too much thinking). |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 15, 2014 10:53:08 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. You said that would apply to everyone here. You assumed nobody here wants to see things the way they are. So now it doesn't apply to you either? What's funny is that's how you want to see yourself. Yup. Are ya feeling a little weary yet?  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2014 11:03:49 GMT -5
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. Life serving itself? Can it get anymore meaningless?  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2014 11:09:47 GMT -5
If you are programmed you are NOT free and NOT spontaneous by definition.  Thus, those with decoder rings can tell the difference between a programmed human and a free human being, if I may be so bold. All you need is this:  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2014 11:20:18 GMT -5
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. Yeah, that's basically what happens. And it's also interesting that the face value confusion tops the still mind confusion by far. Face value and still mind may look identical, both are there to protect certain core beliefs, but there's a huge difference too. The still mind confusion has to be kept simple, there are certain limits. The face value confusion, however, does not know such limits. Face value means unrestricted hyper-minding. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2014 11:21:22 GMT -5
Sounds like hyper-minding. I call for the duck test!  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2014 11:23:09 GMT -5
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. But according to Andy, Niz said it. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2014 11:28:44 GMT -5
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. The problem in talking to Andy is that he uses regular words and drains them of their regular meaning and uses them in such a way that in the end it could really just mean anything or nothing and the discussion gets absurd. What he did with the word love is a good example. He took a regular word (love), erased the original dictionary meaning, then added a whole bunch of other meanings that - according to the regular dictionary - are actually antonyms (fear, hate, anger) to the original meaning of the word and then jumps into the discussion. The result is a practice in absurdity and a new mega thread. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 15, 2014 11:29:29 GMT -5
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. I havent created a distinction between impersonal and personal, the love I am talking about can be spoken of justifiably as as either. I suspect it is through creating that distinction that you are making the Love you speak of to be conditional. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 15, 2014 11:31:20 GMT -5
But according to Andy, Niz said it. Yeah, he found something else he could distort to support his escape plan. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 15, 2014 11:32:28 GMT -5
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. I would say at 'face value' it seems like Alice cannot make free choices but human beings can, and that's because there is a qualitative difference between Alice and a human being, that strikes us immediately. It would have to be a very sophisticated bot for us to be confused for a while. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 15, 2014 11:34:57 GMT -5
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. So, the bot can transcend its programmer? Can you make something that is just a program (i.e. dead) into something that is spontaneous (i.e. alive)? I don't know. Theoretically, I would say it could be possible. |
|
